To be or not to be a member of a To be or not to be a member of a primary co-operative in Brazil: primary co-operative in Brazil: any difference in gender equality any difference in gender equality and household decision making?and household decision making?

Francesco Burchi and Sara VicariRoma Tre University

Manchester, 3rd July 2012

Aim and hypothesis of the Aim and hypothesis of the researchresearch

AimAim: to investigate the specific effect that being members of a co-operative has on people’s capability to participate in household decision making, thus providing insights into the relationship between co-operative membership and gender equality within the household

HypothesisHypothesis: the democratization process activated in the workplace by participating in the co-operative enterprise may be then transferred to the household

Human Development and Capability Human Development and Capability ApproachApproach

“Process of expanding real freedoms that people enjoy” (Sen, 1999)

The expansion of human capabilities, not income per-capita nor GDP, is the central feature of the process of development

Capabilities: various combinations of beings and doings, reflecting person’s freedom to choose from possible livings

HDCA is not a theory to explain poverty, inequality or well-being, although it provides concepts and normative frameworks within which to conceptualize, measure and evaluate these phenomena as well as the institutions and policies that affect them (Robeyns and Crocker, 2009)

Capability Approach as an adequate Capability Approach as an adequate frameworkframework

to evaluate co-operatives to evaluate co-operatives

Participation Participation • People viewed as active agents of change through both

individual and collective action• Role in creating and reforming institutions, particularly

social institutions such as firms, families, markets, public policy making: structure of social power within institutions is not exogenous

• Co-operatives unique enterprises, characterized by placing people at the heart of their business and making participation its way of working (Sen, 2000)

Genuine co-operatives: institutions able Genuine co-operatives: institutions able to challenge power distribution among to challenge power distribution among

peoplepeople

Could co-operative behaviour be Could co-operative behaviour be transferred from the workplace to the transferred from the workplace to the

household?household?• Household = co-operative conflict (Sen, 1984, 1987, 1999)

• “Individuals reproduce social institutions over time as they behave in accord with accepted social practices [and that] change begins when individuals, who share a perception that change is necessary or desirable, initiate new practices” (Hill, 2005)

• This change can be (in our case) the result of:

(1) male members’ attitude to adopt in the household the democratic process they have experimented with at work;

(2) women members’ demand for the democratic space in the household that they have obtained (or are practicing) at work.

Empirical literature on co-ops and gender Empirical literature on co-ops and gender equalityequality

Mayoux (1992; 1993; 1995a; 1995b) • Co-operatives do not automatically operate

in favor of more gender balanced relations

• They can contribute to it only if they are able to challenge pre-existent power structures and division of labor

• Importance of ad hoc training programmes, addressing issues such as reproductive issue or division of labor, in order to enable the co-operative to work effectively for gender equality

8

The case study of COPPALJ, a primary The case study of COPPALJ, a primary co-operative located in Maranhão State, co-operative located in Maranhão State,

BrazilBrazil

Lago do Junco, HDI: 0.567 (Angola, 143rd)

Maranhão HDI: 0.68 Brazil HDI: 0.813 (Undp, 2009)

Patriarchal culture

COPPALJ, Cooperativa de Pequenos COPPALJ, Cooperativa de Pequenos Produtores Agroextrativista de Lago do Produtores Agroextrativista de Lago do

JuncoJuncoFounded in 1992, as a result of a common action against monopsonistic power of landowners

Owned by 136 members, who are small-scale farmers and “Babaçu breaker women”, involved in family agriculture and extractive activities

Mostly women deal with Babaçu nuts Mostly women deal with Babaçu nuts extractive and trading activity, earning, on extractive and trading activity, earning, on

average, 80% of household incomeaverage, 80% of household income

Main economic activityMain economic activity: to buy members’ production, that is, the nuts from the Babaçu coconuts; to transform them and sell the derived oil (labeled as organic) in domestic and international market (main buyers: Body Shop - UK; Mondo Solidale Coop. - Italy )

GenuineGenuine co-operative co-operative: “open door”; 40.4% of members has been in charge of decision making positions (max for 4 years – turnover – gender balanced in the Board)

Objective of the quantitative Objective of the quantitative analysisanalysis

• To test the hypotheses that:

1. Members of the cooperative have a higher capability to take decisions in household-related matters

2. Members of a genuine cooperative are more likely to take joint decision with the partner (gender equality)

Measuring the outcomesMeasuring the outcomes

• 3 domains: household expenditures, HH members’ health, respondent’s job

• 2 sets of indicators: capability-related indicators (the person has a high or low possibility to decide in…?), and functioning-related indicator (does the respondent decide in… with the partner?)

