1

GENDER CONSIDERATIONS IN DECISION MAKING IN RURAL NIGERIA: IMPLICATIONS ON HOUSEHOLDS’ FOOD SECURITY IN EKITI STATE

I. B. Oluwatayo (PhD)

Department of Agricultural Economics and Extension Services, University of Ado-Ekiti, P.M.B. 5363, Ado-Ekiti, Ekiti State, Nigeria. E-mail: iboluwatayounad@yahoo.com

Abstract This study examined how the level of participation in decision-making influences households’ food security status in Rural Nigeria. Ekiti State was particularly chosen for this study because of its prime position among the poorest States (top five) in the country and that it depicts the nation’ s true agrarian nature. This study used the data collected from a random sample of 254 households, covering five local governments out of the sixteen local government areas in the state and the Federal Government’s Special Programme on Food Security (SPFS) unit located at Erinfun all in Ekiti State. The data were collected though the aid of well-structured questionnaire and interview schedule. Analytical techniques used include descriptive statistics (tables, frequencies, mean e.t.c.-used to analyse households’ socioeconomic characteristics) and probit model (used to examine the determinants of food security among households surveyed). From the study, it was observed that there were more male respondents than female respondents in the study area. The female respondents (28 percent) were more educationally disadvantaged than their male counterparts (43 percent) and the main sources of farmland used by female farmers were through hire/rent (9 percent), part of husband’s land (6 percent) and the ones inherited from family (7 percent). On the food security status of the households, it was found out that households experience increased food insecurity especially during the planting season (lean period). Meanwhile, the results of the probit analysis showed that age (0.0317*), gender (0.1251***), household size (-0.0557**), educational level (0.1932***), belonging to social group (0.2469**) and Income (0.1297***) were the determinants of food security in the study area. For instance, the higher the age (positive coefficient) of the respondents, the higher the food security level. On the other hand, respondents with formal education were more food secured than those with no formal education. Meanwhile, the most startling observation from this study was that less then 30 percent of the female respondents actively participated actively in all the decision-making roles considered except the decision-making on the types of food to buy (where only about 40 percent females took the decision). The findings therefore underpins the need to implement the recommendation made at the Beijing Conference that at least 30 percent of decision-making on any issue should be left to women. Based on the study findings, it is recommended that empowerment of women educationally and financially (giving them more access to resources) and awareness of men on gender issues should be intensified and given utmost priority in the study area and the country at large if the clamour to achieve the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs 1 and 3- i.e. reduce poverty by half and ensure gender equity by 2015) is anything to go by. Key words: Gender, Participation, Decision-making, Food security, Ekiti State, Rural Nigeria The grant received from F. S. Idachaba Foundation for Research and Scholarship (IFRES), Ibadan, Nigeria to carry out this study is gratefully acknowledged.

2

INTRODUCTION

In developing countries across the globe, over eight million people currently face food insecurity, and the

challenge of meeting their food and nutritional requirements is likely to become greater in the years ahead

(Quisumbing and Maluccio, 2005). One untapped source of agricultural growth to help meet these needs could lie

in reducing the bias against women in agriculture. Women in developing countries play significant roles in

maintaining the three pillars of food security- food production, economic access to available food, and nutritional

security. But they play these roles in the face of enormous social, cultural and economic constraints. In other

words, the place of gender as a fundamental issue in assuring food security both at national, household and

individual levels cannot be overemphasized. This is because increasing attention is now being paid to the gender

dimension of poverty and development particularly in relation to the role of women in agricultural processes. Some

organisations like the Food and Agricultural Organisation-FAO have started talking about the “feminization of

agriculture” in the developing world, based on the facts that women represent 66 percent of the economically

active population working in the sector and are identified as major providers of food and income for their families

and communities in rural areas.

