Menu
Production line in a chocolate factory.

Engendering benefits for all

Linda Mayoux | October 07, 2009

Gender inequalities affect the ways in which value chains operate at all levels. Promoting gender justice can result in a ‘quadruple win–win’, benefiting women, men and enterprises throughout the chain, as well as national economies.

Women are important as producers and workers in most value chains, supplying national and international markets with both traditional and high-value products such as textiles, coffee and cocoa. Yet there is evidence that women are often marginalized or excluded from the more profitable parts of agricultural and manufacturing chains.

Women-owned businesses face many more constraints than those run by men, and have more limited access to financial and other services. In multinational manufacturing and agricultural chains, even where enterprises are governed by ethical codes, there is often a division of labour based on gender stereotypes. Permanent and full-time work may be reserved for men, and women’s work is arbitrarily assumed to be of lower value. For commodities like coffee and cocoa, women often do most of the cultivation. But because the land usually belongs to their husbands, women are not eligible to join cooperatives or receive credit, and are not targeted in technical training. Lack of credit also excludes women from participation in the more profitable downstream trading activities. Moreover, women are often unable to seek out the best markets for their products due to their heavy workloads (cultivation, barter trade, caring for children), lack of money for transport, and sometimes threats of gender-based violence. Because men own the land they also consider themselves entitled to control the income from cash crops.

Even in inclusive cooperatives that have rules stipulating women’s representation in management, women are generally in the minority and often do not speak at meetings. Fair trade and ethical codes of conduct generally only cover permanent workers, excluding the majority of women who are either part-time/casual workers or unpaid family workers. The Common Code for the Coffee Community (2004), for example, does mention gender equity, but does not carry this through to a commitment to gender equality in access to services or support changes at the household level.

Value chain interventions may actually increase such disparities. Recent research by the World Bank, IFPRI and others, shows that gender inequalities are a key constraint on economic growth and a major cause of poverty not only for women, but also their families and communities. Value chain interventions aim to upgrade the chain as a contributor to national economic growth, but also to contribute to poverty reduction by making sure that workers and small producers are the main beneficiaries of the upgrading. But most of the interventions carried out by development agencies continue to ignore gender issues despite official commitments to the contrary. As a result, women are not only often excluded, but gender inequalities actually increase, which further contributes to the unacceptably high gender disparities on all human development indicators.

For instance, when development-oriented chain interventions introduce organic cultivation, this often increases women’s labour more than that of men, but it does not necessarily increase women’s control of income. Their incomes may even fall as women, already overworked, are unable to reduce the time they spend growing food, and so spend less time with their children and on their own economic activities. In households that get involved in fair trade, men (any man present is generally assumed to be the ‘head’ of the household) may take over many production and household expenditure decisions that were formerly seen as women’s domains. In Uganda, women in fruit and vegetable trade lost out as markets were developed in Kampala and for export. In Côte d’Ivoire, government regulations on cooperatives in the cocoa industry have made participation by women’s groups very difficult, further marginalizing women coffee producers. Low incomes, lack of control over incomes and gender discrimination in access to credit and training reinforce a cycle whereby women farmers are unable to invest in their crops or buy more fertile land, leading to lower yields and inefficiency in production.

Promoting women’s brands

Many value chain analyses recommend addressing women’s exclusion by setting up women’s cooperatives in economic activities dominated by women. Evidence shows that these are only likely to succeed if women’s property rights and training are paid due attention. Where this is done, it is possible to set up cooperatives, or specific women’s brands, in new or even male-dominated crops, in order to establish women as effective and competitive producers in their own right.

