Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

What happens after technology adoption? Gendered aspects of small-scale irrigation technologies in Ethiopia, Ghana, and Tanzania

What happens after technology adoption? Gendered aspects of small-scale irrigation technologies... Diverse agricultural technologies are promoted to increase yields and incomes, save time, improve food and nutritional security, and even empower women. Yet a gender gap in technology adoption remains for many agricultural technologies, even for those that are promoted for women. This paper complements the literature on gender and technology adoption, which largely focuses on reasons for low rates of female technology adoption, by shifting attention to what happens within a household after it adopts a technology. Understanding the expected benefits and costs of adoption, from the perspective of women users in households with adult males, can help explain observed technology adoption rates and why technology adoption is often not sustained in the longer term. Drawing on qualitative data from Ethiopia, Ghana, and Tanzania, this paper develops a framework for examining the intrahousehold distribution of benefits from technology adoption, focusing on small-scale irrigation technologies. The framework contributes to the conceptual and empirical exploration of joint control over technology by men and women in the same household. Efforts to promote technology adoption for agricultural development and women’s empowerment would benefit from an understanding of intrahousehold control over technology to avoid interpreting technology adoption as an end in and of itself. Keywords Irrigation · Agricultural technology · Technology adoption · Gender · Small-scale irrigation Introduction while also promoting women’s empowerment and advanc- ing broader welfare outcomes. Agricultural technologies can In light of evidence that women’s limited access to agri- help women farmers—particularly small-scale, resource- cultural technology is an important constraint to women’s poor women farmers—produce more; add value; manage agricultural productivity (von Braun and Webb 1989; Qui- risk; and use less energy, time, and natural resources. These sumbing 1995; Peterman et al. 2010), increasing technol- production and quality improvements can enable women to ogy adoption among women farmers has emerged as a key maximize the returns to their limited time, labor, land, and strategy to close the gendered productivity gap in agriculture capital (Doss 2001). Given these expected benefits, research has sought to understand what keeps women’s observed rates of agricul- * Sophie Theis tural technology adoption low. The literature has shown that s.theis@cgiar.org men and women have different preferences and face differ - Nicole Lefore ent types and severity of constraints to adopting technology n.lefore@cgiar.org (Doss 2001; Doss and Morris 2001; Carr and Hartl 2010; Ruth Meinzen-Dick Quisumbing and Pandolfelli 2010; Ragasa et al. 2014). r.meinzen-dick@cgiar.org Technology adoption can be understood as three phases: Elizabeth Bryan awareness, tryout, and continued adoption (Lambrecht et al. e.bryan@cgiar.org 2014; Lindner et al. 1982). Each phase presents certain chal- Environment and Production Technology Division, lenges for women farmers. Awareness is limited by factors International Food Policy Research Institute, 1201 Eye Street such as women’s mobility and access to information and NW, Washington, DC 20005, USA extension services that would help them learn what tech- International Water Management Institute, Private Bag X813, nologies are available, how to acquire them, and how to Silverton, Pretoria 0127, South Africa Vol.:(0123456789) 1 3 672 S. Theis et al. use them (Doss et al. 2003; Ragasa et al. 2014). Tryout is their farm plots and homestead gardens, exclusively or in limited by access to and control over the land, water, labor, conjunction with water-application technologies such as inputs, and other assets required to use the technology (Ani drip systems, buckets, cans, or hoses. Despite the extensive et al. 2004; Drechsel et al. 2006; Meinzen-Dick et al. 2011; use of small-scale irrigation, official statistics frequently Ragasa et al. 2014; Johnson et al. 2016); access to capital underreport the value and extent of its use (Woodhouse or credit to invest in the technology (Tiwari 2010; Ragasa et  al. 2017; de Fraiture and Giordano 2014). The area in et al. 2014; Doss et al. 2003; Olwande et al. 2009); access Africa south of the Sahara irrigated with groundwater is to social networks, learning, and social capital to reduce estimated at 340,134 hectares (Siebert et al. 2010), but a perceived risks associated with technology adoption (Conley separate study has suggested that the area is likely much and Udry 2001; Magnan et al. 2014; Hunecke et al. 2017); larger, as smallholder farmers also widely use small pumps and appropriateness of design, including affordability, to lift surface water (Merrey 2006). In many countries in cultural acceptability, and suitability for women’s specific the region, smallholder irrigation area is estimated to be as agricultural tasks and physical requirements (Quisumbing large as or larger than that of large-scale irrigation schemes and Pandolfelli 2010). Thus, many of the constraints that (Namara et al. 2014; Beekman et al. 2014), and the potential technology promises to alleviate are the same constraints for further smallholder expansion surpasses that of large- that hamper adoption in the first place. scale development potential (You et  al. 2010; Xie et  al. Notably, this literature has implicitly focused on the first 2014). The Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development two phases of technology adoption and devoted less attention Programme under the New Partnership for Africa’s Develop- to continued adoption. As Peterman et al. (2011) note, use, ment is targeting 14.2 million hectares for small-scale irri- access, and adoption are often used interchangeably in the gation development, about 7.5 times the area proposed for literature. This emphasis reflects an optimistic assumption large-scale irrigation development (NEPAD/CAADP 2009). that removing constraints to access or use technology could Small-scale irrigation technologies are increasingly being be sufficient for women to empower themselves. However, promoted in an effort to improve smallholders’ dietary diver - even if the removal of such gender-based constraints may be sity, health, seasonal food security, and resilience to climate able to increase rates of women’s acquisition of technology, change and weather shocks (Domènech 2015). women’s particular experience with that technology cannot Nonetheless, numerous studies have found that women be assumed. In households with multiple decision-makers, are less likely than men to access both large- and small-scale how the technology is used, and to whose benefit, must be irrigation infrastructure and technologies. In large-scale negotiated between people with both overlapping and sepa- farmer-led irrigation schemes, women’s implicit and explicit rate interests. exclusion from scheme management decisions and irrigated As Lambrecht et al. (2014) points out, during the con- land allocation limit their access to water (Zwarteveen 1997; tinued adoption phase, farmers assess based on their own Meinzen-Dick and Zwarteveen 1998; van Koppen 1998). experience whether the returns from the technology rela- Moreover, relatively less attention has been paid to the gen- tive to labor and input requirements are worth its continued der aspects of small-scale irrigation technologies. Many use. These returns and costs likely will not be the same for studies that have investigated the gender gap in adoption all household members. Several studies document impor- and the different kinds of technology men and women prefer tant changes in gender roles after a technology has been (e.g., Upadhyay 2004) mainly compare male- and female- acquired, including shifting burdens of labor and control headed households, rather than looking at intrahousehold over agricultural outputs (e.g., von Braun and Webb 1989; dynamics in dual-headed (also called male-headed) house- Doss 2001; Njuki et al. 2014). However, few studies have holds. A cross-country study in Ghana and Zambia found examined who bears the costs or controls the benefits of a that female-headed households adopt small-scale technolo- new technology. gies at two-thirds the rate of male-headed households; and This paper contributes to the gender and technology that whereas female-headed households are more likely to adoption literature by shifting attention to what happens adopt manual technologies (e.g., buckets, wetlands), male- after technology adoption or acquisition, during the phase headed households are more likely to adopt motor pumps of continued use. We examine evidence on the intrahouse- and river diversions (van Koppen et al. 2012). Analyzing hold negotiations and roles in technology adoption gathered 2005–2013 sales data from KickStart, a nongovernmental through qualitative fieldwork on dual-headed households organization (NGO), Njuki et al. (2014) find that women using small-scale irrigation technologies in Ethiopia, Ghana, made up only 6 percent in Tanzania and 18 percent in and Tanzania. Kenya of all buyers of motor pumps. These buyers were Small-scale irrigation technologies, particularly water- rarely women in married households purchasing pumps for lifting technologies (e.g., rope and washer, motor, treadle, their own use, but rather were unmarried women or married and solar pumps), are intended for smallholders to use on women purchasing pumps on behalf of their husbands. 1 3 What happens after technology adoption? Gendered aspects of small-scale irrigation… 673 These studies have shown that female-headed households social relations to analyses within the household, provides face unique constraints to adopting technology. However, useful new insights. this focus also assumes that women in so-called male-headed The paper is organized as follows. It begins by present- households can rely on their husband to access technology. ing the analytical concepts and framework, then describes However, a comparison between male- and female-headed the methodology. “Results” section presents the evidence households excludes the majority of women, who live in so- to illustrate these concepts, examining the intrahousehold called male-headed households. Households with more than distribution of rights during continued adoption. “Discus- one adult decision-maker, with both jointly and separately sion and conclusion” section concludes with implications managed plots of land, and some shared and some independ- for technology adoption research and programs in general ent assets and sources of income—common in our study and insights for sustained adoption of small-scale irrigation communities and much of Africa South of the Sahara—cre- technology in particular. ate conditions for technology to affect different household members in different ways. To evaluate these differences, our inquiry focuses on dual adult households. Analytical concepts and framework Several studies examine the dynamics related to how men and women in the same household control and benefit from Although it is well established that members of households irrigation, such as deciding what to grow on irrigated land, do not share all the same preferences or pool all resources to providing labor on irrigated plots, deciding whether to sell improve overall welfare (Alderman et al. 1995; Doss 1996; or consume irrigated produce, and controlling income from Doss et al. 2014), in rural settings household members do irrigated plots. Njuki et al. (2014) report that men prefer to share some degree of joint use and decision making over irrigate cash crops like tomatoes and women prefer to irri- assets. Meinzen-Dick et al. (2011) describe this idea in terms gate leafy vegetables that can be sold in smaller quantities of a spectrum of jointness and separateness with regard to over a longer period to retain control over these earnings. assets within the household. They also note that though women in pump-owning house- “Ownership” and “control” can describe a range of pos- holds have less say over production decisions overall, they sible social relations with respect to an asset. Identifying are able to use the pump for the plots they manage them- specific rights that comprise ownership and control can selves. This is one of the few studies, however, to explore help assess the implications of different rights, including how technology adoption affects the whole household—not the benefits and costs conferred to different people within just the adopter or owner—in different ways. the household. Rather than taking technology adoption as a goal in and The social science literature on property rights can help of itself, understanding the differentiated impacts of tech- to elucidate these issues. Rights may seem too strong a word nology within the household can help orient technology for many of the arrangements governing intrahousehold use promotion activities to more strategically advance specific and control of technologies, but the literature conceives of development objectives. In this paper, we propose an analyti- property rights as social relations, backed by particular insti- cal framework for analyzing intrahousehold dynamics—spe- tutions. Yet even though the property rights literature has cifically considered as rights to small-scale irrigation tech- focused on state, community, and religious institutions, it nology. We then apply the framework to case studies using has not looked deeply into households as institutions that qualitative evidence of small-scale irrigation from Ghana, shape property rights. In much the same way that communi- Ethiopia, and Tanzania. ties use collective resources, households can also be viewed Two bodies of literature inform our analysis. First, the as an institution that recognizes and enforces property rights literature on gender and assets highlights complexity in (Doss and Meinzen-Dick 2015). These are de facto rights, defining “joint” ownership of resources (Johnson et  al. determined by the social norms influenced by historical, 2016; Huyer 2016). Second, the property rights literature institutional, and legal contexts, and usually enforced by (e.g., Alchian and Demsetz 1972; Eggertsson 1990; Schlager other household members. and Ostrom 1992) provides concepts that help us identify In particular, the concept of bundles of rights allows us overlapping bundles of rights over assets, including tech- to identify how different actors can claim different types of nologies. By focusing on property rights as social relations rights over a resource or asset. Although it is possible to among people with respect to assets, rather than as rela- identify many different individual rights, there are two major tions between people and things (Benda-Beckmann et al. ways of classifying bundles of rights. 2006), this literature sheds light on the institutions that set Schlager and Ostrom (1992, pp. 250–251) refer to a hier- and enforce rules over who can use which resources in what archy of five bundles of rights, which they apply to natural ways. We have found that bringing together these two bod- resources: ies of literature, extending the analysis of property rights as 1 3 674 S. Theis et al. Table 1 Bundle of rights Right Definition concepts and definitions Source: Authors, drawing from Use The right to use and physically operate the technology Schlager and Ostrom (1992) and Management The right to make decisions how, when, and where to apply the technology Benjaminsen and Ba (2009) Fructus The right to control outputs and profits generated by the use of technology Alienation The right to sell, lease, or give away the technology • • Access The right to enter the physical space of the Usus The right to use resource (e.g., walk through the forest) • Fructus The right to the products, increase, or profits of Withdrawal The right to take the products of a resource the resource (e.g., catch fish, remove water) • Abusus The right to encumber or dispose of property Management The right to regulate use and modify or through donation, sale, destruction. transform the resource Exclusion The right to determine who can use the This Roman legal terminology partially overlaps with resource Schlager and Ostrom’s (1992) framework. The term “usus” Alienation The right to lease, sell, or transfer either the covers the use rights of access and withdrawal from the management or exclusion rights associated with the Schlager and Ostrom framework, and “abusus” corresponds resource, or both. with Schlager and Ostrom’s alienation rights. However, the Roman classification does not include the management and The first two of these are generally considered use exclusion rights found in the Schlager and Ostrom frame- rights, while the latter three are control or decision-making work, and the “fructus” rights from Roman law are not rights. Ownership is generally considered to be having all included in the Schlager and Ostrom classification. There- of these rights, including alienation. These classifications fore, bringing together these two frameworks yields the have proved useful for analyzing land and natural resource following bundle of rights, which can be used to describe management. intrahousehold dynamics: use, management, fructus, and In synthesizing the results of eight agricultural develop- alienation (Table 1). In the case of irrigation technology, ment projects on women’s empowerment, Johnson et al. use and management refer to rights over the application of (2016) focus on three key bundles: use, control (which the technology, whereas fructus and alienation refer to the includes decision-making rights of management and exclu- rights to the benefits of the technology. sion), and ownership, which includes all bundles of rights. Just as various institutions at different scales influence Useful as this classification is, however, it misses one aspect the rules of resource use, different institutions affect intra- of fundamental importance for intrahousehold control over household resource allocation and control over technologies. agricultural technologies: the control of the income (or other A right that is recognized across multiple institutions tends benefits) generated by the technology. to increase the strength of the right; conversely, it is more Several studies have indicated that control over income challenging to claim rights to an asset that is not backed can diverge from self-reported ownership. Quisumbing et al. up by institutions beyond the household level. Analyzing (2013) found that a dairy value-chain intervention increased technologies in this way can show how the benefits and costs the value of jointly owned assets but that men controlled of a technology are distributed across different members of all decisions related to financial transactions, including rev - the household, which influences their preferences for and enues from milk sales, whether to sell milk, and whether willingness to try out and continue use of technologies, as to buy or sell cows. In their research on flypaper effects, illustrated in Fig. 1. examining whether targeted asset transfers for ultra-poor women “stick” to women in Bangladesh, Roy et al. (2015) found that, at least in the short term, women were able to retain control over an asset transferred to them, but men predominantly controlled the revenue generated by the asset for investments of their choosing. An alternative way of identifying bundles of rights Although the original Roman law terms “usus” and “abusus” ade- derives from ancient Roman law and is reflected in most quately translate in our framework to “use” and “alienation” rights, civil law systems today, capturing this control over income we have chosen to preserve the term “fructus” here in the absence in the fructus concept (see Benjaminsen and Ba 2009, p. 77): of a precise and appropriate English nomenclature that captures the meaning of the right to have profit or loss of income or products. 