Questions on HH decision making Questions on HH decision making (based on OPHI questionnaire) (based on OPHI questionnaire)

Table 2. Question on the capability to decide in household-related issues

A) Who decides how to spend the money that you earn?

B) When decisions are made regarding what to do if you have a serious health problem, who is it that normally takes the decision?

C) When decisions are made regarding what kind of job or tasks you will do, who is it that normally takes the decision?

Codes: Respondent [1]; Spouse [2]; Respondent and Spouse jointly [3]; Someone else [4]; Jointly with someone else [5]; Other [6]

Table 3. Question on who decides in household-related issues

A) To what extent do you feel you can make your own personal decisions regarding how to spend the money that you earn if you want to?

B) To what extent do you feel you can make your own personal decisions regarding what to do if you have a serious health problem if you want to?

C) To what extent do you feel you can make your own personal decisions regarding what kind of job or tasks you will do if you want to?

Codes: Not at all [1]; To a low extent [2]; To a middle extent [3]; To a high extent [4]

Our outcome IndicatorsOur outcome Indicators• Capabilities-related indicators: 3 dummy variables

plus 1 count variable of the number of domains in which the person has a high capability to decide

• Gender equality indicators: 3 dummy variables indicating whether or not the person decides jointly with the partner and 1 count of the number of domains in which the person actually decides with the partner.

• It is important to stress not just whether the person has the freedom to participate to the decisions or whether there is gender equality, but also in what: there is a large literature showing that if a person has a say in one domain she does not necessarily have a say in another (Malhotra and Mather, 1997; Kishor, 1995).

SampleSample

Co-operative

members

group

Sample

weights

Control group Sample

weights

N n N n

Men 46 291,6

254 2112, 1

Women 60 341,8

228 633,6

Total 106 63 482 84

Propensity Score MatchingPropensity Score MatchingA technique used since few years in programs

evaluations (Rosenbaum and Rubin, 1983, 1984; Baker, 2000; Bernard et al., 2007; Khandker et al., 2009)

It answers: Are cooperative members more capable to take decision and more incline to take shared decisions than non-members who decided not to join Coppalj, being their conditions about the same?

It tries to assess whether the difference is due to participation in the co-operative since it accounts for “selection bias in observables”

PSM ResultsPSM Results

Note: *** p-value<0.01; ** p-value<0.05; * p-value<0.1.

Capability to participate in HH decision making

Domain Expenditures Health Work Number of domains (0-3)

Groups Coop Control Coop Control Coop Control Coop Control

Mean 0.898 0.772 0.949 0.853 0.966 0.870 2.814 2.495

T-statistic 1.294* 1.119 1.707** 2.044**

Gender equality (joint decision respondent-partner)

Domain Expenditures Health Work Number of domains (0-3)

Groups Coop Control Coop Control Coop Control Coop Control

Mean 0.661 0.454 0.644 0.390 0.305 0.144 1.610 0.988

T-statistic 1.639* 1.980** 1.477* 2.452***

The results of PSM give support to the hypothesis that being member of a co-operative does affect people’s decision making process

Qualitative method resultsQualitative method results

WOMENWOMEN– Enhancing Babaçu,

enhanced women’s work and identity

– Active participation increased their self-confidence and self-esteem

MENMEN– They modified social

practices working with women cooperators

– Role of women cooperators in defending rights of men cooperators’ wives

REMARKSREMARKSCrucial conversion factors: ad hoc training

courses and women networkingStill unequal distribution of tasks among

partners in the household

Future researchFuture research

• Promoting further research applying HDCA framework to evaluate co-operatives’ impact on household gender equality and decision making:

• Importance of mixed-method approach for gaining a comprehensive view

• Studying in-depth the role of conversion factors