One successful example, from Peru, is Cafe Femenino, a women’s coffee brand that was conceived in response to the negligible presence of women in coffee producer cooperatives despite their prominent role in production. The programme, which focuses on selling organic coffee to women’s organizations, pays the women directly, significantly increasing their control over household incomes. By 2008 over 1000 women were involved, demonstrating that women are able to develop and produce quality coffee. The venture has boosted their confidence and increased their bargaining strength with more powerful actors in the chain, including banks and traders. This then has a spin-off effect in changing market perceptions and conditions for other women both locally and nationally. A similar example from Nicaragua is the smaller Las Hermanas women’s fair trade coffee cooperative. Other chains where women have benefited and improved their position are those for shea nuts in Mali and cashews in Mozambique.

Not all women’s cooperatives have been so successful, however. Many projects have been very maternalistic, attempting to shelter women from the market rather than increase their integration by changing market structures. They have proceeded from stereotypical assumptions about what women need, rather than challenging stereotypes. The cooperatives are generally managed by men or much richer women. Lack of transparency and low levels of literacy frequently lead to corruption, or at least allegations of corruption that disrupt the business. Other women’s cooperatives have proved unsustainable either due to their lack of attention to developing women’s independent entrepreneurial capacities as a solid basis for collaboration, or because often they are taken over by men as soon as they become profitable. Women’s cooperatives, like men’s, need to pay attention to entrepreneurial dimensions of cooperative development (see ‘The challenge of entrepreneurship in agricultural cooperatives’, by Roldan Muradian and Ellen Mangnus) and to identify clearly how economic benefits can be obtained from collaboration between entrepreneurs, rather than assuming cooperatives are always the best solution.

Lastly, women in women’s cooperatives do not necessarily control the income they earn. This shows that a major problem of women’s subordinate role in value chains lies in the entrenched gender inequalities at community and household levels. Setting up separate women’s cooperatives can therefore only ever be part of a solution, one strategy among many to tackle gender inequality in value chains. In some chains a better strategy may be to address market constraints directly through policy change, and to build up women’s individual abilities to engage in the market, developing their own forms of collaboration as they go along.

Addressing underlying inequalities

Value chain interventions will have limited success unless they address the underlying inequalities and discrimination that cause women’s, and poor men’s, lack of negotiating power and vulnerability within value chains. This is recognized in the policies of the Uganda Coffee Development Authority, for example, which aims not only to upgrade coffee production and expand the local market, but also livelihood diversification to increase food security and alternative sources of income.

Decreased dependency and increased livelihood options means people’s market bargaining power within any one value chain is strengthened. It is therefore increasingly argued that gender mainstreaming is needed at a number of interlinked levels, all of which directly affect the effectiveness of value chain development:

  • Household and community: to address gender inequalities in terms of power and access to resources, including rights to land and other assets, incomes, division of labour, violence and social constraints on women’s mobility.
  • Markets: to remove gender discrimination in access to inputs, land, employment and the ability to trade freely and participate in management of markets. This includes practical measures to increase security and sanitation and women’s access to market registration.
  • Policy level: to reinforce all of the above through legislation backed by legal and regulatory systems, including for cooperatives, property, labour rights, gender-based violence, as well as improved social support through both market-based and public services and taxation. Also integration of gender equality in all dimensions of the certification process for all stakeholders, not only women labourers.
  • Institutional level: to integrate gender analysis into all value chain analysis, to remove gender discrimination in access to financial services (enabling women to graduate from small savings and loans) and training, and to integrate gender issues into services for both women and men (for example in the design of products and training). And to increase women’s meaningful participation in economic decision-making and planning at all levels.

 Participatory learning for gender equity

It is frequently assumed that men, because they so often take women’s incomes and businesses, are necessarily opposed to gender equity and that change is necessarily conflictual. But this is by no means always the case. Women’s empowerment and gender equity can result in a win–win for both, as is evident from experience with the Gender Action Learning System (GALS), a participatory methodology used with 1500 coffee producers in western Uganda. The use of this methodology catalyzed a process of community-led change in which women and men developed their visions of a happy future together, by analyzing the gender opportunities and the constraints that prevent them from achieving this, and developing personal and livelihood development plans to move forward.