1 3 What happens after technology adoption? Gendered aspects of small-scale irrigation… 675 furrow) and irrigation-scheduling tools (Table 2). Communi- ties decided themselves who would participate in the pilots based on access to land and willingness to invest time and in-kind resources without guaranteed returns in irrigating with the technology. The project distributed solar-pump and manual-lifting technologies to individual farmers, and gave motor pumps went to a few small groups of farmers. About 200 farmers in total piloted the technologies, and committed to paying for the technologies over the period of the field intervention. Households decided themselves who within the household would use and control the technology. Our research focused on understanding these decisions. The HKI project follows a model of Village Model Farms and Farmer Field Schools that target women for training on homestead food production and nutrition. In the Ukerewe and Sengerema districts in the Mwanza region of Tanzania, IFPRI linked a local NGO, Sustainable Environment Man- agement Action (SEMA), with HKI, through HKI’s project Creating Homestead Agriculture for Nutrition and Gender Equity (CHANGE). The CHANGE project aimed to improve Fig. 1 Gender in the three phases of technology adoption the nutritional status of infants and young children and their mothers through interventions targeted to women to enhance homestead food production and induce nutrition behavior Methods and procedures change. Through the collaboration with SEMA, drip kits were integrated into the CHANGE project. Specifically, This study draws on qualitative data collected in 19 commu- SEMA distributed 78 drip kits to CHANGE beneficiary nities in Ethiopia, Ghana, and Tanzania in 2016. In total, we farmers (all women) and provided technical assistance on conducted 38 gender-separated focus group discussions with drip kit installation, use, and maintenance to resource farm- 375 men and women. The fieldwork took place in small- ers and other community members. The fieldwork included scale irrigation pilot sites of the Feed the Future Innovation control sites in the same district, with comparable agroeco- Lab for Small Scale Irrigation (ILSSI) in Ethiopia, Ghana, logical conditions and livelihoods, but where no small-scale and Tanzania and the Helen Keller International (HKI) irrigation activities were being promoted. Enhanced Homestead Food Production project in Tanzania We applied a focus group protocol consistently across (Helen Keller International 2014). all sites involving separate group discussions with women The sites for the ILSSI pilot studies were chosen based and men farmers. Participants were recruited in consulta- on access to an adequate source of water for dry-season tion with key informants in the villages studied, following irrigation, proximity to an output (produce) market, some selection criteria that included a combination of irrigators experience with manual irrigation (bucket-based), and com- and nonirrigators or rainfed producers, women and men, munity interest in participating in a pilot using their own field intervention participants and nonparticipants, and age land, labor, and other inputs. ILSSI then worked with these groups. We focused on married women and men in dual- communities, local government and customary authorities, headed households to explore intrahousehold dimensions of and extension agents to choose an irrigation technology to technology use. pilot in the area. The initial list of technologies proposed to The discussion questions for focus groups examined gen- the community was based on national stakeholder consul- der preferences for water technologies, technology choices tation and priorities aligned with government policy, then as aligned to existing community and household needs, roles further refined based on the biophysical suitability of the and responsibilities of both men and women, household use community. Technologies included petrol-fueled motorized and management of water with different technologies, and pumps, photovoltaic solar pumps, and manual water-lifting perceived benefits and incentives related to small-scale technologies (e.g., rope and washer or pulley) in combina- irrigation technology adoption. Between 5 and 16 men or tion with various field-application technologies (e.g., drip, women participated in each focus group (Table 2). Discus- sions took place in Swahili in Tanzania, Amharic in Ethio- 2 “ pia, and Gurunsi and Dagbani in Ghana. The discussions Innovation Lab for Small Scale Irrigation,” Feed the Future Inno- lasted about two hours and were held in primary schools or vation Lab, n.d., http://ilssi .tamu.edu/. 1 3 676 S. Theis et al. Table 2 Locations, pilot technologies, and number of participants in focus group discussions Site Region Men Women Project Pilot technology Ghana  Zanlerigu Upper East 6 9 ILSSI Rainwater harvesting; drip  Nyangua Upper East 12 5 Control –  Dimbisinia Upper East 11 6 ILSSI Motor pump  Bihinayiili Northern 16 15 ILSSI Motor pump Ethiopia  Robit Bata Amhara 13 13 ILSSI Pulley  Dangila Amhara 11 9 ILSSI Pulley  Upper Gana, Jawe (Lemo) Southern Nations, Nationali- 9 12 ILSSI Solar pump; rope and washer ties, and Peoples’ (SNNP) Tanzania  Rudewa Mbuyuni, Kilosa District Morogoro 10 9 ILSSI Motor pump  Sangasanga, Kilosa District Morogoro 9 11 Control –  Mkindo, Mvomero District Morogoro 9 9 ILSSI Motor pump  Kondoa, Mvomero District Morogoro 10 10 Control –  Mawemairo, Babati District Manyara 8 10 ILSSI Motor pump  Mapea, Babati District Manyara 9 9 Control –  Nyampande, Sengerema District Mwanza 8 10 HKI Drip kit  Nyamazugo, Sengerema District Mwanza 8 10 HKI Drip kit  Chifumfu, Sengerema District Mwanza 9 12 HKI Drip kit  Nyamatongo, Sengerema District Mwanza 9 11 HKI Drip kit  Muriti, Ukerewe District Mwanza 9 11 HKI Drip kit  Kazilankanda, Ukerewe District Mwanza 9 9 HKI Drip kit neutral community settings with visual and audio privacy. or alienation rights. In this section, we discuss findings on The authors trained a team of national facilitators in each gendered constraints in the first two phases of technology country to conduct focus group discussions using this pro- adoption, awareness and tryout, then examine intrahouse- tocol. Male facilitators led the male discussions and female hold use, management, fructus, and alienation rights over facilitators led the female discussions, with notetakers assist- small-scale irrigation technology. ing them and recording the meetings. Afterward, recordings were transcribed and translated into English. Responses and Use rights comments from each focus group were then organized into spreadsheets following the modules to enable cross-group Of all the rights identified, use rights are most likely to be and cross-country comparison. held jointly. However, even though use is generally recog- nized as a right in the property-rights literature and encour- aged through the promotion of “women-friendly technolo- Results gies” (Ethiopian Agricultural Transformation Agency 2018) it also is an obligation with time and energy costs. Consist- Interviews with men and women from 19 communities in ent with findings from earlier work (van Koppen et al. 2012; Ethiopia, Ghana, and Tanzania reveal several broad patterns Njuki et al. 2014), women often have the right to use man- in intrahousehold rights over irrigation technologies after the ual, labor-intensive irrigation technologies such as buckets technology is first adopted. and watering cans, while men operate mechanized irrigation The data from the three countries show that the costs technologies such as motorized pumps. and benefits of technology adoption are not equally distrib- Although there was no outright opposition expressed to uted across the household. One member of the household women’s use of pumps, men provide various rationalizations generally does not exclusively hold rights of use, manage- for why women do not typically use pumps, including the ment, fructus, and alienation, but men are more likely to pump’s technological complexity, physical requirements to hold more of these rights as well as stronger claims to these operate, and women’s difficulty hiring and supervising labor - rights. Use and management rights do not guarantee fructus ers. In part because of the labor requirements and costs of 1 3 What happens after technology adoption? Gendered aspects of small-scale irrigation… 677 fuel, the use of pumps is considered worthwhile for higher Despite these norms around use rights of pumps, women market value crops but not for subsistence agriculture. in Ghana and Tanzania expressed their desire to obtain Because women tend to cultivate separate plots that are less motorized pumps. In Mapea, Tanzania, a woman proposed market oriented, men say that it is rare to see women using that they should get “machines for pulling water … rather pumps; “rather, they can grow simple vegetables for subsist- than the punishment we get through irrigating by buckets; it ence” (Kondoa, Tanzania). delays the easiness of life. But if you get the machine, even a The water requirements of men’s and women’s crops woman can do the work and get back home; hence it is good were also given as an explanation for why women should for the community.” use manual lifting and application technologies. Pumps are In Dimbisinia, Ghana, the introduction of motor pumps considered more suitable for crops that men manage (toma- saved women time in fetching water, which led to further toes and onions), which can be flooded, whereas respondents changes in gender roles in agriculture: Men prepare the beds said that the leafy greens managed by women require regular for both women’s and men’s plots, women nurse seedlings, water application in smaller quantities, making them more and women do the marketing. Men in the Upper East Region suitable for watering cans, buckets, or drip irrigation. sites in Ghana also expressed an incentive to support women In some communities, women help their husbands irrigate to adopt irrigation technologies—preventing their wives with pumps, as men note, “You can’t do it alone” (Nyam- from out-migrating during the dry season, which they say pande, Tanzania). In Ethiopia, women carry pumps to plots leaves men with all household domestic work. for their husbands to operate. However, men do not want women’s agricultural labor to compromise domestic respon- Management rights sibilities, lest they “delay receiving ugali” (Mapea, Tanza- nia). However, they expect women to manage all domestic In a context where household members manage both joint work while contributing equally in agricultural labor: and individual plots, there are potentially competing appli- cations for one shared household irrigation technology. [Agricultural] responsibilities are for both of us, hus- Therefore, the management right—where, when, and how band and wife… So even if it is to work in the irriga- the technology is used—has implications for crop choice, tion field, my wife can still assist; if it is uprooting yields, and income generated by the different plot managers. the trees, my wife can still help to collect them. The Throughout the discussions, men were described as only activities which we differ are household chores, the “pioneer,” “supervisor,” “manager,” or “leader,” while whereby when we reach home, she is the one cooking women are considered the “helper” for agricultural pro- as I am resting. But in agricultural activities, the ratio duction activities, to “lead her army after my orders.” Men is 50–50 (man in Rudewa Mbuyuni, Tanzania). typically control management rights, applying mechanized Women express concern about the time burden of irriga- technologies to plots they control. Women’s plots are not tion and agriculture for their own well-being, their children’s prioritized for irrigation. In Rudewa Mbuyuni, Tanzania, development, and their marriage, and note that the burden men explained that “wives must get permission from [their] does not end when they rest for the day: “[The marriage] has husband to irrigate. [The husband] may refuse.” Only in a to break because the whole day you were in the farm work- few instances in Ghana, men operated household pumps on ing, and it’s very far. In the evening you have to do home both men’s and women’s plots—with women noting that chores, including attending to younger kids.” these wives were “lucky,” suggesting that this is not com- Asked how the community perceives women who irri- mon practice. gate, women say that those who use manual technologies are In these three countries, women are largely dependent seen as “suffering” (Mkindo, Tanzania). Compounding the on men for access to land. Men may allocate land to women time burden is the fact that many of the irrigated fields are that is not suitable for irrigation or close to a water source. far from the home, requiring them to travel long distances Women’s tenuous land rights also constrain decision-making and sometimes even sleep over at the field to guard against power on the use of the land, since men can “just inform you theft or prepare to receive water from the canal. Women also that I have lent a land to so and so, therefore this time you expressed frustration with drip irrigation in some of the HKI will deal with the certain piece only” (Nyampande, Tanza- sites, since filling the tank that is connected to the drip line nia). In Ghana, however, women access land in the dry sea- with water still requires heavy manual labor with buckets. son through plots that are not being used as men engage in other economic activities, like fishing. In Nyangua, Ghana, women explained that because dry season irrigation is done on borrowed or rented plots, as opposed to inherited land, As with gardens versus horticulture, the concept of “high-value” women have more control over cultivation decisions, includ- crops tends to refer to market value and does not consider the food ing irrigation. security or nutritional value of home consumption. 1 3 678 S. Theis et al. Characteristics of the technology also influence manage- rise in the house, and he will tell you, “With the lit- ment rights. Technologies that can be moved, like motorized tle income we have, do you think we can manage big pumps or hoses, can be more easily shared on die ff rent plots things as those?” Then you keep quiet. than a rope and washer or drip irrigation system. In Dimb- Many women reported noncooperative relationship isinia, Ghana, because men are responsible for digging wells around agricultural sales: “when it comes to selling, it’s during each dry season, men explain that they control the use a husband who does it, and thereafter he will just inform of the water from those wells, including water-lifting pumps. you about the sales and put all the money in his pocket” In Lemo, Ethiopia, solar pumps and rope and washer water- (Nyampande, Tanzania). Men mention separately that they lifting technologies are installed near the homestead, which do not need to share this information: “A man can sell and enables women to use the water for both domestic purposes say nothing.” and irrigation. This gives women marginally more control Women in three communities in Tanzania (Mapea, Mawe- over rainy and dry season management of those technologies mairo, and Nyampande, in Babati and Sengerema districts) than mobile technologies, such as motor pumps (Nigussie discuss how irrigated rice paddy is now sold at warehouses, et al. 2017). almost exclusively by men. One woman said her husband “signs the sacks at the warehouse and sells, but you won’t Fructus rights even know of the amounts, whether he gives you a fake cal- culation. You just have to accept.” She explains: Fructus rights are less commonly measured as a project outcome compared with the previous two rights, perhaps But as days goes by, you can’t go daily to check them because of persistent assumptions that households pool [the sacks], since you aren’t the one who signed for it resources or that what happens within households is beyond inside there, because his fellow men will think of me projects’ control or ability to monitor. However, our find- oppositely, so I just remain at home. If you will need ings show that projects can change how they affect fructus rice and tell him, then he will look how many kilo- rights. Household members may have stronger or weaker grams can cater for this family, but he doesn’t bring. fructus rights according to who decides whether, when, When you remind him again, he will tell you, “stop and where to sell produce and who directly handles rev- disturbing” while he goes to the machinery store and enues from sale. These different decisions particularly affect grinds paddy but doesn’t tell you. After some days if knowledge of revenues and subsequent bargaining power you tell him, “I would like to get a new kitenge,” he over use of earnings. will ask you, “Where is the money?” While he has In Tanzania, women in nearly every community men- already sold it and it’s over. The next season comes, tioned that it is common for men and women to collaborate and you all go to the farm again (Mapea, Tanzania). throughout the season on irrigated agricultural production, A woman in Mawemairo describes how her husband but when the time comes to sell, men sell away from the stores the full paddy harvest at the warehouse and “sells farm gate, without women’s knowledge or consultation about without notifying you… and if you ask, it’s a conflict inside the quantity, timing, or price of sale. Men therefore have the house.” The Mawemairo women also explain that income greater fructus rights over this income: “What you harvest is from irrigated paddy does help them “build good houses,” his… That is the truth” (Nyamazugo, Tanzania). A woman but they point out that they do not have a say over how this in Mawemairo explains: income is spent: “He only cares you are living in a good In most cases, men involve us in decision making, but house, you have a TV and good utensils. Then he expects during harvesting, you are left behind. I don’t know you to be satisfied” (Mawemairo, Tanzania). In Mapea com- how others see it … During cultivation, there is love munity, a woman explained, “If you tell him [what to do at home, good talks like, “This year after we harvest, with the income], he asks you, ‘Did you come with it from we will make this and that, and we will take our child your home?’” to there and do this for him.” You use all your energy, Women sometimes hold fructus rights below a revenue and when harvesting time comes, after taking the sacks threshold. In several communities where HKI promoted in the warehouse, and you touch him, then conflict will home gardens with drip irrigation, women explained that they retain control over income if revenues are low: “Men The outputs of a technology include irrigated crops (e.g., tomatoes, onions, vegetables), byproducts (e.g., crop residues for fodder, wild Meaning, did the woman bring it from her natal home; women may herbs), and income generated by the technology (e.g., revenue from have stronger claims on assets brought to marriage. See Quisumbing selling crops, renting out a pump, charging mobile phone batteries and Maluccio (2003) for further analysis of the empowerment effects using the photovoltaic panels on a solar pump). of assets brought to marriage. 