Article Figures & Data
Figures
- FIGURE 1
Composition (Percent) of Paired Sample at Each Level of the Index of Women’s Participation in Agricultural Decision-making as Reported by Partnered Men and Women (n = 182; Pearson Chi-Squared = 173.6; p < 0.01), Ecuador 2010
Source: Data from EAFF 2010.
Tables
n Min. Max. Mean Std. Dev. Wife’s share of couple wealth 182 0.014 0.991 0.476 0.153 Wife’s age 182 23 82 52.76 12.574 Husband’s age 182 23 90 57.17 12.784 Age differencea 182 −7 29 4.41 5.451 Wife’s years of schooling 182 0 18 4.47 3.607 Husband’s years of schooling 182 0 18 5.68 3.953 Difference in years of schoolinga 182 −9 12 1.21 3.347 Number of other adults in householdb 182 0 6 1.19 1.282 Ratio of women to men in household 182 0 4 0.77 0.541 Ratio of dependents to working‐age adults in household 182 0 2 0.16 0.320 Difference between husband’s and wife’s parents’ literacy 182 −2 2 −0.07 0.762 Difference between husband’s and wife’s parents’ assets 182 −1 1 0.03 0.634 - TABLE 2
Descriptive Statistics for Categorical Variables, Composition (Percent) of Paired Sample, Ecuador 2010
Paired Sample, n =182 (%) Wife is joint owner, as reported by women 94.5 Wife is joint owner, as reported by men 84.6 Wife participates in field work, as reported by women 70.9 Wife participates in field work, as reported by men 70.4 Wife works off-farm 30.2 Couple is indigenous 20.0 Couple wealth Tertile 1 (lowest third) 23.6 Tertile 2 (middle third) 36.8 Tertile 3 (highest third) 39.6 Annual crop grown on parcel, as reported by womena 84.1 Annual crop grown on parcel, as reported by mena 83.5 Rural 85.7 Coastb 15.4 Source: Data from EAFF 2010.
a Base category: perennials, forage, or trees grown on parcel.
b Base category: highlands (sierra).
Men’s Reporting Individual Male Joint Total Women’s Reporting Individual Female 0 (0%) 10 (5.5%) 10 (5.5%) Joint 28 (15.4%) 144 (79.1%) 172 (94.5%) Total 28 (15.4%) 154 (84.6%) 182 (100%) Source: Data from EAFF 2010.
- TABLE 4
The Participation of Partnered Female Landowners in Agricultural Decisions by Type of Ownership and Level of Participation in Decision-making as Reported by Women
Individual Owner Joint Owner Total Wife’s Participation in Cultivation Decision Alone 47.4% 12.1% 17.7% Joint 25.8% 66.4% 60.0% No participation 26.8% 21.5% 22.3% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% n 35 193 228 Wife’s Participation in Input Use Decision Alone 45.1% 18.3% 23.0% Joint 24.5% 53.5% 48.4% No participation 30.4% 28.2% 28.6% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% n 27 137 164 Wife’s Participation in Selling Decision Alone 58.7% 7.8% 14.7% Joint 22.6% 67.4% 61.3% No participation 18.7% 24.8% 24.0% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% n 15 100 115 Wife’s Participation in Spending Decision Alone 66.9% 16.2% 23.1% Joint 26.1% 78.1% 71.0% No participation 7.0% 5.7% 5.9% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% n 15 100 115 Source: Data from EAFF 2010.
Note: Percentages are weighted reflecting the sample expansion factors, while the n values reflect the number of parcels on which someone in the household makes the specific decision.
- TABLE 5
Husbands’ and Wives’ Perceptions of Who Makes Various Agricultural Production Decisions (Paired Sample)
Women’s Reporting Men’s Reporting Number Percent Number Percent Cultivation Decision Individual male 48 27 59 32 Individual female 15 8 9 5 Joint 117 64 112 62 Others 2 1 2 1 Total 182 100 182 100 Input Decision Individual male 46 35 62 46 Individual female 12 9 9 7 Joint 71 55 62 46 Others 1 1 2 1 Total 130 100 135 100 Decision about How Much to Sell Individual male 28 30 35 36 Individual female 6 6 4 4 Joint 59 62 58 59 Others 2 2 1 1 Total 95 100 98 100 Spending Decision Individual male 7 7 12 12 Individual female 9 10 8 8 Joint 78 82 77 79 Others 1 1 1 1 Total 95 100 98 100 Source: Data from EAFF 2010.