Women have used the GALS methodology to develop business plans and market analyses, thereby gaining respect from the men within their communities and building support for their activities. Over 500 men have developed plans to change their behaviour in relation to issues like alcoholism, adultery, violence and sharing household work, and many of these have been implemented. Men as well as women now recognize that women do a large part of the work and they have come to question traditional power relations, even addressing inequalities in land ownership. A specific feature of this methodology is its potential for upscaling and sustainability. Women and men farmers and entrepreneurs share their strategies and the methodology with others in their households and communities as well as in group meetings, church and local government meetings. The approach is therefore spread through sustainable peer learning with minimal external facilitation beyond establishing the methodology. Transparency and relations with local government have also improved, benefiting the whole community.

The quadruple ‘win–win’

The experience in Uganda shows that whole communities, including women and men, can benefit from value chain interventions that take gender equity as their starting point. The World Bank, based on a study in Burkina Faso, Kenya and Tanzania, has estimated that providing women producers and entrepreneurs in agricultural and manufacturing value chains with the same inputs and education as men could increase their output and incomes by about 10–20%. Because in many contexts women are seen as the main people responsible for provisioning for children and their households, increasing their incomes is a crucial element in poverty reduction for entire households. This is particularly the case in regions and households where there are high levels of polygamy and/or marital instability, and of male alcoholism and/or drug addiction. In some areas, up to 70% of farming households, including men, recognize that excessive male alcoholism and/or expenditures on prostitution and/or gambling are serious problems. Women’s low incomes are an important factor in the perpetuation of child labour.

But there is more to be gained. The benefits of a gender focus to enterprises further up the chain are also considerable. Where women are empowered and organized, they are more able to produce quality goods and manage their livelihoods so that they are more flexible to market demand. In Uganda, Kampala coffee traders are now seeking to deal directly with the women’s groups. In Kenya, flower and textile exporters report that if their women workers are happy and well trained, there is less absenteeism and they have fewer problems in recruitment. In Bangladesh, textile industry enterprises that cannot retain a satisfied female workforce have high training costs through high worker dropout. Although there will always be some conflict of interest between traders and producers, and employers and employees, ethical behaviour and developing good relationships and trust are now established parts of ‘win–win’ supply chain development. The challenge is to develop participatory processes, like the GALS methodology, that can be implemented by enterprises as well as development agencies, to negotiate win–win strategies that incorporate gender concerns.

The final part of the quadruple win–win is for national economies. As discussed above, the relationship between gender equality and women’s empowerment is well established. When over half the population is not able to work efficiently because of cultural and ideological/political constraints, this inevitably undermines economic growth. The productivity benefits of addressing gender inequalities, including women’s land rights, have been demonstrated in a number of countries. Tackling those that exist in value chains for major commodities like coffee, where women do most of the work, should therefore be obvious.

This article has been prepared as part of Oxfam Novib’s Women’s Empowerment Mainstreaming and Networking (WEMAN) programme for gender justice in economic development, funded by the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). The views expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of either Oxfam Novib or IFAD.

References

Baden, S. (2001) Researching Homework and Value Chains in the Global Garments Industry: An Annotated Resource List and Binder.

Bardasi, E., C.M. Blackden and J.C. Guzman (2007) Gender, entrepreneurship and competitiveness in Africa. Africa Competitiveness Report. World Economic Forum, World Bank and African Development Bank, ch.1.4.

Barrientos, S. (2001) Gender, flexibility and global value chains. IDS Bulletin 32(3): 83.

Barrientos, S. et al. (2003) A gendered value chain approach to codes of conduct in African horticulture, World Development 31(9): 1511-1526.

Blackden, M. and C. Bhanu (1999) Gender, Growth and poverty Reduction. World Bank Tachnical Paper 428.

Bolwig, S. and M. Odeke (2007) Household Food Security Effects of Certified Organic Export Production in Tropical Africa, Export Promotion of Organic Products from Africa (EPOPA).