1 3 What happens after technology adoption? Gendered aspects of small-scale irrigation… 679 regard vegetable gardening as a low income generating making with their spouse. Women in Dimbisinia in Ghana, activity compared to tomatoes even if the processes are the said that irrigated farming “makes people appreciate you … same” (Nyamazugo, Tanzania). In Nyamatongo, a woman gives you a sense of belonging.” explains that the sale of vegetables is “your money and he doesn’t ask you.” Because men’s “eyes are onto high-income Alienation rights activities that generate money in a lump sum, that is why they are not so much into vegetables, though they can still Alienation rights refer to the right to transfer by sale, lease, borrow money from you” (Nyampande, Tanzania). However, gift, or inheritance. We did not find instances of alienation of in Nyampande, women note that men now “can even ask for irrigation technology itself, as there is not much of a second- 1000 shillings, and you can’t deny him because he knows ary market for the equipment. However, patterns of aliena- you have money.” tion rights over other assets indicate that they are held pre- Women across sites value the independence and respect dominantly by men. In Nyamazugo, Tanzania, men say that from generating income. Women appreciate not having to it is common to give woman a plot of land and take it away ask their husbands for money to purchase food or other from her at the husband’s discretion, and she cannot protest household needs. In Robit, Ethiopia, women said, “We do as long as men fulfill their role by bringing home meat for not expect money from men’s hand; there will be no problem the family. Women in Nyampande similarly reflect that hus- for [women to pay for] home expenses” because “generat- bands can lease out a piece of land, which women may have ing income avoids dependency on men.” Women in Nyama- been using, and only inform them afterward. Women in this tongo, Tanzania note: “It has changed due to gardens … community also comment that they do not have alienation It’s different because I don’t depend on a man, since I sell rights over even small assets like poultry: “You know they the vegetables and get money and buy exercise books [for are talking of gender equality, but in reality, it does not exist. children’s schooling], buy soaps and clothes.” At times, you may have to ask for permission to slaughter In the Ghana sites, women play an active role in taking chicken for visitors; otherwise, if you force doing it, you will produce to markets and negotiating prices. Both women and have to pay for it later.” men see irrigation as enabling women to obtain their own In Ghana, pumps are major assets, as valuable as cows, income and be less reliant on men. Women expressed sat- and therefore are considered men’s property within the isfaction that after adopting irrigation practices, they were household. In Nyangua, women said that cattle belong to the able to pay school fees and medical costs for their children husband regardless of whose money was used to buy them. without relying on their husbands, as well as purchase small Likewise, in Zanlerigu, women discussed pumps as assets items for themselves, such as new shoes. In Bihinayiili, similar to cattle; women can “own” animals, but they are Ghana, women said: “Our husbands cannot tell us how to regarded as men’s assets and a woman needs her husband’s spend our income.” As noted above, in one site, men par- permission to buy or sell animals. Women say that even if ticularly supported women’s irrigation on the women’s plots they are given a pump by a project or purchase one on their to increase their wives’ cash income because this meant the own, the men in the household will own the pump. women were less likely to migrate to work as hired farm labor. Women’s fructus rights may also be limited to the types Discussion and conclusion of purchases they can make. In Lemo, Ethiopia, women’s fructus right extends only to using the income from irri- Despite the associated time and energy burden, women value gated farming on food and small household purchases, but irrigation, particularly for crops and plots where they control in Robit, Ethiopia, women bought clothes with the income management and fructus rights. However, in our study sites, earned from irrigating vegetables near the household using women typically hold management and fructus rights on manual water-lifting technologies. small-scale horticulture plots where they use labor-intensive Some cases noted nonfinancial benefits related to social irrigation methods. On these plots, they secure these rights status. Women in Zanlerigu, Ghana, said that irrigated farm- in exchange for providing nearly all the labor to irrigate, with ing (with watering cans) had increased their income, and as little help from husbands or hired labor. The time they can their individual income increased, so did their joint decision dedicate to this work is limited, after prioritizing their labor for domestic responsibilities and agricultural work on family plots. Men then point to women’s domestic work obligations This distinction between referring to women growing vegetables as and resulting time constraints to argue that women’s greater “gardening” versus growing tomatoes (which are a vegetable but pre- investment of time on their own plots or wider rights to a sumably a monocrop) mirrors the development discourse that often technology on the family plot will harm women’s ability to refers to the former as “kitchen gardens” and the latter as “horticul- carry out their familial duties. ture.” 1 3 680 S. Theis et al. Even though use and management rights are not a guar- rights to technology can be subject to a form of elite capture antee of fructus or alienation rights, use rights do seem to within the institution of the household. As previous studies strengthen claims to fructus and alienation rights. Women have found, in the absence of complementary institutional expressed feeling cheated when their husbands sell paddy or social change, targeting women with technology alone is that was produced through their labor without the women’s unlikely to confer full rights over the technology to women, knowledge. Despite this awareness of inequity, none of since the rules of the household often override any norms the women cited examples of successfully negotiating for or expectations promoted by projects, and historically men fructus rights. Information asymmetry regarding the sale have been adept at interceding to appropriate a technology of irrigated produce, time constraints, limited mobility, and or economic activity once it is shown to be profitable (Jones the fear of compromising their economic security derived 1983; von Braun and Webb 1989; Quisumbing and Kumar through these relationships strongly inhibit women’s ability 2011). to negotiate their fructus rights. Of the set of rights in this framework, use rights are most In their review of gender differences in agricultural tech- commonly measured by projects and fructus rights are most nologies, Peterman et al. (2010) note that given equal access often overlooked. So-called “female-friendly technologies” to technology, men and women are often equally likely to aim to design products for women’s ease and comfort in use. adopt technologies. Yet access is rarely equal. Much of the However, the right to use a technology does not necessarily gender and technology adoption research to date has thus confer other rights. In the absence of other rights, the use focused on understanding gendered constraints around right may simply represent greater labor burden for women. access to technology (Peterman et al. 2010), including fac- Fructus rights, in contrast, need to be systematically tors that disadvantage women from learning about, purchas- addressed. Fructus rights are an important gendered impact ing, and using a technology (Magnan et al. 2014; Ragasa of technology adoption and a factor influencing adoption et al. 2014), and aspects of technological design and choice and investment behavior. Though women face significant that better address women’s needs and preferences (Carr and constraints to claiming fructus rights within the household, Hartl 2010; Quisumbing and Pandolfelli 2010). Although they highly value these rights and employ different strate- it is important to consider these factors, the emphasis on gies to maintain them. If they perceive that men are likely gendered constraints to access effectively treats technology to appropriate fructus rights beyond a certain threshold of acquisition as the end goal. Without attention to household income, some women choose economic activities that gener- structure and intrahousehold dynamics, it is only an assump- ate lower sums of income and are sold continually over time, tion that the woman who appears to adopt the technology rather than “lumpy” (large and infrequent) sales. Projects actually controls and benefits from it. that attempt to shift women’s production to different crops, Applying an adapted bundle of rights framework to the or to commercialize traditional women’s crops, may also risk household allows us to draw new attention to the intra- women losing fructus rights (see Fischer and Qaim [2012] household implications of smallholder technology adop- for the case of commercialized banana production in Kenya). tion. Household members hold overlapping, dynamic, and In addition, fructus rights are particularly weak when there negotiable rights over technology. How rights are distrib- is information asymmetry over the sales of joint produc- uted varies from household to household. Identifying the tion. Formalized value chains associated with irrigated pro- use, fructus, management, and alienation rights held by duction may increase information asymmetry. Support for different people reveals intrahousehold differences in con- women’s claims to fructus rights could include increased trol over technology, experience of its costs and benefits, access to market information, joint digital financial services and associated shifts in power. Furthermore, expectations that provide transaction alerts, and transparent and acces- about whether women can claim their rights likely influence sible documentation of sales. men and women’s willingness to try out a technology in the Notably, the cases suggest that household rights to tech- first place. Fisher et al. (2000) found that where wives had nology are potentially malleable. Transformative approaches higher bargaining power, households were more likely to can work inside and outside the household. Such approaches reject adopting labor-intensive cattle stabling technology, can engage with couples and communities to reflect on gen- which women perceived would cause an increase in their der roles and relations, and support groups of women to labor and loss of control over milk sales. Other studies have reflect on their shared challenges and rights while receiv - found that women reduce their labor on their husband’s plots ing technologies, assets, and training to secure their benefits to minimum acceptable levels when they do not expect to be from production. On the latter approach, we found that pro- able to control the outputs (van Koppen and Hussain 2007). jects targeting women struggled when men blocked wom- Although a focus on removing barriers to women’s acqui- en’s participation in groups or chose not to tell them about sition of technologies is well intended, projects that pro- meetings and other opportunities. Informing men about the mote irrigation technology for women should be aware that purpose of these activities and demonstrating the benefits to 1 3 What happens after technology adoption? Gendered aspects of small-scale irrigation… 681 the family may facilitate men’s support for women’s involve- the household. This study focused on women in married ment, and men’s respect for women can grow when women (male-headed) households in Ethiopia, Ghana, and Tanza- demonstrate that they can bring in income through these nia, where women often depend on husbands for access to activities (Naved 2000; Quisumbing and Pandolfelli 2010). land and typically cultivate both a joint and individually Group distribution of technology can have other benefits managed plot with some independent control over income. beyond securing rights. Quisumbing and Kumar (2011) find The framework may not apply as well to other settings, that agricultural technologies disseminated through women’s for example where male- rather than dual-farming sys- groups not only lead to an increase in women’s assets rela- tems are dominant (van Koppen and Hussain 2007) or in tive to men’s within the household, but also strengthened other geographies (see Akter et al. [2017] for how these women’s social capital, which substituted in the short term challenges, largely studied and understood in the African for lack of physical capital and in the long term helped build context, differ in Southeast Asia). As such, it is meant to women’s assets. suggest new lines of inquiry rather than prescribe a uni- Rights to irrigation technology are linked to gendered versally applicable intervention approach. land rights and division of labor. Just as men often allocate Irrigation technologies can generate new livelihood plots of land to women only for subsistence-level production opportunities, enhance resilience, and increase productiv- (Lambrecht 2016), our research showed that women rarely ity. Development partners promoting these technologies used mechanized irrigation technologies on their own plots could strengthen development outcomes by understand- of land. On plots that they managed, women predominantly ing how technologies are used, by whom, and for what used manual irrigation technologies without help from their purpose. Some interventions assume that simply reach- husbands or hired labor. Mechanized irrigation technologies ing women with technology—for example, distributing were largely applied on men’s plots, where men controlled motor pumps to women—leads to empowerment, and so most rights, and women held only use rights to these tech- less attention is given to monitoring if or how this happens nologies as “helpers” to their husbands. (Johnson et al. 2017). Instead, investigating how rights Nonetheless, women do express demand for mechanized are distributed can shed light on how technology adoption irrigation technologies, seeking greater financial independ- affects women and men differently within a household. ence and household food security. Initial evidence from This evidence will help ensure that technology adoption these cases suggests the aspects of technologies that women strategically advances development objectives such as food prefer in the context of intrahousehold rights. In Ethiopia, and nutritional security, resilience, and women’s empow- women saw motor pumps as adding to their time burden erment, rather than taking technology adoption as an end and instead preferred solar pumps that could reduce both in and of itself. domestic and field labor requirements. Solar appears to be Acknowledgements We gratefully acknowledge Likie Nigussie (Ethi- a promising technology for women (Burney et  al. 2013; opia), Christopher Magomba and Elizabeth Mshote (Tanzania), and IRENA 2016). Nigussie et al. (2017) identified that women Elsie Odonkor and Afishata Mohammed Abujaja (Ghana) for lead- preferred solar pumps located near the household where ing data collection and skillfully facilitating discussions with men and women had more control over information and production. women in the three countries. We recognize the invaluable time and willingness to share personal experiences that discussion participants Solar pumps with lower power capacity may limit the poten- generously extended to the research team in each country. We thank tial groundwater lifting rate but could be suitable for crops Claudia Ringler and David Spielman for providing helpful feedback that women produce on small plots near the household and at multiple stages of paper preparation. This work was undertaken as over which women have greater control over revenues. Mul- part of the Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Small-Scale Irrigation supported by the United States Agency for International Development tiuse pumps, sited in locations convenient for both men’s and (USAID) and forms part of the CGIAR Research Programs on Water, women’s plots and compatible with different uses of water Land, and Ecosystems (WLE) and Policies, Institutions, and Markets and application methods, could promote joint use and shared (PIM). management rights over water-lifting technology. Portability Funding This study was funded by the Feed the Future Innovation Lab and location of installation may therefore affect women’s for Small-Scale Irrigation through the United States Agency for Interna- fructus rights. tional Development (USAID) (Grant Number AID-OAA-A-13-00055). Further research is needed to test and apply this frame- work to inform inclusive technology diffusion efforts, Compliance with ethical standards including how design characteristics of technology and adoption modality affect the intrahousehold distribution Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of of rights, which rights men and women prefer in differ - interest. ent contexts, and how different empowerment approaches Ethical approval All procedures performed in studies involving human and aspects of empowerment (e.g. literacy, socioeconomic participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the insti- status) can facilitate women’s rights to technology within 1 3 682 S. Theis et al. tutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Development 74: 171–183. https ://doi.or g/10.1016/j.w or ld Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. dev.2015.05.001. Doss, C. R., and M. Morris. 