- TABLE 6
Determinants of Women’s Participation in Agricultural Decision-making According to Women and Men: Parcel-Level Tobit Model with Random Effects, Ecuador 2010 (Paired Sample)
Women’s Model Coef. (Std. Err.) Men’s Model Coef. (Std. Err.) Wife is joint land ownera −0.892*** (0.25) 0.321 (0.21) Predicted wife’s share of wealth −3.039 (2.71) 4.514*** (1.04) Predicted that wife does field work 1.137** (0.57) 0.524* (0.31) Predicted that wife works off−farm −1.322** (0.56) 1.337*** (0.34) Wife’s age −0.023** (0.01) −0.003 (0.01) Age differenceb −0.011 (0.02) 0.022* (0.01) Wife’s years of schooling −0.034 (0.03) −0.068*** (0.02) Schooling differenceb 0.006 (0.03) −0.019 (0.01) Couple is indigenous 0.240 (0.33) 0.644*** (0.20) Annual cropc −0.126 (0.20) 0.350*** (0.09) Couple wealth Tertile 1 (lowest third) −0.150 (0.22) −0.054 (0.13) Tertile 2 (middle third) −0.023 (0.17) −0.096 (0.16) Number of adults (besides principal couple) in the household 0.027 (0.07) 0.010 (0.03) Rural −0.201 (0.31) −0.145 (0.13) Constant 4.857*** (1.50) −2.021*** (0.62) Number of plots 182 182 Number of households 145 145 Wald chi−squared (df) 81.99 (14) 113.51 (14) Log−likelihood −121.47*** −125.71*** Source: Data from EAFF 2010.
↵a Base category: wife is the individual owner (according to women) or wife is not an owner (according to men).
↵b The difference between men’s and women’s age and years of schooling (husband – wife).
↵c Base category: perennials, forage, or trees grown on parcel.
↵* p<0.10;
↵** p<0.05; and
↵*** p<0.01.
- TABLE A1
First-Stage Regressions for Predicting Women’s Off-farm Work, Women’s Field Work, and Women’s Share of Couple Wealth (Paired Sample)
Women’s Off-farm Work, Coef. (Std. Err.) Women’s Participation in Field Work as Reported by Women, Coef. (Std. Err.) Women’s Participation in Field Work as Reported by Men, Coef. (Std. Err.) Women’s Share of Couple Wealth, Coef. (Std. Err.) Crop grown on parcel 0.729 (0.61) 0.718 (0.52) 1.159** (0.54) −0.046 (0.03) Wealth tertile 1 −1.293** (0.621) 0.038 (0.57) 1.004 (0.63) 0.004 (0.03) Wealth tertile 2 0.193 (0.45) −0.223 (0.49) 0.816 (0.53) −0.001 (0.03) Woman’s age −0.065*** (0.02) −0.012 (0.02) −0.026 (0.02) 0.001 (0.001) Age difference −0.085** (0.04) 0.122*** (0.05) 0.047 (0.04) −0.0001 (0.002) Woman’s years of schooling −0.010 (0.07) −0.052 (0.08) −0.036 (0.08) 0.002 (0.004) Schooling difference 0.058 (0.06) 0.060 (0.07) 0.099 (0.08) −0.003 (0.004) Number of adults besides principal couple 0.120 (0.15) 0.012 (0.17) 0.222 (0.20) −0.012 (0.01) Rural −1.069** (0.54) −0.118 (0.59) −1.401* (0.74) 0.024 (0.03) Indigenous couple −0.339 (0.55) 2.234*** (0.86) 0.862 (0.69) −0.038 (0.03) Wife is joint land owner −0.951 (0.84) −0.230 (0.90) 1.880*** (0.56) −0.074 (0.05) Coast −0.079 (0.60) −1.356** (0.55) −1.779*** (0.59) −0.019 (0.03) Ratio of women to men in household −1.406*** (0.48) 0.971** (0.47) 0.263 (0.43) −0.007 (0.02) Ratio of dependents to working−age adults 0.854 (0.66) −1.028 (0.70) −0.567 (0.64) −0.066* (0.02) Difference in men’s and women’s parents’ literacy −0.042 (0.25) 0.051 (0.26) 0.159 (0.29) 0.026* (0.01) Difference in men’s and women’s parents’ assets 0.319 (0.31) −0.417 (0.33) −0.249 (0.33) −0.011 (0.02) Constant 5.013** (2.03) 0.488 (1.94) 0.210 (1.92) 0.544 (0.11) Log−likelihood −91.469 −84.235 −81.292 93.294 Pseudo-R2 0.1798 0.2328 0.2654 −0.1074
In this issue
Jump to section
Related Articles
Cited By...
- No citing articles found.