Bolwig, S. et al. (2008) Integrating Poverty, Gender and Environmental Concertns into Value Chain Analysis. DIIS Working Paper 2008/6. Copenhagen, Danish Institute for International Studies.

DFID (2000) Poverty Elimination and Empowerment of Women: Target Strategy Paper.
View PDF

Dolan, C., M. Opondo and S. Smith (2004) Gender, Rights & Participation in the Kenya Cut Flower Industry.
View PDF

Dolan, C.S. and K. Sutherland (2006) Gender and Employment in the Kenya Horticulture Value Chain.
View PDF

Ellis, A., C. Manuel, et al. (2006) Gender and Economic Growth in Uganda: Unleashing the Power of Women. World Bank.

Farnworth, C. and C. Ragasa (2008) Gender and agricultural markets. Gender in Agriculture Sourcebook. World Bank, FAO and IFAD, pp.173-256.
View PDF

Kabeer, N. (2004) Globalization, labour standards and women’s rights: dilemmas of collective action in an interdependent world. Feminist Economics 10(1): 3–35.

KIT, Faida MaLi and IIRR (2006) Chain Empowerment: Supporting African Farmers to Develop Markets, Royal tropical Institute (KIT), Amsterdam; Faida Market Link, Arusha; International Institute of Reconstruction, Nairobi.

Klasen, S. (2002) In search of the Holy Grail: How to Achieve Pro-poor Growth? University of Munich, Department of Economics.

Laven, A. et al. (2009) Gender in Value Chains: Emerging Lessons and Questions, draft working paper, AgriProFocus.

Mayoux, L. (1993) Gender, inequality and entrepreneurship: The Indian silk industry. Development Policy Review 11(4): 413–26.

Mayoux, L. (1995) Alternative development or utopian fantasy: Women and cooperative development in India. Journal of International Development 7(2): 211-228.

Mayoux, L. and G. Mackie (2008) A Practical Guide to Mainstreaming Gender Analysisin Value Chain Development. Addis Ababa, ILO.

Mayoux, L.C. (2000) Jobs, Gender, and Small Enterprises: Getting the Policy Environment Right.
View PDF

Mayoux, L.C. (2010, forthcoming) Diamonds are a girl's best friend: Experience with gender action learning system, in S. Chant (ed) International Handbook on Gender and Poverty. Edward Elgar.

Mayoux, L.C. et al. (2009, forthcoming) Tree of Diamond Fruits: Community-Led Change in Gender Relations in Uganda.

Mayoux, L.C., T. Reemer, et al. (2009 ) Growing the Diamond Forest: Livelihood Market and Value Chain Development. GALS Manual No 4. First Draft. The Hague, Oxfam Novib.

McCormick, D. and H. Schmitz (2001) Manual for Value Chain Research on Homeworkers in the Garment Industry. Nairobi and Brighton, Institute for Development Studies, University of Nairobi and University of Sussex.

Meinzen-Dick, R. L. Brown, H. Feldstein and A. Quisumbing (1997) Gender, property rights, and natural resources. World Development 25(8): 1303–16.

Melendez, F.V. (2008) Cafe Feminino: Experiencias de mujeres emprendedoras. San Juan, Peru, Centro de Investigacion Capacitacion Asesoria y Promocion (CICAP).

Quisumbing, A.R. and B. McClafferty (2006) Food Security in Practice: Using Gender Research in Development, Washington, DC, IFPRI.

Quisumbing, A.R. and L. Pandolfelli (2009) Promising Approaches to Address the Needs of Poor Female Farmers. IFPRI Note 13, Washington, IFPRI.
View PDF

Rhodes, E., J. Warren, P. et al. (eds) (2006) Supply Chains and Total Product Systems, Open University/Blackwell.

Scholer, M. (not dated) Women in Coffee: Women Rebuilding Post-Conflict Economies. Geneva.