2001. How does gender affect the adoption of agricultural innovations? The case of improved maize technol- Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Crea- ogy in Ghana. Agricultural Economics 25 (1): 27–39. https ://doi. tive Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creat iveco org/10.1111/j.1574-0862.2001.tb002 33.x. mmons.or g/licenses/b y/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribu- Doss, C. R., W. M. Mwangi, H. Verkuijl, and H. De Groote. 2003. tion, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate Adoption of maize and wheat technologies in eastern Africa: A credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the synthesis of the findings of 22 case studies. International Maize Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) Economics Work- ing Paper. Mexico City: CIMMYT. http://r epos it or y .cimm y t.org/handl e/10883 /1037. Accessed 15 March 2017. Doss, C. R., C. D. Deere, A. D. Oduro, and H. Swaminathan. 2014. The gender asset and wealth gaps. Development 57 (3–4): 400– References 409. https ://doi.org/10.1057/dev.2015.10. Drechsel, P., A. Olaleye, A. Adeoti, L. Thiombiano, B. Barry, and Akter, S. P., J. Rutsaert, N. Luis, S. Htwe, B. San, Raharjo, and A. K. Vohland. 2006. Adoption drivers and constraints of resource Pustika. 2017. Women’s empowerment and gender equity in agri- conservation technologies in Sub-Saharan Africa. http://hdl. culture: A different perspective from Southeast Asia. Food Policy handl e.ne t/10568 /36743 (unpublished paper). Accessed 15 69 (C): 270–279. https ://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodp ol.2017.05.003. March 2017. Alchian, A., and H. Demsetz. 1972. Production, information costs, Eggertsson, T. 1990. Economic behavior and institutions. Cam- and economic organization. American Economic Review 62 (S): bridge: Cambridge University Press. 777–795. Ethiopian Agricultural Transformation Agency. 2018. Irrigation and Alderman, H., P. Chiappori, L. Haddad, J. Hoddinott, and R. Kanbur. drainage: Why is transformation needed in this program area? 1995. Unitary versus collective models of the household: Is it time http://www.ata.gov.et/progr ams/susta inabl e-inclu sive-growt h/ to shift the burden of proof? World Bank Research Observer 10 irrig ation -drain age. Accessed 3 Feb 2018. (1): 1–19. https ://doi.org/10.1093/wbro/10.1.1. Fischer, E., and M. Qaim. 2012. Gender, agricultural commer- Ani, A., O. Ogunnika, and S. S. Ifah. 2004. Relationship between cialization, and collective action in Kenya. Food Policy 4 (3): socio-economic characteristics of rural women farmers and their 441–453. adoption of farm technologies in Southern Eboni State, Nigeria. Fisher, M., R. Warner, and W. Masters. 2000. Gender and agricul- International Journal of Agriculture and Biology 6 (5): 802–805. tural change: Crop-livestock integration in Senegal. Society and Beekman, W., G. J. Veldwisch, and A. Bolding. 2014. Identifying the Natural Resources 13 (3): 203–222. https://doi.or g/10.1080/08941 potential for irrigation development in Mozambique: Capitalizing 92002 79063 . on the drivers behind farmer-led irrigation expansion. Physics and Helen Keller International. 2014. Helping families grow better food: Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C 76–78:54–63. The enhanced homestead food production program. http://www. Benjaminsen, T. A., and B. Ba. 2009. Farmer–herder conflicts, pasto- hki.org/our-work/improving-nutr ition/helpi ng-f amilies-g row-bette ral marginalization and corruption: A case study from the Inland r-food#.WPEjI YWcGw A. Accessed 12 May 2017. Niger Delta of Mali. The Geographical Journal 175 (1): 71–81. Hunecke, C., A. Engler, R. Jara-Rojas, and P. M. Poortvliet. 2017. https ://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4959.2008.00312 .x. Understanding the role of social capital in adoption decisions: Burney, J. A., R. Naylor, and S. Postel. 2013. The case for distributed An application to irrigation technology. Agricultural Systems 153: irrigation as a development priority in Sub-Saharan Africa. Pro- 221–231. https ://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2017.02.002. ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110 (31): 12513– Huyer, S. 2016. Closing the gender gap in agriculture. Gender, Technol- 12517. https ://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.12035 97110 . ogy and Development 20 (2): 1–12. https://doi.or g/10.1177/09718 Carr, M., and M. Hartl. 2010. Lightening the load: Labour-saving 52416 64387 2. technologies and practices for rural women. Rugby: International IRENA. 2016. Solar pumping for irrigation: Improving livelihoods and Fund for Agricultural Development and Practical Action. sustainability. IRENA Policy Brief. Abu Dhabi: The International Conley, T., and C. Udry. 2001. Social learning through networks: The Renewable Energy Agency. adoption of new agricultural technologies in Ghana. American Johnson, N. L., C. Kovarik, R. Meinzen-Dick, J. Njuki, and A. Qui- Journal of Agricultural Economics 83 (3): 668–673. https ://doi. sumbing. 2016. Gender, assets, and agricultural development: org/10.1016/j.agwat .2013.07.005. Lessons from eight projects. World Development 83: 295–311. de Fraiture, C., and M. Giordano. 2014. Small private irrigation: A https ://doi.org/10.1016/j.world dev.2016.01.009. thriving but overlooked sector. Agricultural Water Management Johnson, N., M. Balagamwala, C. Pinkstaff, S. Theis, R. Meinzen- 131: 167–174. https ://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat .2013.07.005. Dick, and A. Quisumbing. 2017. How do agricultural develop- Domènech, L. 2015. Improving irrigation access to combat food inse- ment projects aim to empower women? Insights from an analysis curity and undernutrition: A review. Global Food Security 6: of project strategies. IFPRI Discussion Paper 1609. Washington, 24–33. https ://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2015.09.001. DC: International Food Policy Research Institute. Doss, C. R. 1996. Testing among models of intrahousehold resource Jones, C. 1983. The mobilization of women’s labor in cash crop allocation. World Development 24 (10): 1597–1609. https ://doi. production: A game theoretic approach. American Journal org/10.1016/0305-750X(96)00063 -0. of Agricultural Economics 65 (5): 1049–1054. https ://doi. Doss, C. R. 2001. Designing agricultural technology for African org/10.2307/12404 17. women farmers: Lessons from 25 years of experience. World Lambrecht, I. B. 2016. “As a husband I will love, lead, and provide.” Development 29 (12): 2075–2092. https://doi.or g/10.1016/S0305 Gendered access to land in Ghana. World Development 88: 188– -750X(01)00088 -2. 200. https ://doi.org/10.1016/j.world dev.2016.07.018. Doss, C. R., and R. Meinzen-Dick. 2015. Collective action within the Lambrecht, I., B. Vanlauwe, R. Merckx, and M. Maertens. 2014. household: Insights from natural resource management. World Understanding the process of agricultural technology adoption: 1 3 What happens after technology adoption? Gendered aspects of small-scale irrigation… 683 Mineral fertilizer in eastern DR Congo. World Development 59: Quisumbing, A. R., and N. Kumar. 2011. Does social capital build 132–146. https ://doi.org/10.1016/j.world dev.2014.01.024. women’s assets? The long-term impacts of group-based and indi- Lindner, R. K., P. G. Pardey, and F. G. Jarrett. 1982. Distance to infor- vidual dissemination of agricultural technology in Bangladesh. mation source and the time lag to early adoption of trace element Journal of Development Effectiveness 3 (2): 220–242. https://doi. fertilizers. Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics 26 (2): org/10.1080/19439 342.2011.57045 0. 98–113. https ://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8489.1982.tb006 18.x. Quisumbing, A. R., and J. Maluccio. 2003. Resources at marriage and Magnan, N., K. Gulati, T. Lybbert, and D. Spielman. 2014. Gender intrahousehold allocation: Evidence from Bangladesh, Ethiopia, dimensions of social networks and technology adoption in eastern Indonesia, and South Africa. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Uttar Pradesh, India. http://cega.berke ley.edu/asset s/cega_event Statistics 65 (3): 283–328. ht tp s : //d oi .o rg /1 0. 11 11 /1 46 8- 00 84 . s/61/3B_R ole_of_Gende r_in_N e two r k s__Bar g a ining __and_ t01-1-00052 . Emplo yment .pdf. Quisumbing, A. R., and L. Pandolfelli. 2010. Promising approaches to Meinzen-Dick, R., and M. Zwarteveen. 1998. Gendered participation address the needs of poor female farmers: Resources, constraints, in water management: Issues and illustrations from water users’ and interventions. World Development 38 (4): 581–592. https :// associations in South Asia. Agriculture and Human Values 15 (4): doi.org/10.1016/j.world dev.2009.10.006. 337–345. https ://doi.org/10.1023/A:10075 33018 254. Quisumbing, A. R., S. Roy, J. Njuki, K. Tanvin, and E. Waithanji. Meinzen-Dick, R., A. Quisumbing, J. Behrman, P. Biermayr-Jenzano, 2013. Can dairy value-chain projects change gender norms in V. Wilde, M. Noordeloos, C. Ragasa, and N. Beintema. 2011. rural Bangladesh? Impacts on assets, gender norms, and time Engendering agricultural research. IFPRI Monograph. Washing- use. IFPRI Discussion Paper 01311. Washington, DC: Interna- ton, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute. tional Food Policy Research Institute. Merrey, D. 2006. Agricultural water management technologies for Ragasa, C., D. Sengupta, M. Osorio, N. Ourabah Haddad, and K. small-scale farmers in southern Africa: An inventory and assess- Mathieson. 2014. Gender-specific approaches, rural institu- ment of experiences, good practices and costs. Pretoria: Interna- tions and technical innovations. Rome: Food and Agricultural tional Water Management Institute. Organization of the United Nations, International Food Policy Namara, R. E., L. Hope., E. O. Sarpong, C. de Fraiture, and D. Owusu. Research Institute, and Global Forum on Agricultural Research. 2014. Adoption patterns and constraints pertaining to small-scale http://ebrary .ifpri.or g/cdm/ref/collection /p1573 8coll 2/id/12903 water lifting technologies in Ghana. Agricultural Water Manage- 9. Accessed 25 Aug 2016. ment 131: 194–203. https://doi.or g/10.1016/j.agwat.2013.08.023 . Roy, S., J. Ara, N. Das, and A. Quisumbing. 2015. “Flypaper effects” Naved, R. T. 2000. Intrahousehold impact of the transfer of modern in transfers targeted to women: Evidence from BRAC’s “Target- agricultural technology: A gender perspective. Food Consumption ing the Ultra Poor” program in Bangladesh. Journal of Devel- and Nutrition Division Discussion Paper 85. Washington, DC: opment Economics 117: 1–19. https ://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeve International Food Policy Research Institute. co.2015.06.004. NEPAD (New Partnership for Africa Development)/CAADP (Com- Schlager, E., and E. Ostrom. 1992. Property-rights regimes and natu- prehensive Africa Agricultural Development Program). 2009. ral resources: A conceptual analysis. Land Economics 68 (3): Sustainable land and water management: The CAADP Pillar I 249–262. program. Midrand: NEPAD. Siebert, S., J. Burke, J. M. Faures, K. Frenken, J. Hoogeveen, P. Doll, Nigussie, L., N. Lefore, P. Schmitter, and A. Nicol. 2017. Gender and and F. T. Portmann. 2010. Groundwater use for irrigation—A water technologies: Water lifting for irrigation and multiple pur- global inventory. Hydrology and Earth Systems Sciences 14: poses in Ethiopia. Africa RISING Report. Addis Ababa: Inter- 1863–1880. https ://doi.org/10.5194/hess-14-1863-2010. national Livestock Research Institute. https ://cgspa ce.cgiar .org/ Tiwari, N. 2010. Economic and technological constraints facing farm bitstr eam/handle/10568 /79989 /AR_Et hiopia_g ender_w ater_f eb20 women. International Journal of Rural Studies 17 (1): 1–5. 17.pdf?seque nce=1. Accessed 2 March 2017. Upadhyay, B. 2004. Gender aspects of smallholder irrigation technol- Njuki, J., E. Waithanji, B. Sakwa, J. Kariuki, E. Mukewa, and J. Ngige. ogy: Insights from Nepal. Journal of Applied Irrigation Science 2014. A qualitative assessment of gender and irrigation technol- 39(2): 315–327. http://lib.icimo d.org/recor d/11464 /files /4960. ogy in Kenya and Tanzania. Gender, Technology, and Develop- pdf. Accessed 29 Aug 2016. ment 18(3): 303–340. http://gtd.sagep ub.com/conte nt/18/3/303. van Koppen, B. 1998. Water rights, gender, and poverty allevia- short . Accessed 25 Aug 2016. tion: Inclusion and exclusion of women and men smallhold- Olwande, J., G. Sikei, and M. Mathenge. 2009. Agricultural technology ers in public irrigation infrastructure development. Agri- adoption: A panel analysis of smallholder farmers’ fertilizer use culture and Human Values 15 (4): 361–374. https ://doi. in Kenya. CEGA Working Paper Series AfD-0908. Berkeley: Uni-org/10.1023/A:10075 37119 163. versity of California Center of Evaluation for Global Action. https van Koppen, B., and I. Hussain. 2007. Gender and irrigation: Over- ://escho larsh ip.org/uc/item/96662 20j. Accessed 15 March 2017. view of issues and options. Irrigation and Drainage 56: 289– Peterman, A., J. Behrman, and A. Quisumbing. 2010. A review of 298. https ://doi.org/10.1002/ird.296. empirical evidence on gender differences in non- land agricultural van Koppen, B., L. Hope, and W. Colenbrander. 2012. Gender inputs, technology, and services in developing countries. ESA aspects of small-scale private irrigation in Africa. IWMI Working Paper No. 11–11. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organi- Working Paper 153. Colombo: International Water Manage- zation of the United Nations. http://www.fao.org/3/a-am316e.pdf . ment Institute. Accessed 29 Aug 2016. von Braun, J., and P. Webb. 1989. The impact of new crop tech- Peterman, A., A. Quisumbing, J. Behrman, and E. Nkonya. 2011. nology on the agricultural division of labor in a West African Understanding the complexities surrounding gender differences setting. Economic Development and Cultural Change 37 (20): in agricultural productivity in Nigeria and Uganda. The Jour- 513–534. nal of Development Studies 47 (10): 1482–1509. https ://doi. von Benda-Beckmann, F., K. von Benda-Beckmann, and M. Wiber. org/10.1080/00220 388.2010.53622 2. 2006. The properties of property. In Changing properties of prop- Quisumbing, A. R. 1995. Gender differences in agricultural productiv - erty, eds. F. von Benda-Beckmann, K. von Benda-Beckmann, and ity: A survey of empirical evidence. Food Consumption and Nutri- M. Wiber, 1–39. New York: Berghahn Books. Woodhouse, P., G. J. Veldwisch, J. Venot, D. Brockington, H. tion Division Discussion Paper 5. Washington, DC: International Komakech, and A. Manjichi. 2017. African farmer-led irrigation Food Policy Research Institute. 1 3 684 S. Theis et al. development: Re-framing agricultural policy and investment? Sophie Theis is a Research Analyst in the Environment and Produc- The Journal of Peasant Studies 44 (1): 213–233. h ttps :/ /doi. tion Technology Division of the International Food Policy Research org/10.1080/03066 150.2016.12197 19. Institute, Washington, DC. Xie, H., L. You, B. Wielgosz, and C. Ringler. 2014. Estimating the potential for expanding smallholder irrigation in Sub-Saharan Nicole Lefore is a Senior Project Manager, Research for Develop- Africa. Agricultural Water Management 131 (1): 183–193. https ment, at the International Water Management Institute, Pretoria, South ://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat .2013.08.011. Africa. You, L., C. Ringler, G. Nelson, U. Wood-Sichra, R. Robertson, S. Wood, Z. Guo, T. Zhu, and Y. Sun. 2010. What is the irrigation Ruth Meinzen-Dick is a Senior Research Fellow in the Environment potential for Africa? A combined biophysical and socioeconomic and Production Technology Division of the International Food Policy approach. Environment and Production Technology Division. Research Institute, Washington, DC. IFPRI Discussion Paper 993. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute. Elizabeth Bryan is a Senior Research Analyst in the Environment Zwarteveen, M. Z. 1997. Water: From basic need to commodity: A and Production Technology Division of the International Food Policy discussion on gender and water rights in the context of irrigation. Research Institute, Washington, DC. World Development 25 (8): 1335–1349. https ://doi.org/10.1016/ S0305 -750X(97)00032 -6. 1 3 http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Agriculture and Human Values Springer Journals

What happens after technology adoption? Gendered aspects of small-scale irrigation technologies in Ethiopia, Ghana, and Tanzania

Download PDF
14 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/what-happens-after-technology-adoption-gendered-aspects-of-small-scale-86VJTkesBY

References (72)

Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © 2018 by The Author(s)
Subject
Philosophy; Ethics; Agricultural Economics; Veterinary Medicine/Veterinary Science; History, general; Evolutionary Biology
ISSN
0889-048X
eISSN
1572-8366
DOI
10.1007/s10460-018-9862-8
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Diverse agricultural technologies are promoted to increase yields and incomes, save time, improve food and nutritional security, and even empower women. Yet a gender gap in technology adoption remains for many agricultural technologies, even for those that are promoted for women. This paper complements the literature on gender and technology adoption, which largely focuses on reasons for low rates of female technology adoption, by shifting attention to what happens within a household after it adopts a technology. Understanding the expected benefits and costs of adoption, from the perspective of women users in households with adult males, can help explain observed technology adoption rates and why technology adoption is often not sustained in the longer term. Drawing on qualitative data from Ethiopia, Ghana, and Tanzania, this paper develops a framework for examining the intrahousehold distribution of benefits from technology adoption, focusing on small-scale irrigation technologies. The framework contributes to the conceptual and empirical exploration of joint control over technology by men and women in the same household. Efforts to promote technology adoption for agricultural development and women’s empowerment would benefit from an understanding of intrahousehold control over technology to avoid interpreting technology adoption as an end in and of itself. Keywords Irrigation · Agricultural technology · Technology adoption · Gender · Small-scale irrigation Introduction while also promoting women’s empowerment and advanc- ing broader welfare outcomes. Agricultural technologies can In light of evidence that women’s limited access to agri- help women farmers—particularly small-scale, resource- cultural technology is an important constraint to women’s poor women farmers—produce more; add value; manage agricultural productivity (von Braun and Webb 1989; Qui- risk; and use less energy, time, and natural resources. These sumbing 1995; Peterman et al. 2010), increasing technol- production and quality improvements can enable women to ogy adoption among women farmers has emerged as a key maximize the returns to their limited time, labor, land, and strategy to close the gendered productivity gap in agriculture capital (Doss 2001). Given these expected benefits, research has sought to understand what keeps women’s observed rates of agricul- * Sophie Theis tural technology adoption low. The literature has shown that s.theis@cgiar.org men and women have different preferences and face differ - Nicole Lefore ent types and severity of constraints to adopting technology n.lefore@cgiar.org (Doss 2001; Doss and Morris 2001; Carr and Hartl 2010; Ruth Meinzen-Dick Quisumbing and Pandolfelli 2010; Ragasa et al. 2014). r.meinzen-dick@cgiar.org Technology adoption can be understood as three phases: Elizabeth Bryan awareness, tryout, and continued adoption (Lambrecht et al. e.bryan@cgiar.org 2014; Lindner et al. 1982). Each phase presents certain chal- Environment and Production Technology Division, lenges for women farmers. Awareness is limited by factors International Food Policy Research Institute, 1201 Eye Street such as women’s mobility and access to information and NW, Washington, DC 20005, USA extension services that would help them learn what tech- International Water Management Institute, Private Bag X813, nologies are available, how to acquire them, and how to Silverton, Pretoria 0127, South Africa Vol.:(0123456789) 1 3 672 S. Theis et al. use them (Doss et al. 2003; Ragasa et al. 2014). Tryout is their farm plots and homestead gardens, exclusively or in limited by access to and control over the land, water, labor, conjunction with water-application technologies such as inputs, and other assets required to use the technology (Ani drip systems, buckets, cans, or hoses. Despite the extensive et al. 2004; Drechsel et al. 2006; Meinzen-Dick et al. 2011; use of small-scale irrigation, official statistics frequently Ragasa et al. 2014; Johnson et al. 2016); access to capital underreport the value and extent of its use (Woodhouse or credit to invest in the technology (Tiwari 2010; Ragasa et  al. 2017; de Fraiture and Giordano 2014). The area in et al. 2014; Doss et al. 2003; Olwande et al. 2009); access Africa south of the Sahara irrigated with groundwater is to social networks, learning, and social capital to reduce estimated at 340,134 hectares (Siebert et al. 2010), but a perceived risks associated with technology adoption (Conley separate study has suggested that the area is likely much and Udry 2001; Magnan et al. 2014; Hunecke et al. 2017); larger, as smallholder farmers also widely use small pumps and appropriateness of design, including affordability, to lift surface water (Merrey 2006). In many countries in cultural acceptability, and suitability for women’s specific the region, smallholder irrigation area is estimated to be as agricultural tasks and physical requirements (Quisumbing large as or larger than that of large-scale irrigation schemes and Pandolfelli 2010). Thus, many of the constraints that (Namara et al. 2014; Beekman et al. 2014), and the potential technology promises to alleviate are the same constraints for further smallholder expansion surpasses that of large- that hamper adoption in the first place. scale development potential (You et  al. 2010; Xie et  al. Notably, this literature has implicitly focused on the first 2014). The Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development two phases of technology adoption and devoted less attention Programme under the New Partnership for Africa’s Develop- to continued adoption. As Peterman et al. (2011) note, use, ment is targeting 14.2 million hectares for small-scale irri- access, and adoption are often used interchangeably in the gation development, about 7.5 times the area proposed for literature. This emphasis reflects an optimistic assumption large-scale irrigation development (NEPAD/CAADP 2009). that removing constraints to access or use technology could Small-scale irrigation technologies are increasingly being be sufficient for women to empower themselves. However, promoted in an effort to improve smallholders’ dietary diver - even if the removal of such gender-based constraints may be sity, health, seasonal food security, and resilience to climate able to increase rates of women’s acquisition of technology, change and weather shocks (Domènech 2015). women’s particular experience with that technology cannot Nonetheless, numerous studies have found that women be assumed. In households with multiple decision-makers, are less likely than men to access both large- and small-scale how the technology is used, and to whose benefit, must be irrigation infrastructure and technologies. In large-scale negotiated between people with both overlapping and sepa- farmer-led irrigation schemes, women’s implicit and explicit rate interests. exclusion from scheme management decisions and irrigated As Lambrecht et al. (2014) points out, during the con- land allocation limit their access to water (Zwarteveen 1997; tinued adoption phase, farmers assess based on their own Meinzen-Dick and Zwarteveen 1998; van Koppen 1998). experience whether the returns from the technology rela- Moreover, relatively less attention has been paid to the gen- tive to labor and input requirements are worth its continued der aspects of small-scale irrigation technologies. Many use. These returns and costs likely will not be the same for studies that have investigated the gender gap in adoption all household members. Several studies document impor- and the different kinds of technology men and women prefer tant changes in gender roles after a technology has been (e.g., Upadhyay 2004) mainly compare male- and female- acquired, including shifting burdens of labor and control headed households, rather than looking at intrahousehold over agricultural outputs (e.g., von Braun and Webb 1989; dynamics in dual-headed (also called male-headed) house- Doss 2001; Njuki et al. 2014). However, few studies have holds. A cross-country study in Ghana and Zambia found examined who bears the costs or controls the benefits of a that female-headed households adopt small-scale technolo- new technology. gies at two-thirds the rate of male-headed households; and This paper contributes to the gender and technology that whereas female-headed households are more likely to adoption literature by shifting attention to what happens adopt manual technologies (e.g., buckets, wetlands), male- after technology adoption or acquisition, during the phase headed households are more likely to adopt motor pumps of continued use. We examine evidence on the intrahouse- and river diversions (van Koppen et al. 2012). Analyzing hold negotiations and roles in technology adoption gathered 2005–2013 sales data from KickStart, a nongovernmental through qualitative fieldwork on dual-headed households organization (NGO), Njuki et al. (2014) find that women using small-scale irrigation technologies in Ethiopia, Ghana, made up only 6 percent in Tanzania and 18 percent in and Tanzania. Kenya of all buyers of motor pumps. These buyers were Small-scale irrigation technologies, particularly water- rarely women in married households purchasing pumps for lifting technologies (e.g., rope and washer, motor, treadle, their own use, but rather were unmarried women or married and solar pumps), are intended for smallholders to use on women purchasing pumps on behalf of their husbands. 1 3 What happens after technology adoption? Gendered aspects of small-scale irrigation… 673 These studies have shown that female-headed households social relations to analyses within the household, provides face unique constraints to adopting technology. However, useful new insights. this focus also assumes that women in so-called male-headed The paper is organized as follows. It begins by present- households can rely on their husband to access technology. ing the analytical concepts and framework, then describes However, a comparison between male- and female-headed the methodology. “Results” section presents the evidence households excludes the majority of women, who live in so- to illustrate these concepts, examining the intrahousehold called male-headed households. Households with more than distribution of rights during continued adoption. “Discus- one adult decision-maker, with both jointly and separately sion and conclusion” section concludes with implications managed plots of land, and some shared and some independ- for technology adoption research and programs in general ent assets and sources of income—common in our study and insights for sustained adoption of small-scale irrigation communities and much of Africa South of the Sahara—cre- technology in particular. ate conditions for technology to affect different household members in different ways. To evaluate these differences, our inquiry focuses on dual adult households. Analytical concepts and framework Several studies examine the dynamics related to how men and women in the same household control and benefit from Although it is well established that members of households irrigation, such as deciding what to grow on irrigated land, do not share all the same preferences or pool all resources to providing labor on irrigated plots, deciding whether to sell improve overall welfare (Alderman et al. 1995; Doss 1996; or consume irrigated produce, and controlling income from Doss et al. 2014), in rural settings household members do irrigated plots. Njuki et al. (2014) report that men prefer to share some degree of joint use and decision making over irrigate cash crops like tomatoes and women prefer to irri- assets. Meinzen-Dick et al. (2011) describe this idea in terms gate leafy vegetables that can be sold in smaller quantities of a spectrum of jointness and separateness with regard to over a longer period to retain control over these earnings. assets within the household. They also note that though women in pump-owning house- “Ownership” and “control” can describe a range of pos- holds have less say over production decisions overall, they sible social relations with respect to an asset. Identifying are able to use the pump for the plots they manage them- specific rights that comprise ownership and control can selves. This is one of the few studies, however, to explore help assess the implications of different rights, including how technology adoption affects the whole household—not the benefits and costs conferred to different people within just the adopter or owner—in different ways. the household. Rather than taking technology adoption as a goal in and The social science literature on property rights can help of itself, understanding the differentiated impacts of tech- to elucidate these issues. Rights may seem too strong a word nology within the household can help orient technology for many of the arrangements governing intrahousehold use promotion activities to more strategically advance specific and control of technologies, but the literature conceives of development objectives. In this paper, we propose an analyti- property rights as social relations, backed by particular insti- cal framework for analyzing intrahousehold dynamics—spe- tutions. Yet even though the property rights literature has cifically considered as rights to small-scale irrigation tech- focused on state, community, and religious institutions, it nology. We then apply the framework to case studies using has not looked deeply into households as institutions that qualitative evidence of small-scale irrigation from Ghana, shape property rights. In much the same way that communi- Ethiopia, and Tanzania. ties use collective resources, households can also be viewed Two bodies of literature inform our analysis. First, the as an institution that recognizes and enforces property rights literature on gender and assets highlights complexity in (Doss and Meinzen-Dick 2015). These are de facto rights, defining “joint” ownership of resources (Johnson et  al. determined by the social norms influenced by historical, 2016; Huyer 2016). Second, the property rights literature institutional, and legal contexts, and usually enforced by (e.g., Alchian and Demsetz 1972; Eggertsson 1990; Schlager other household members. and Ostrom 1992) provides concepts that help us identify In particular, the concept of bundles of rights allows us overlapping bundles of rights over assets, including tech- to identify how different actors can claim different types of nologies. By focusing on property rights as social relations rights over a resource or asset. Although it is possible to among people with respect to assets, rather than as rela- identify many different individual rights, there are two major tions between people and things (Benda-Beckmann et al. ways of classifying bundles of rights. 2006), this literature sheds light on the institutions that set Schlager and Ostrom (1992, pp. 250–251) refer to a hier- and enforce rules over who can use which resources in what archy of five bundles of rights, which they apply to natural ways. We have found that bringing together these two bod- resources: ies of literature, extending the analysis of property rights as 1 3 674 S. Theis et al. Table 1 Bundle of rights Right Definition concepts and definitions Source: Authors, drawing from Use The right to use and physically operate the technology Schlager and Ostrom (1992) and Management The right to make decisions how, when, and where to apply the technology Benjaminsen and Ba (2009) Fructus The right to control outputs and profits generated by the use of technology Alienation The right to sell, lease, or give away the technology • • Access The right to enter the physical space of the Usus The right to use resource (e.g., walk through the forest) • Fructus The right to the products, increase, or profits of Withdrawal The right to take the products of a resource the resource (e.g., catch fish, remove water) • Abusus The right to encumber or dispose of property Management The right to regulate use and modify or through donation, sale, destruction. transform the resource Exclusion The right to determine who can use the This Roman legal terminology partially overlaps with resource Schlager and Ostrom’s (1992) framework. The term “usus” Alienation The right to lease, sell, or transfer either the covers the use rights of access and withdrawal from the management or exclusion rights associated with the Schlager and Ostrom framework, and “abusus” corresponds resource, or both. with Schlager and Ostrom’s alienation rights. However, the Roman classification does not include the management and The first two of these are generally considered use exclusion rights found in the Schlager and Ostrom frame- rights, while the latter three are control or decision-making work, and the “fructus” rights from Roman law are not rights. Ownership is generally considered to be having all included in the Schlager and Ostrom classification. There- of these rights, including alienation. These classifications fore, bringing together these two frameworks yields the have proved useful for analyzing land and natural resource following bundle of rights, which can be used to describe management. intrahousehold dynamics: use, management, fructus, and In synthesizing the results of eight agricultural develop- alienation (Table 1). In the case of irrigation technology, ment projects on women’s empowerment, Johnson et al. use and management refer to rights over the application of (2016) focus on three key bundles: use, control (which the technology, whereas fructus and alienation refer to the includes decision-making rights of management and exclu- rights to the benefits of the technology. sion), and ownership, which includes all bundles of rights. Just as various institutions at different scales influence Useful as this classification is, however, it misses one aspect the rules of resource use, different institutions affect intra- of fundamental importance for intrahousehold control over household resource allocation and control over technologies. agricultural technologies: the control of the income (or other A right that is recognized across multiple institutions tends benefits) generated by the technology. to increase the strength of the right; conversely, it is more Several studies have indicated that control over income challenging to claim rights to an asset that is not backed can diverge from self-reported ownership. Quisumbing et al. up by institutions beyond the household level. Analyzing (2013) found that a dairy value-chain intervention increased technologies in this way can show how the benefits and costs the value of jointly owned assets but that men controlled of a technology are distributed across different members of all decisions related to financial transactions, including rev - the household, which influences their preferences for and enues from milk sales, whether to sell milk, and whether willingness to try out and continue use of technologies, as to buy or sell cows. In their research on flypaper effects, illustrated in Fig. 1. examining whether targeted asset transfers for ultra-poor women “stick” to women in Bangladesh, Roy et al. (2015) found that, at least in the short term, women were able to retain control over an asset transferred to them, but men predominantly controlled the revenue generated by the asset for investments of their choosing. An alternative way of identifying bundles of rights Although the original Roman law terms “usus” and “abusus” ade- derives from ancient Roman law and is reflected in most quately translate in our framework to “use” and “alienation” rights, civil law systems today, capturing this control over income we have chosen to preserve the term “fructus” here in the absence in the fructus concept (see Benjaminsen and Ba 2009, p. 77): of a precise and appropriate English nomenclature that captures the meaning of the right to have profit or loss of income or products. 