Smith, S. et al. (2004) Ethical Trade in African Horticulture: Gender, Rights and Participation. IDS Working Paper 223.
View PDF

Solidaridad (2009) The Role of Certification and Producer Support in Promoting Gender Equality in Cocoa Production, Solidaridad and Oxfam Novib.

Tallontire, A., C. Dolan, S. Smith and S. Barrientos (2005) Reaching the marginalised? Gender, value chains and ethical trade in African horticulture. Development in Practice 15(3): 559–571.

Tallontire, A., S. Smith and C. Njobvu (2004) Ethical Trade in African Horticulture: Gender, Rights and Participation. Final Report on the Zambia Study. NRI report 2775. Natural Resources Institute, University of Greenwich, UK.
View PDF

World Bank (2006) Gender Equality as Smart Economics: A World Bank Group Gender Action Plan (Fiscal Years 2007–10).

Photo credit main picture: Hollandse Hoogte / Benoit Decout

Footnotes

  • 1.

    Farnworth, C. and C. Ragasa (2008) Gender and agricultural markets. Gender in Agriculture Sourcebook. World Bank, FAO and IFAD, pp.173-256.


  • 2.

    Most governments are signatories to the 1979 UN Convention against All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and most development agencies have a policy commitment to gender equality and women’s empowerment. It is therefore an underlying assumption of this article that promoting the human rights of well over half of the world’s poor is a development goal in itself, as well as being an integral element of economic growth and poverty reduction. For details of CEDAW and other women’s rights conventions, see the UNIFEM website www.unifem.org.


  • 3.

    See, for example, Ellis, A., C. Manuel and M.C. Blackden (2006) Gender and Economic Growth in Uganda: Unleashing the Power of Women. Washington, DC, World Bank.
    Bardasi, E. et al. (2007) Gender, entrepreneurship and competitiveness in Africa. Africa Competitiveness Report. World Economic Forum, World Bank and African Development Bank. Washington DC, ch.1.4. See also the many studies of women’s enterprises commissioned for the ILO’s Women Entrepreneurship Development and Gender Equality (WEDGE) programme: www.ilo.org


  • 4.

    For garments, see e.g. Baden, S. (2001) Researching Homework and Value Chains in the Global Garments Industry: An Annotated Resource List and Binder.
    McCormick, D. and H. Schmitz (2001) Manual for Value Chain Research on Homeworkers in the Garment Industry. Nairobi and Brighton, Institute for Development Studies, University of Nairobi and University of Sussex.
    Kabeer, N. (2004) Globalisation, Labour Standards and Women’s Rights: Dilemmas of Collective Action in an Interdependent World.
    View PDF
    For horticulture, see Barrientos, S. (2001) Gender, flexibility and global value chains. IDS Bulletin 32(3): 83-93.
    Barrientos, S. et al. (2003) A gendered value chain approach to codes of conduct in African horticulture. World Development 3 (9): 1511-1526.
    Dolan, C. et al. (2004) Gender, Rights & Participation in the Kenya Cut Flower Industry.
    View PDF
    Smith, S. et al. (2004) Ethical trade in African horticulture: gender, rights and participation. IDS Working Paper 223.
    View PDF
    Tallontire, A. et al. (2004) Ethical Trade in African Horticulture: Gender, Rights and Participation: Final Report on Zambia Study.
    View PDF
    Tallontire, A. et al. (2005) Reaching the marginalised? Gender, value chains and ethical trade in African horticulture. Development in Practice.
    Dolan, C.S. and K. Sutherland (2006) Gender and Employment in the Kenya Horticulture Value Chain.
    View PDF
    For a detailed discussion of the ways in which gender inequalities are manipulated by employers and supported by male labourers, see Mayoux, L. (1993) Gender, inequality and entrepreneurship: The Indian silk industry. Development Policy Review 11(4): 413–26.
    For cocoa, see Solidaridad (2009) The Role of Certification and Producer Support in Promoting Gender Equality in Cocoa Production, Solidaridad and Oxfam Novib.