1 3 What happens after technology adoption? Gendered aspects of small-scale irrigation… 675 furrow) and irrigation-scheduling tools (Table 2). Communi- ties decided themselves who would participate in the pilots based on access to land and willingness to invest time and in-kind resources without guaranteed returns in irrigating with the technology. The project distributed solar-pump and manual-lifting technologies to individual farmers, and gave motor pumps went to a few small groups of farmers. About 200 farmers in total piloted the technologies, and committed to paying for the technologies over the period of the field intervention. Households decided themselves who within the household would use and control the technology. Our research focused on understanding these decisions. The HKI project follows a model of Village Model Farms and Farmer Field Schools that target women for training on homestead food production and nutrition. In the Ukerewe and Sengerema districts in the Mwanza region of Tanzania, IFPRI linked a local NGO, Sustainable Environment Man- agement Action (SEMA), with HKI, through HKI’s project Creating Homestead Agriculture for Nutrition and Gender Equity (CHANGE). The CHANGE project aimed to improve Fig. 1 Gender in the three phases of technology adoption the nutritional status of infants and young children and their mothers through interventions targeted to women to enhance homestead food production and induce nutrition behavior Methods and procedures change. Through the collaboration with SEMA, drip kits were integrated into the CHANGE project. Specifically, This study draws on qualitative data collected in 19 commu- SEMA distributed 78 drip kits to CHANGE beneficiary nities in Ethiopia, Ghana, and Tanzania in 2016. In total, we farmers (all women) and provided technical assistance on conducted 38 gender-separated focus group discussions with drip kit installation, use, and maintenance to resource farm- 375 men and women. The fieldwork took place in small- ers and other community members. The fieldwork included scale irrigation pilot sites of the Feed the Future Innovation control sites in the same district, with comparable agroeco- Lab for Small Scale Irrigation (ILSSI) in Ethiopia, Ghana, logical conditions and livelihoods, but where no small-scale and Tanzania and the Helen Keller International (HKI) irrigation activities were being promoted. Enhanced Homestead Food Production project in Tanzania We applied a focus group protocol consistently across (Helen Keller International 2014). all sites involving separate group discussions with women The sites for the ILSSI pilot studies were chosen based and men farmers. Participants were recruited in consulta- on access to an adequate source of water for dry-season tion with key informants in the villages studied, following irrigation, proximity to an output (produce) market, some selection criteria that included a combination of irrigators experience with manual irrigation (bucket-based), and com- and nonirrigators or rainfed producers, women and men, munity interest in participating in a pilot using their own field intervention participants and nonparticipants, and age land, labor, and other inputs. ILSSI then worked with these groups. We focused on married women and men in dual- communities, local government and customary authorities, headed households to explore intrahousehold dimensions of and extension agents to choose an irrigation technology to technology use. pilot in the area. The initial list of technologies proposed to The discussion questions for focus groups examined gen- the community was based on national stakeholder consul- der preferences for water technologies, technology choices tation and priorities aligned with government policy, then as aligned to existing community and household needs, roles further refined based on the biophysical suitability of the and responsibilities of both men and women, household use community. Technologies included petrol-fueled motorized and management of water with different technologies, and pumps, photovoltaic solar pumps, and manual water-lifting perceived benefits and incentives related to small-scale technologies (e.g., rope and washer or pulley) in combina- irrigation technology adoption. Between 5 and 16 men or tion with various field-application technologies (e.g., drip, women participated in each focus group (Table 2). Discus- sions took place in Swahili in Tanzania, Amharic in Ethio- 2 “ pia, and Gurunsi and Dagbani in Ghana. The discussions Innovation Lab for Small Scale Irrigation,” Feed the Future Inno- lasted about two hours and were held in primary schools or vation Lab, n.d., http://ilssi .tamu.edu/. 1 3 676 S. Theis et al. Table 2 Locations, pilot technologies, and number of participants in focus group discussions Site Region Men Women Project Pilot technology Ghana  Zanlerigu Upper East 6 9 ILSSI Rainwater harvesting; drip  Nyangua Upper East 12 5 Control –  Dimbisinia Upper East 11 6 ILSSI Motor pump  Bihinayiili Northern 16 15 ILSSI Motor pump Ethiopia  Robit Bata Amhara 13 13 ILSSI Pulley  Dangila Amhara 11 9 ILSSI Pulley  Upper Gana, Jawe (Lemo) Southern Nations, Nationali- 9 12 ILSSI Solar pump; rope and washer ties, and Peoples’ (SNNP) Tanzania  Rudewa Mbuyuni, Kilosa District Morogoro 10 9 ILSSI Motor pump  Sangasanga, Kilosa District Morogoro 9 11 Control –  Mkindo, Mvomero District Morogoro 9 9 ILSSI Motor pump  Kondoa, Mvomero District Morogoro 10 10 Control –  Mawemairo, Babati District Manyara 8 10 ILSSI Motor pump  Mapea, Babati District Manyara 9 9 Control –  Nyampande, Sengerema District Mwanza 8 10 HKI Drip kit  Nyamazugo, Sengerema District Mwanza 8 10 HKI Drip kit  Chifumfu, Sengerema District Mwanza 9 12 HKI Drip kit  Nyamatongo, Sengerema District Mwanza 9 11 HKI Drip kit  Muriti, Ukerewe District Mwanza 9 11 HKI Drip kit  Kazilankanda, Ukerewe District Mwanza 9 9 HKI Drip kit neutral community settings with visual and audio privacy. or alienation rights. In this section, we discuss findings on The authors trained a team of national facilitators in each gendered constraints in the first two phases of technology country to conduct focus group discussions using this pro- adoption, awareness and tryout, then examine intrahouse- tocol. Male facilitators led the male discussions and female hold use, management, fructus, and alienation rights over facilitators led the female discussions, with notetakers assist- small-scale irrigation technology. ing them and recording the meetings. Afterward, recordings were transcribed and translated into English. Responses and Use rights comments from each focus group were then organized into spreadsheets following the modules to enable cross-group Of all the rights identified, use rights are most likely to be and cross-country comparison. held jointly. However, even though use is generally recog- nized as a right in the property-rights literature and encour- aged through the promotion of “women-friendly technolo- Results gies” (Ethiopian Agricultural Transformation Agency 2018) it also is an obligation with time and energy costs. Consist- Interviews with men and women from 19 communities in ent with findings from earlier work (van Koppen et al. 2012; Ethiopia, Ghana, and Tanzania reveal several broad patterns Njuki et al. 2014), women often have the right to use man- in intrahousehold rights over irrigation technologies after the ual, labor-intensive irrigation technologies such as buckets technology is first adopted. and watering cans, while men operate mechanized irrigation The data from the three countries show that the costs technologies such as motorized pumps. and benefits of technology adoption are not equally distrib- Although there was no outright opposition expressed to uted across the household. One member of the household women’s use of pumps, men provide various rationalizations generally does not exclusively hold rights of use, manage- for why women do not typically use pumps, including the ment, fructus, and alienation, but men are more likely to pump’s technological complexity, physical requirements to hold more of these rights as well as stronger claims to these operate, and women’s difficulty hiring and supervising labor - rights. Use and management rights do not guarantee fructus ers. In part because of the labor requirements and costs of 1 3 What happens after technology adoption? Gendered aspects of small-scale irrigation… 677 fuel, the use of pumps is considered worthwhile for higher Despite these norms around use rights of pumps, women market value crops but not for subsistence agriculture. in Ghana and Tanzania expressed their desire to obtain Because women tend to cultivate separate plots that are less motorized pumps. In Mapea, Tanzania, a woman proposed market oriented, men say that it is rare to see women using that they should get “machines for pulling water … rather pumps; “rather, they can grow simple vegetables for subsist- than the punishment we get through irrigating by buckets; it ence” (Kondoa, Tanzania). delays the easiness of life. But if you get the machine, even a The water requirements of men’s and women’s crops woman can do the work and get back home; hence it is good were also given as an explanation for why women should for the community.” use manual lifting and application technologies. Pumps are In Dimbisinia, Ghana, the introduction of motor pumps considered more suitable for crops that men manage (toma- saved women time in fetching water, which led to further toes and onions), which can be flooded, whereas respondents changes in gender roles in agriculture: Men prepare the beds said that the leafy greens managed by women require regular for both women’s and men’s plots, women nurse seedlings, water application in smaller quantities, making them more and women do the marketing. Men in the Upper East Region suitable for watering cans, buckets, or drip irrigation. sites in Ghana also expressed an incentive to support women In some communities, women help their husbands irrigate to adopt irrigation technologies—preventing their wives with pumps, as men note, “You can’t do it alone” (Nyam- from out-migrating during the dry season, which they say pande, Tanzania). In Ethiopia, women carry pumps to plots leaves men with all household domestic work. for their husbands to operate. However, men do not want women’s agricultural labor to compromise domestic respon- Management rights sibilities, lest they “delay receiving ugali” (Mapea, Tanza- nia). However, they expect women to manage all domestic In a context where household members manage both joint work while contributing equally in agricultural labor: and individual plots, there are potentially competing appli- cations for one shared household irrigation technology. [Agricultural] responsibilities are for both of us, hus- Therefore, the management right—where, when, and how band and wife… So even if it is to work in the irriga- the technology is used—has implications for crop choice, tion field, my wife can still assist; if it is uprooting yields, and income generated by the different plot managers. the trees, my wife can still help to collect them. The Throughout the discussions, men were described as only activities which we differ are household chores, the “pioneer,” “supervisor,” “manager,” or “leader,” while whereby when we reach home, she is the one cooking women are considered the “helper” for agricultural pro- as I am resting. But in agricultural activities, the ratio duction activities, to “lead her army after my orders.” Men is 50–50 (man in Rudewa Mbuyuni, Tanzania). typically control management rights, applying mechanized Women express concern about the time burden of irriga- technologies to plots they control. Women’s plots are not tion and agriculture for their own well-being, their children’s prioritized for irrigation. In Rudewa Mbuyuni, Tanzania, development, and their marriage, and note that the burden men explained that “wives must get permission from [their] does not end when they rest for the day: “[The marriage] has husband to irrigate. [The husband] may refuse.” Only in a to break because the whole day you were in the farm work- few instances in Ghana, men operated household pumps on ing, and it’s very far. In the evening you have to do home both men’s and women’s plots—with women noting that chores, including attending to younger kids.” these wives were “lucky,” suggesting that this is not com- Asked how the community perceives women who irri- mon practice. gate, women say that those who use manual technologies are In these three countries, women are largely dependent seen as “suffering” (Mkindo, Tanzania). Compounding the on men for access to land. Men may allocate land to women time burden is the fact that many of the irrigated fields are that is not suitable for irrigation or close to a water source. far from the home, requiring them to travel long distances Women’s tenuous land rights also constrain decision-making and sometimes even sleep over at the field to guard against power on the use of the land, since men can “just inform you theft or prepare to receive water from the canal. Women also that I have lent a land to so and so, therefore this time you expressed frustration with drip irrigation in some of the HKI will deal with the certain piece only” (Nyampande, Tanza- sites, since filling the tank that is connected to the drip line nia). In Ghana, however, women access land in the dry sea- with water still requires heavy manual labor with buckets. son through plots that are not being used as men engage in other economic activities, like fishing. In Nyangua, Ghana, women explained that because dry season irrigation is done on borrowed or rented plots, as opposed to inherited land, As with gardens versus horticulture, the concept of “high-value” women have more control over cultivation decisions, includ- crops tends to refer to market value and does not consider the food ing irrigation. security or nutritional value of home consumption. 1 3 678 S. Theis et al. Characteristics of the technology also influence manage- rise in the house, and he will tell you, “With the lit- ment rights. Technologies that can be moved, like motorized tle income we have, do you think we can manage big pumps or hoses, can be more easily shared on die ff rent plots things as those?” Then you keep quiet. than a rope and washer or drip irrigation system. In Dimb- Many women reported noncooperative relationship isinia, Ghana, because men are responsible for digging wells around agricultural sales: “when it comes to selling, it’s during each dry season, men explain that they control the use a husband who does it, and thereafter he will just inform of the water from those wells, including water-lifting pumps. you about the sales and put all the money in his pocket” In Lemo, Ethiopia, solar pumps and rope and washer water- (Nyampande, Tanzania). Men mention separately that they lifting technologies are installed near the homestead, which do not need to share this information: “A man can sell and enables women to use the water for both domestic purposes say nothing.” and irrigation. This gives women marginally more control Women in three communities in Tanzania (Mapea, Mawe- over rainy and dry season management of those technologies mairo, and Nyampande, in Babati and Sengerema districts) than mobile technologies, such as motor pumps (Nigussie discuss how irrigated rice paddy is now sold at warehouses, et al. 2017). almost exclusively by men. One woman said her husband “signs the sacks at the warehouse and sells, but you won’t Fructus rights even know of the amounts, whether he gives you a fake cal- culation. You just have to accept.” She explains: Fructus rights are less commonly measured as a project outcome compared with the previous two rights, perhaps But as days goes by, you can’t go daily to check them because of persistent assumptions that households pool [the sacks], since you aren’t the one who signed for it resources or that what happens within households is beyond inside there, because his fellow men will think of me projects’ control or ability to monitor. However, our find- oppositely, so I just remain at home. If you will need ings show that projects can change how they affect fructus rice and tell him, then he will look how many kilo- rights. Household members may have stronger or weaker grams can cater for this family, but he doesn’t bring. fructus rights according to who decides whether, when, When you remind him again, he will tell you, “stop and where to sell produce and who directly handles rev- disturbing” while he goes to the machinery store and enues from sale. These different decisions particularly affect grinds paddy but doesn’t tell you. After some days if knowledge of revenues and subsequent bargaining power you tell him, “I would like to get a new kitenge,” he over use of earnings. will ask you, “Where is the money?” While he has In Tanzania, women in nearly every community men- already sold it and it’s over. The next season comes, tioned that it is common for men and women to collaborate and you all go to the farm again (Mapea, Tanzania). throughout the season on irrigated agricultural production, A woman in Mawemairo describes how her husband but when the time comes to sell, men sell away from the stores the full paddy harvest at the warehouse and “sells farm gate, without women’s knowledge or consultation about without notifying you… and if you ask, it’s a conflict inside the quantity, timing, or price of sale. Men therefore have the house.” The Mawemairo women also explain that income greater fructus rights over this income: “What you harvest is from irrigated paddy does help them “build good houses,” his… That is the truth” (Nyamazugo, Tanzania). A woman but they point out that they do not have a say over how this in Mawemairo explains: income is spent: “He only cares you are living in a good In most cases, men involve us in decision making, but house, you have a TV and good utensils. Then he expects during harvesting, you are left behind. I don’t know you to be satisfied” (Mawemairo, Tanzania). In Mapea com- how others see it … During cultivation, there is love munity, a woman explained, “If you tell him [what to do at home, good talks like, “This year after we harvest, with the income], he asks you, ‘Did you come with it from we will make this and that, and we will take our child your home?’” to there and do this for him.” You use all your energy, Women sometimes hold fructus rights below a revenue and when harvesting time comes, after taking the sacks threshold. In several communities where HKI promoted in the warehouse, and you touch him, then conflict will home gardens with drip irrigation, women explained that they retain control over income if revenues are low: “Men The outputs of a technology include irrigated crops (e.g., tomatoes, onions, vegetables), byproducts (e.g., crop residues for fodder, wild Meaning, did the woman bring it from her natal home; women may herbs), and income generated by the technology (e.g., revenue from have stronger claims on assets brought to marriage. See Quisumbing selling crops, renting out a pump, charging mobile phone batteries and Maluccio (2003) for further analysis of the empowerment effects using the photovoltaic panels on a solar pump). of assets brought to marriage. 1 3 What happens after technology adoption? Gendered aspects of small-scale irrigation… 679 regard vegetable gardening as a low income generating making with their spouse. Women in Dimbisinia in Ghana, activity compared to tomatoes even if the processes are the said that irrigated farming “makes people appreciate you … same” (Nyamazugo, Tanzania). In Nyamatongo, a woman gives you a sense of belonging.” explains that the sale of vegetables is “your money and he doesn’t ask you.” Because men’s “eyes are onto high-income Alienation rights activities that generate money in a lump sum, that is why they are not so much into vegetables, though they can still Alienation rights refer to the right to transfer by sale, lease, borrow money from you” (Nyampande, Tanzania). However, gift, or inheritance. We did not find instances of alienation of in Nyampande, women note that men now “can even ask for irrigation technology itself, as there is not much of a second- 1000 shillings, and you can’t deny him because he knows ary market for the equipment. However, patterns of aliena- you have money.” tion rights over other assets indicate that they are held pre- Women across sites value the independence and respect dominantly by men. In Nyamazugo, Tanzania, men say that from generating income. Women appreciate not having to it is common to give woman a plot of land and take it away ask their husbands for money to purchase food or other from her at the husband’s discretion, and she cannot protest household needs. In Robit, Ethiopia, women said, “We do as long as men fulfill their role by bringing home meat for not expect money from men’s hand; there will be no problem the family. Women in Nyampande similarly reflect that hus- for [women to pay for] home expenses” because “generat- bands can lease out a piece of land, which women may have ing income avoids dependency on men.” Women in Nyama- been using, and only inform them afterward. Women in this tongo, Tanzania note: “It has changed due to gardens … community also comment that they do not have alienation It’s different because I don’t depend on a man, since I sell rights over even small assets like poultry: “You know they the vegetables and get money and buy exercise books [for are talking of gender equality, but in reality, it does not exist. children’s schooling], buy soaps and clothes.” At times, you may have to ask for permission to slaughter In the Ghana sites, women play an active role in taking chicken for visitors; otherwise, if you force doing it, you will produce to markets and negotiating prices. Both women and have to pay for it later.” men see irrigation as enabling women to obtain their own In Ghana, pumps are major assets, as valuable as cows, income and be less reliant on men. Women expressed sat- and therefore are considered men’s property within the isfaction that after adopting irrigation practices, they were household. In Nyangua, women said that cattle belong to the able to pay school fees and medical costs for their children husband regardless of whose money was used to buy them. without relying on their husbands, as well as purchase small Likewise, in Zanlerigu, women discussed pumps as assets items for themselves, such as new shoes. In Bihinayiili, similar to cattle; women can “own” animals, but they are Ghana, women said: “Our husbands cannot tell us how to regarded as men’s assets and a woman needs her husband’s spend our income.” As noted above, in one site, men par- permission to buy or sell animals. Women say that even if ticularly supported women’s irrigation on the women’s plots they are given a pump by a project or purchase one on their to increase their wives’ cash income because this meant the own, the men in the household will own the pump. women were less likely to migrate to work as hired farm labor. Women’s fructus rights may also be limited to the types Discussion and conclusion of purchases they can make. In Lemo, Ethiopia, women’s fructus right extends only to using the income from irri- Despite the associated time and energy burden, women value gated farming on food and small household purchases, but irrigation, particularly for crops and plots where they control in Robit, Ethiopia, women bought clothes with the income management and fructus rights. However, in our study sites, earned from irrigating vegetables near the household using women typically hold management and fructus rights on manual water-lifting technologies. small-scale horticulture plots where they use labor-intensive Some cases noted nonfinancial benefits related to social irrigation methods. On these plots, they secure these rights status. Women in Zanlerigu, Ghana, said that irrigated farm- in exchange for providing nearly all the labor to irrigate, with ing (with watering cans) had increased their income, and as little help from husbands or hired labor. The time they can their individual income increased, so did their joint decision dedicate to this work is limited, after prioritizing their labor for domestic responsibilities and agricultural work on family plots. Men then point to women’s domestic work obligations This distinction between referring to women growing vegetables as and resulting time constraints to argue that women’s greater “gardening” versus growing tomatoes (which are a vegetable but pre- investment of time on their own plots or wider rights to a sumably a monocrop) mirrors the development discourse that often technology on the family plot will harm women’s ability to refers to the former as “kitchen gardens” and the latter as “horticul- carry out their familial duties. ture.” 1 3 680 S. Theis et al. Even though use and management rights are not a guar- rights to technology can be subject to a form of elite capture antee of fructus or alienation rights, use rights do seem to within the institution of the household. As previous studies strengthen claims to fructus and alienation rights. Women have found, in the absence of complementary institutional expressed feeling cheated when their husbands sell paddy or social change, targeting women with technology alone is that was produced through their labor without the women’s unlikely to confer full rights over the technology to women, knowledge. Despite this awareness of inequity, none of since the rules of the household often override any norms the women cited examples of successfully negotiating for or expectations promoted by projects, and historically men fructus rights. Information asymmetry regarding the sale have been adept at interceding to appropriate a technology of irrigated produce, time constraints, limited mobility, and or economic activity once it is shown to be profitable (Jones the fear of compromising their economic security derived 1983; von Braun and Webb 1989; Quisumbing and Kumar through these relationships strongly inhibit women’s ability 2011). to negotiate their fructus rights. Of the set of rights in this framework, use rights are most In their review of gender differences in agricultural tech- commonly measured by projects and fructus rights are most nologies, Peterman et al. (2010) note that given equal access often overlooked. So-called “female-friendly technologies” to technology, men and women are often equally likely to aim to design products for women’s ease and comfort in use. adopt technologies. Yet access is rarely equal. Much of the However, the right to use a technology does not necessarily gender and technology adoption research to date has thus confer other rights. In the absence of other rights, the use focused on understanding gendered constraints around right may simply represent greater labor burden for women. access to technology (Peterman et al. 2010), including fac- Fructus rights, in contrast, need to be systematically tors that disadvantage women from learning about, purchas- addressed. Fructus rights are an important gendered impact ing, and using a technology (Magnan et al. 2014; Ragasa of technology adoption and a factor influencing adoption et al. 2014), and aspects of technological design and choice and investment behavior. Though women face significant that better address women’s needs and preferences (Carr and constraints to claiming fructus rights within the household, Hartl 2010; Quisumbing and Pandolfelli 2010). Although they highly value these rights and employ different strate- it is important to consider these factors, the emphasis on gies to maintain them. If they perceive that men are likely gendered constraints to access effectively treats technology to appropriate fructus rights beyond a certain threshold of acquisition as the end goal. Without attention to household income, some women choose economic activities that gener- structure and intrahousehold dynamics, it is only an assump- ate lower sums of income and are sold continually over time, tion that the woman who appears to adopt the technology rather than “lumpy” (large and infrequent) sales. Projects actually controls and benefits from it. that attempt to shift women’s production to different crops, Applying an adapted bundle of rights framework to the or to commercialize traditional women’s crops, may also risk household allows us to draw new attention to the intra- women losing fructus rights (see Fischer and Qaim [2012] household implications of smallholder technology adop- for the case of commercialized banana production in Kenya). tion. Household members hold overlapping, dynamic, and In addition, fructus rights are particularly weak when there negotiable rights over technology. How rights are distrib- is information asymmetry over the sales of joint produc- uted varies from household to household. Identifying the tion. Formalized value chains associated with irrigated pro- use, fructus, management, and alienation rights held by duction may increase information asymmetry. Support for different people reveals intrahousehold differences in con- women’s claims to fructus rights could include increased trol over technology, experience of its costs and benefits, access to market information, joint digital financial services and associated shifts in power. Furthermore, expectations that provide transaction alerts, and transparent and acces- about whether women can claim their rights likely influence sible documentation of sales. men and women’s willingness to try out a technology in the Notably, the cases suggest that household rights to tech- first place. Fisher et al. (2000) found that where wives had nology are potentially malleable. Transformative approaches higher bargaining power, households were more likely to can work inside and outside the household. Such approaches reject adopting labor-intensive cattle stabling technology, can engage with couples and communities to reflect on gen- which women perceived would cause an increase in their der roles and relations, and support groups of women to labor and loss of control over milk sales. Other studies have reflect on their shared challenges and rights while receiv - found that women reduce their labor on their husband’s plots ing technologies, assets, and training to secure their benefits to minimum acceptable levels when they do not expect to be from production. On the latter approach, we found that pro- able to control the outputs (van Koppen and Hussain 2007). jects targeting women struggled when men blocked wom- Although a focus on removing barriers to women’s acqui- en’s participation in groups or chose not to tell them about sition of technologies is well intended, projects that pro- meetings and other opportunities. Informing men about the mote irrigation technology for women should be aware that purpose of these activities and demonstrating the benefits to 1 3 What happens after technology adoption? Gendered aspects of small-scale irrigation… 681 the family may facilitate men’s support for women’s involve- the household. This study focused on women in married ment, and men’s respect for women can grow when women (male-headed) households in Ethiopia, Ghana, and Tanza- demonstrate that they can bring in income through these nia, where women often depend on husbands for access to activities (Naved 2000; Quisumbing and Pandolfelli 2010). land and typically cultivate both a joint and individually Group distribution of technology can have other benefits managed plot with some independent control over income. beyond securing rights. Quisumbing and Kumar (2011) find The framework may not apply as well to other settings, that agricultural technologies disseminated through women’s for example where male- rather than dual-farming sys- groups not only lead to an increase in women’s assets rela- tems are dominant (van Koppen and Hussain 2007) or in tive to men’s within the household, but also strengthened other geographies (see Akter et al. [2017] for how these women’s social capital, which substituted in the short term challenges, largely studied and understood in the African for lack of physical capital and in the long term helped build context, differ in Southeast Asia). As such, it is meant to women’s assets. suggest new lines of inquiry rather than prescribe a uni- Rights to irrigation technology are linked to gendered versally applicable intervention approach. land rights and division of labor. Just as men often allocate Irrigation technologies can generate new livelihood plots of land to women only for subsistence-level production opportunities, enhance resilience, and increase productiv- (Lambrecht 2016), our research showed that women rarely ity. Development partners promoting these technologies used mechanized irrigation technologies on their own plots could strengthen development outcomes by understand- of land. On plots that they managed, women predominantly ing how technologies are used, by whom, and for what used manual irrigation technologies without help from their purpose. Some interventions assume that simply reach- husbands or hired labor. Mechanized irrigation technologies ing women with technology—for example, distributing were largely applied on men’s plots, where men controlled motor pumps to women—leads to empowerment, and so most rights, and women held only use rights to these tech- less attention is given to monitoring if or how this happens nologies as “helpers” to their husbands. (Johnson et al. 2017). Instead, investigating how rights Nonetheless, women do express demand for mechanized are distributed can shed light on how technology adoption irrigation technologies, seeking greater financial independ- affects women and men differently within a household. ence and household food security. Initial evidence from This evidence will help ensure that technology adoption these cases suggests the aspects of technologies that women strategically advances development objectives such as food prefer in the context of intrahousehold rights. In Ethiopia, and nutritional security, resilience, and women’s empow- women saw motor pumps as adding to their time burden erment, rather than taking technology adoption as an end and instead preferred solar pumps that could reduce both in and of itself. domestic and field labor requirements. Solar appears to be Acknowledgements We gratefully acknowledge Likie Nigussie (Ethi- a promising technology for women (Burney et  al. 2013; opia), Christopher Magomba and Elizabeth Mshote (Tanzania), and IRENA 2016). Nigussie et al. (2017) identified that women Elsie Odonkor and Afishata Mohammed Abujaja (Ghana) for lead- preferred solar pumps located near the household where ing data collection and skillfully facilitating discussions with men and women had more control over information and production. women in the three countries. We recognize the invaluable time and willingness to share personal experiences that discussion participants Solar pumps with lower power capacity may limit the poten- generously extended to the research team in each country. We thank tial groundwater lifting rate but could be suitable for crops Claudia Ringler and David Spielman for providing helpful feedback that women produce on small plots near the household and at multiple stages of paper preparation. This work was undertaken as over which women have greater control over revenues. Mul- part of the Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Small-Scale Irrigation supported by the United States Agency for International Development tiuse pumps, sited in locations convenient for both men’s and (USAID) and forms part of the CGIAR Research Programs on Water, women’s plots and compatible with different uses of water Land, and Ecosystems (WLE) and Policies, Institutions, and Markets and application methods, could promote joint use and shared (PIM). management rights over water-lifting technology. Portability Funding This study was funded by the Feed the Future Innovation Lab and location of installation may therefore affect women’s for Small-Scale Irrigation through the United States Agency for Interna- fructus rights. tional Development (USAID) (Grant Number AID-OAA-A-13-00055). Further research is needed to test and apply this frame- work to inform inclusive technology diffusion efforts, Compliance with ethical standards including how design characteristics of technology and adoption modality affect the intrahousehold distribution Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of of rights, which rights men and women prefer in differ - interest. ent contexts, and how different empowerment approaches Ethical approval All procedures performed in studies involving human and aspects of empowerment (e.g. literacy, socioeconomic participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the insti- status) can facilitate women’s rights to technology within 1 3 682 S. Theis et al. tutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Development 74: 171–183. https ://doi.or g/10.1016/j.w or ld Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. dev.2015.05.001. Doss, C. R., and M. Morris. 