  • 5.

    In coffee women perform an estimated 60-80% of work in the fields, 60% of harvesting and processing; see Scholer, M. (not dated) Women in Coffee: Women Rebuilding Post-Conflict Economies. Geneva.


  • 6.

    For detailed discussion of the cocoa industry, see Solidaridad (2009) The Role of Certification and Producer Support in Promoting Gender Equality in Cocoa Production, Solidaridad and Oxfam Novib.


  • 7.

    Women typically only contribute 20% to coffee trading and 10% to its export. For support services such as certification, laboratory work, financing, shipping and research, women typically comprise 10–20% of the workforce. Scholer, M. (not dated) Women in Coffee: Women Rebuilding Post-Conflict Economies. Geneva.


  • 8.

    See in particular Solidaridad (2009) The Role of Certification and Producer Support in Promoting Gender Equality in Cocoa Production, Solidaridad and Oxfam Novib, and references in Note 1.


  • 9.

    Farnworth and Ragasa (2008); Solidaridad (2009).


  • 10.

    The Common Code for the Coffee Community: View PDF


  • 11.

    For evidence and references, see Meinzen-Dick, R., L. Brown, H. Feldstein and A. Quisumbing (1997) Gender, property rights, and natural resources. World Development 25(8): 1303–16.
    Blackden, M. and C. Bhanu (1999) Gender, Growth and Poverty Reduction. World Bank Technical Paper No 428.
    DFID (2000) Poverty Elimination and Empowerment of Women: Target Strategy Paper.
    View PDF
    Quisumbing, A. R. and B. McClafferty (2006) Food Security in Practice: Using Gender Research in Development, IFPRI.
    World Bank (2006) Gender Equality as Smart Economics: A World Bank Group Gender Action Plan (Fiscal Years 2007–10).


  • 12.

    Bolwig, S. and M. Odeke (2007) Household Food Security Effects of Certified Organic Export Production in Tropical Africa, Export Promotion of Organic Products from Africa (EPOPA).


  • 13.

    Solidaridad (2009).


  • 14.

    Farnworth and Ragasa (2008).


  • 15.

    Solidaridad (2009).


  • 16.

    See references to IFPRI studies in Quisumbing, A., R and L. Pandolfelli (2009) Promising Approaches to Address the Needs of Poor Female Farmers. Washington, IFPRI.


  • 17.

    By the Centro de Investigacion Capacitacion Asesoria y Promocion/Center for Research, Training, Advice and Promotion (CICAP).


  • 19.

    Farnworth and Ragasa (2008); Solidaridad (2009)


  • 20.

    For CICAP see Melendez, F.V. (2008) Cafe Feminino: Experiencias de mujeres emprendedoras. San Juan, Peru, Centro de Investigacion Capacitacion Asesoria y Promocion (CICAP).
    For examples of shea nuts and cashews, see KIT, Faida MaLi and IIRR (2006) Chain Empowerment: Supporting African Farmers to Develop Markets, Royal Tropical Institute (KIT), Amsterdam; Faida Market Link, Arusha; International Institute of Reconstruction, Nairobi, pp.47–55; 122–127.


  • 21.

    Mayoux (1995, 2001).


  • 22.

    There is a very good discussion on collaboration and partnership in horizontal value chain linkages on the USAID value chain wiki
    http://apps.develebridge.net/ The points made there refer equally well to women as to men.


  • 23.

    Mayoux (1995, 2001).


  • 24.

    This is discussed in detail for both poverty and gender by Bolwig, S. et al. (2008) Integrating Poverty, Gender and Environmental Concerns into Value Chain Analysis. DIIS Working paper 2008/6, Copenhagen, Danish Institute for International Studies.


  • 25.

    This framework builds on those in Mayoux, L. and G. Mackie (2008) A Practical Guide to Mainstreaming Gender Analysis in Value Chain Development. Addis Ababa, ILO.
    Quisumbing, A., R and L. Pandolfelli (2009) Promising Approaches to Address the Needs of Poor Female Farmers. Washington, IFPRI.
    Solidaridad (2009) The role of certification and producer support in promoting gender equality in cocoa production, Solidaridad and Oxfam Novib.
    Laven, A., A. van Eerdewijk, et al. (2009) Gender in Value Chains: Emerging Lessons and Questions, draft working paper, AgriProFocus.
    Examples of gender strategies in agricultural markets including policy level are given in Farnworth, C. and C. Ragasa (2008) Gender and agricultural markets. Gender in Agriculture Sourcebook. World Bank, FAO and IFAD. Washington DC, pp.173-256.
    For discussion of enabling environments for women’s enterprise which also apply to value chain development see Mayoux, L. C. (2000) Jobs, Gender, and Small Enterprises: Getting the Policy Environment Right. View PDF


  • 26.

    Practical suggestions for specific interventions at these different levels for chains like cocoa and coffee can be found in Solidaridad (2009) and Mayoux et al. (2009). Detailed checklists applicable to all types of chains can be found in Mayoux, L. and G. Mackie (2008) A Practical Guide to Mainstreaming Gender Analysis in Value Chain Development. Addis Ababa, ILO.


  • 27.

    In the Ruwenzori region of western Uganda the Bukonzo Joint Savings and Credit Cooperative and the GreenHome Women’s Development Association are using the GALS methodology as part of Oxfam Novib’s Women’s Empowerment Mainstreaming and Networking (WEMAN) programme. Even in Baluchistan, Pakistan, men’s support for change has increased through the GALS methodology. Mayoux, L.C. (2010, forthcoming) Diamonds are a girl's best friend: Experience with gender action learning system, in S. Chant (ed) International Handbook on Gender and Poverty. Edward Elgar.


  • 28.

    Video case stories from Uganda and elsewhere will be available by end 2009 on the WEMAN website: www.wemanglobal.org.


  • 29.

    Mayoux, L.C. et al. (2009, forthcoming) Tree of Diamond Fruits: Community-led Change in Gender Relations in Uganda.


  • 30.

    World Bank (2006) Gender Equality as Smart Economics: A World Bank Group Gender Action Plan (Fiscal Years 2007–10).


  • 31.

    Participatory research in Uganda found that 70% of 495 men from coffee-producing families participating in the research openly admitted to taking all the money from coffee, and even stealing their wife’s money, wasting much of this on drink and other women. See Mayoux, L.C., et al. (2009, forthcoming) Tree of Diamond Fruits: Community-led Change in Gender Relations in Uganda.
    In South India, both alcoholism and gambling consume large amounts of the incomes of both men and women in the households of labourers in the silk industry. Mayoux, L. (1993) Gender, inequality and entrepreneurship: The Indian silk industry. Development Policy Review 11(4): 413–26.


  • 32.

    For a discussion of good practice in supply chain management, see Rhodes, E. et al. (eds) (2006) Supply Chains and Total Product Systems, Open University/Blackwell. These discussions on ethical enterprise development generally do not mention gender issues, but focus mainly on environment and child labour. For GALS tools and methodologies used in value chain development to establish win–win strategies with communities and the private sector, see Mayoux, L.C. et al. (2009) Growing the Diamond Forest: Livelihood Market and Value Chain Development. GALS Manual No 4. First Draft. The Hague, Oxfam Novib.


  • 33.

    See for example Klasen, S. (2002) In Search of the Holy Grail: How to Achieve Pro-poor growth? Munich, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
    World Bank (2006) Gender Equality as Smart Economics: A World Bank Group Gender Action Plan (Fiscal Years 2007–10).


  • 34.

    Quisumbing, A.R. and L. Pandolfelli (2009) Promising Approaches to Address the Needs of Poor Female Farmers. IFPRI Note 13, Washington, IFPRI.