2001. How does gender affect the adoption of agricultural innovations? The case of improved maize technol- Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Crea- ogy in Ghana. Agricultural Economics 25 (1): 27–39. https ://doi. tive Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creat iveco org/10.1111/j.1574-0862.2001.tb002 33.x. mmons.or g/licenses/b y/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribu- Doss, C. R., W. M. Mwangi, H. Verkuijl, and H. De Groote. 2003. tion, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate Adoption of maize and wheat technologies in eastern Africa: A credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the synthesis of the findings of 22 case studies. International Maize Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) Economics Work- ing Paper. Mexico City: CIMMYT. http://r epos it or y .cimm y t.org/handl e/10883 /1037. Accessed 15 March 2017. Doss, C. R., C. D. Deere, A. D. Oduro, and H. Swaminathan. 2014. The gender asset and wealth gaps. Development 57 (3–4): 400– References 409. https ://doi.org/10.1057/dev.2015.10. Drechsel, P., A. Olaleye, A. Adeoti, L. Thiombiano, B. Barry, and Akter, S. P., J. Rutsaert, N. Luis, S. Htwe, B. San, Raharjo, and A. K. Vohland. 2006. Adoption drivers and constraints of resource Pustika. 2017. Women’s empowerment and gender equity in agri- conservation technologies in Sub-Saharan Africa. http://hdl. culture: A different perspective from Southeast Asia. Food Policy handl e.ne t/10568 /36743 (unpublished paper). Accessed 15 69 (C): 270–279. https ://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodp ol.2017.05.003. March 2017. Alchian, A., and H. Demsetz. 1972. Production, information costs, Eggertsson, T. 1990. Economic behavior and institutions. Cam- and economic organization. American Economic Review 62 (S): bridge: Cambridge University Press. 777–795. Ethiopian Agricultural Transformation Agency. 2018. Irrigation and Alderman, H., P. Chiappori, L. Haddad, J. Hoddinott, and R. Kanbur. drainage: Why is transformation needed in this program area? 1995. Unitary versus collective models of the household: Is it time http://www.ata.gov.et/progr ams/susta inabl e-inclu sive-growt h/ to shift the burden of proof? World Bank Research Observer 10 irrig ation -drain age. Accessed 3 Feb 2018. (1): 1–19. https ://doi.org/10.1093/wbro/10.1.1. Fischer, E., and M. Qaim. 2012. Gender, agricultural commer- Ani, A., O. Ogunnika, and S. S. Ifah. 2004. Relationship between cialization, and collective action in Kenya. Food Policy 4 (3): socio-economic characteristics of rural women farmers and their 441–453. adoption of farm technologies in Southern Eboni State, Nigeria. Fisher, M., R. Warner, and W. Masters. 2000. Gender and agricul- International Journal of Agriculture and Biology 6 (5): 802–805. tural change: Crop-livestock integration in Senegal. Society and Beekman, W., G. J. Veldwisch, and A. Bolding. 2014. Identifying the Natural Resources 13 (3): 203–222. https://doi.or g/10.1080/08941 potential for irrigation development in Mozambique: Capitalizing 92002 79063 . on the drivers behind farmer-led irrigation expansion. Physics and Helen Keller International. 2014. Helping families grow better food: Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C 76–78:54–63. The enhanced homestead food production program. http://www. Benjaminsen, T. A., and B. Ba. 2009. Farmer–herder conflicts, pasto- hki.org/our-work/improving-nutr ition/helpi ng-f amilies-g row-bette ral marginalization and corruption: A case study from the Inland r-food#.WPEjI YWcGw A. Accessed 12 May 2017. Niger Delta of Mali. The Geographical Journal 175 (1): 71–81. Hunecke, C., A. Engler, R. Jara-Rojas, and P. M. Poortvliet. 2017. https ://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4959.2008.00312 .x. Understanding the role of social capital in adoption decisions: Burney, J. A., R. Naylor, and S. Postel. 2013. The case for distributed An application to irrigation technology. Agricultural Systems 153: irrigation as a development priority in Sub-Saharan Africa. Pro- 221–231. https ://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2017.02.002. ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110 (31): 12513– Huyer, S. 2016. Closing the gender gap in agriculture. Gender, Technol- 12517. https ://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.12035 97110 . ogy and Development 20 (2): 1–12. https://doi.or g/10.1177/09718 Carr, M., and M. Hartl. 2010. Lightening the load: Labour-saving 52416 64387 2. technologies and practices for rural women. Rugby: International IRENA. 2016. Solar pumping for irrigation: Improving livelihoods and Fund for Agricultural Development and Practical Action. sustainability. IRENA Policy Brief. Abu Dhabi: The International Conley, T., and C. Udry. 2001. Social learning through networks: The Renewable Energy Agency. adoption of new agricultural technologies in Ghana. American Johnson, N. L., C. Kovarik, R. Meinzen-Dick, J. Njuki, and A. Qui- Journal of Agricultural Economics 83 (3): 668–673. https ://doi. sumbing. 2016. Gender, assets, and agricultural development: org/10.1016/j.agwat .2013.07.005. Lessons from eight projects. World Development 83: 295–311. de Fraiture, C., and M. Giordano. 2014. Small private irrigation: A https ://doi.org/10.1016/j.world dev.2016.01.009. thriving but overlooked sector. Agricultural Water Management Johnson, N., M. Balagamwala, C. Pinkstaff, S. Theis, R. Meinzen- 131: 167–174. https ://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat .2013.07.005. Dick, and A. Quisumbing. 2017. How do agricultural develop- Domènech, L. 2015. Improving irrigation access to combat food inse- ment projects aim to empower women? Insights from an analysis curity and undernutrition: A review. Global Food Security 6: of project strategies. IFPRI Discussion Paper 1609. Washington, 24–33. https ://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2015.09.001. DC: International Food Policy Research Institute. Doss, C. R. 1996. Testing among models of intrahousehold resource Jones, C. 1983. The mobilization of women’s labor in cash crop allocation. World Development 24 (10): 1597–1609. https ://doi. production: A game theoretic approach. American Journal org/10.1016/0305-750X(96)00063 -0. of Agricultural Economics 65 (5): 1049–1054. https ://doi. Doss, C. R. 2001. Designing agricultural technology for African org/10.2307/12404 17. women farmers: Lessons from 25 years of experience. World Lambrecht, I. B. 2016. “As a husband I will love, lead, and provide.” Development 29 (12): 2075–2092. https://doi.or g/10.1016/S0305 Gendered access to land in Ghana. World Development 88: 188– -750X(01)00088 -2. 200. https ://doi.org/10.1016/j.world dev.2016.07.018. Doss, C. R., and R. Meinzen-Dick. 2015. Collective action within the Lambrecht, I., B. Vanlauwe, R. Merckx, and M. Maertens. 2014. household: Insights from natural resource management. World Understanding the process of agricultural technology adoption: 1 3 What happens after technology adoption? Gendered aspects of small-scale irrigation… 683 Mineral fertilizer in eastern DR Congo. World Development 59: Quisumbing, A. R., and N. Kumar. 2011. Does social capital build 132–146. https ://doi.org/10.1016/j.world dev.2014.01.024. women’s assets? The long-term impacts of group-based and indi- Lindner, R. K., P. G. Pardey, and F. G. Jarrett. 1982. Distance to infor- vidual dissemination of agricultural technology in Bangladesh. mation source and the time lag to early adoption of trace element Journal of Development Effectiveness 3 (2): 220–242. https://doi. fertilizers. Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics 26 (2): org/10.1080/19439 342.2011.57045 0. 98–113. https ://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8489.1982.tb006 18.x. Quisumbing, A. R., and J. Maluccio. 2003. Resources at marriage and Magnan, N., K. Gulati, T. Lybbert, and D. Spielman. 2014. Gender intrahousehold allocation: Evidence from Bangladesh, Ethiopia, dimensions of social networks and technology adoption in eastern Indonesia, and South Africa. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Uttar Pradesh, India. http://cega.berke ley.edu/asset s/cega_event Statistics 65 (3): 283–328. ht tp s : //d oi .o rg /1 0. 11 11 /1 46 8- 00 84 . s/61/3B_R ole_of_Gende r_in_N e two r k s__Bar g a ining __and_ t01-1-00052 . Emplo yment .pdf. Quisumbing, A. R., and L. Pandolfelli. 2010. Promising approaches to Meinzen-Dick, R., and M. Zwarteveen. 1998. Gendered participation address the needs of poor female farmers: Resources, constraints, in water management: Issues and illustrations from water users’ and interventions. World Development 38 (4): 581–592. https :// associations in South Asia. Agriculture and Human Values 15 (4): doi.org/10.1016/j.world dev.2009.10.006. 337–345. https ://doi.org/10.1023/A:10075 33018 254. Quisumbing, A. R., S. Roy, J. Njuki, K. Tanvin, and E. Waithanji. Meinzen-Dick, R., A. Quisumbing, J. Behrman, P. Biermayr-Jenzano, 2013. Can dairy value-chain projects change gender norms in V. Wilde, M. Noordeloos, C. Ragasa, and N. Beintema. 2011. rural Bangladesh? Impacts on assets, gender norms, and time Engendering agricultural research. IFPRI Monograph. Washing- use. IFPRI Discussion Paper 01311. Washington, DC: Interna- ton, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute. tional Food Policy Research Institute. Merrey, D. 2006. Agricultural water management technologies for Ragasa, C., D. Sengupta, M. Osorio, N. Ourabah Haddad, and K. small-scale farmers in southern Africa: An inventory and assess- Mathieson. 2014. Gender-specific approaches, rural institu- ment of experiences, good practices and costs. Pretoria: Interna- tions and technical innovations. Rome: Food and Agricultural tional Water Management Institute. Organization of the United Nations, International Food Policy Namara, R. E., L. Hope., E. O. Sarpong, C. de Fraiture, and D. Owusu. Research Institute, and Global Forum on Agricultural Research. 2014. Adoption patterns and constraints pertaining to small-scale http://ebrary .ifpri.or g/cdm/ref/collection /p1573 8coll 2/id/12903 water lifting technologies in Ghana. Agricultural Water Manage- 9. Accessed 25 Aug 2016. ment 131: 194–203. https://doi.or g/10.1016/j.agwat.2013.08.023 . Roy, S., J. Ara, N. Das, and A. Quisumbing. 2015. “Flypaper effects” Naved, R. T. 2000. Intrahousehold impact of the transfer of modern in transfers targeted to women: Evidence from BRAC’s “Target- agricultural technology: A gender perspective. Food Consumption ing the Ultra Poor” program in Bangladesh. Journal of Devel- and Nutrition Division Discussion Paper 85. Washington, DC: opment Economics 117: 1–19. https ://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeve International Food Policy Research Institute. co.2015.06.004. NEPAD (New Partnership for Africa Development)/CAADP (Com- Schlager, E., and E. Ostrom. 1992. Property-rights regimes and natu- prehensive Africa Agricultural Development Program). 2009. ral resources: A conceptual analysis. Land Economics 68 (3): Sustainable land and water management: The CAADP Pillar I 249–262. program. Midrand: NEPAD. Siebert, S., J. Burke, J. M. Faures, K. Frenken, J. Hoogeveen, P. Doll, Nigussie, L., N. Lefore, P. Schmitter, and A. Nicol. 2017. Gender and and F. T. Portmann. 2010. Groundwater use for irrigation—A water technologies: Water lifting for irrigation and multiple pur- global inventory. Hydrology and Earth Systems Sciences 14: poses in Ethiopia. Africa RISING Report. Addis Ababa: Inter- 1863–1880. https ://doi.org/10.5194/hess-14-1863-2010. national Livestock Research Institute. https ://cgspa ce.cgiar .org/ Tiwari, N. 2010. Economic and technological constraints facing farm bitstr eam/handle/10568 /79989 /AR_Et hiopia_g ender_w ater_f eb20 women. International Journal of Rural Studies 17 (1): 1–5. 17.pdf?seque nce=1. Accessed 2 March 2017. Upadhyay, B. 2004. Gender aspects of smallholder irrigation technol- Njuki, J., E. Waithanji, B. Sakwa, J. Kariuki, E. Mukewa, and J. Ngige. ogy: Insights from Nepal. Journal of Applied Irrigation Science 2014. A qualitative assessment of gender and irrigation technol- 39(2): 315–327. http://lib.icimo d.org/recor d/11464 /files /4960. ogy in Kenya and Tanzania. Gender, Technology, and Develop- pdf. Accessed 29 Aug 2016. ment 18(3): 303–340. http://gtd.sagep ub.com/conte nt/18/3/303. van Koppen, B. 1998. Water rights, gender, and poverty allevia- short . Accessed 25 Aug 2016. tion: Inclusion and exclusion of women and men smallhold- Olwande, J., G. Sikei, and M. Mathenge. 2009. Agricultural technology ers in public irrigation infrastructure development. Agri- adoption: A panel analysis of smallholder farmers’ fertilizer use culture and Human Values 15 (4): 361–374. https ://doi. in Kenya. CEGA Working Paper Series AfD-0908. Berkeley: Uni-org/10.1023/A:10075 37119 163. versity of California Center of Evaluation for Global Action. https van Koppen, B., and I. Hussain. 2007. Gender and irrigation: Over- ://escho larsh ip.org/uc/item/96662 20j. Accessed 15 March 2017. view of issues and options. Irrigation and Drainage 56: 289– Peterman, A., J. Behrman, and A. Quisumbing. 2010. A review of 298. https ://doi.org/10.1002/ird.296. empirical evidence on gender differences in non- land agricultural van Koppen, B., L. Hope, and W. Colenbrander. 2012. Gender inputs, technology, and services in developing countries. ESA aspects of small-scale private irrigation in Africa. IWMI Working Paper No. 11–11. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organi- Working Paper 153. Colombo: International Water Manage- zation of the United Nations. http://www.fao.org/3/a-am316e.pdf . ment Institute. Accessed 29 Aug 2016. von Braun, J., and P. Webb. 1989. The impact of new crop tech- Peterman, A., A. Quisumbing, J. Behrman, and E. Nkonya. 2011. nology on the agricultural division of labor in a West African Understanding the complexities surrounding gender differences setting. Economic Development and Cultural Change 37 (20): in agricultural productivity in Nigeria and Uganda. The Jour- 513–534. nal of Development Studies 47 (10): 1482–1509. https ://doi. von Benda-Beckmann, F., K. von Benda-Beckmann, and M. Wiber. org/10.1080/00220 388.2010.53622 2. 2006. The properties of property. In Changing properties of prop- Quisumbing, A. R. 1995. Gender differences in agricultural productiv - erty, eds. F. von Benda-Beckmann, K. von Benda-Beckmann, and ity: A survey of empirical evidence. Food Consumption and Nutri- M. Wiber, 1–39. New York: Berghahn Books. Woodhouse, P., G. J. Veldwisch, J. Venot, D. Brockington, H. tion Division Discussion Paper 5. Washington, DC: International Komakech, and A. Manjichi. 2017. African farmer-led irrigation Food Policy Research Institute. 1 3 684 S. Theis et al. development: Re-framing agricultural policy and investment? Sophie Theis is a Research Analyst in the Environment and Produc- The Journal of Peasant Studies 44 (1): 213–233. h ttps :/ /doi. tion Technology Division of the International Food Policy Research org/10.1080/03066 150.2016.12197 19. Institute, Washington, DC. Xie, H., L. You, B. Wielgosz, and C. Ringler. 2014. Estimating the potential for expanding smallholder irrigation in Sub-Saharan Nicole Lefore is a Senior Project Manager, Research for Develop- Africa. Agricultural Water Management 131 (1): 183–193. https ment, at the International Water Management Institute, Pretoria, South ://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat .2013.08.011. Africa. You, L., C. Ringler, G. Nelson, U. Wood-Sichra, R. Robertson, S. Wood, Z. Guo, T. Zhu, and Y. Sun. 2010. What is the irrigation Ruth Meinzen-Dick is a Senior Research Fellow in the Environment potential for Africa? A combined biophysical and socioeconomic and Production Technology Division of the International Food Policy approach. Environment and Production Technology Division. Research Institute, Washington, DC. IFPRI Discussion Paper 993. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute. Elizabeth Bryan is a Senior Research Analyst in the Environment Zwarteveen, M. Z. 1997. Water: From basic need to commodity: A and Production Technology Division of the International Food Policy discussion on gender and water rights in the context of irrigation. Research Institute, Washington, DC. World Development 25 (8): 1335–1349. https ://doi.org/10.1016/ S0305 -750X(97)00032 -6. 1 3

Journal

Agriculture and Human Values – Springer Journals

Published: Apr 25, 2018

There are no references for this article.