Meanwhile, the word ‘gender’ relates to the socially assigned roles and behaviours of men and women. It is the

social meaning of biological sex differences. “It affects the distribution of resources, wealth, work, decision-making

and political power, and the enjoyment of rights and entitlements within the family as well as public life” (DAW,

1999). While food security is traditionally viewed as having two dimensions – spatial and temporal, in fact, it has

three, with gender being the third and most overlooked (FCND, 1999). Identifying individuals’ differential access to

resources and benefits is the fundamental feature of gender analysis, and ensuring equitable access and

distribution will enhance food security. Research and field experience have clearly illuminated the different roles

and responsibilities that men and women have in their individual lives, in their families and households, and in

their communities. While both men and women are income earners and agricultural producers, women also

process and prepare food, and use their income for their children’s benefit (Thomas, 1997; Carr, 1991). Women

also provide the majority of care for their families, take their children to health services, and ensure a healthy

environment – the very components of good nutrition (Levin et al, 1999). Yet women make these critical

contributions with limited access to necessary resources, to decisions on allocation and use of those resources,

and to the derived benefits (Johnson-Welch, 1999). Individual and household food security is mediated by

individual actions and the choices they make in producing food, earning income or acquiring assets, feeding and

caring for family members. Thus, it is critical to maximize these individuals’ contributions by ensuring their

equitable access to and control over the resources needed to meet their roles and responsibilities. Indeed,

overcoming gender-based inequities in resource access and decision-making could very much enhance women’s

contributions to food security and its nutritional benefits (UNFPA, 1999). Furthermore, improving women’s health

3

and nutrition, and their access to education and training opportunities, enhances their human capital as an input to

ensuring individual and household food security (FCND, 1999).

The sustainable production of food is the pillar of food security. Women account for 70 to 80 percent of household

food production in Sub-Saharan Africa, 65 percent in Asia, and 45 percent in Latin America and the Caribbean.

They achieve this despite unequal access to land, to inputs such as improved seeds and fertilizer, and to

information. Given equal access to resources and human capital, women farmers can achieve yields equal to or

even, as some studies show, significantly higher than those of men. Around 50 developing countries depend on

the exports of three or fewer mainly agriculture commodities, which not only represent more than half of their

exports earnings (UNCTAD, 2004), but also play a major role as a source of employment as well as a vital means

for fulfilling food security and rural development needs of their population. According to the FAO, rural women are

responsible for half of the world's food production and have a prominent role in agriculture at all levels, in home

farm production critical to household maintenance as well as in commercial agriculture mainly oriented to export

crops. Women contribute significantly to secondary crop production, such as legumes and vegetables, which

provide essential nutrients for their families and are often the only food available during the lean seasons or in

case the main crop fails. Women are therefore fundamental for guaranteeing food security and household

maintenance not only for their own families, but also for their community in general.

However, food security as a concept came into focus and has developed, multiplied and diversified ever since the

World Food Conference of 1974 (Maxwell, 1996). The main concern has shifted from global and national to

household and individual food security and from availability to accessibility. The shift to food accessibility is partly

attributed to Sen’s (1981) work on entitlement theory. This is because of the crucial role that households (being

an integral part of the nation and the supplier of primary products) play in ensuring food security. Food is a basic

human necessity, its availability (via production and distribution) and accessibility (i.e. affordability) remains a

major challenge in developing economies. Food security” has a long history as an “organizing principle” for social

and economic development (Maxwell and Frankenberger, 1992). Over time, this concept has been operationally

defined in a number of ways. In most cases, the definitions include elements of availability (supplies of food),

accessibility (both physical and economic), and utilization (physiological ability to absorb and utilize consumed

nutrients) (USAID, 1997). In general, “food security” refers to that situation in which there is “access for all people

at all times to enough food for an active, healthy life” (FCND, 1999; FAO, 1997; World Bank, 1986). Food security

is about equitable access to markets, distribution of resources – within households, among individuals, across

communities – and viable options and opportunities to take action and make decisions.

In many countries, changes have been taking place in dietary habits, with increasing consumption of meat, dairy

products, and processed foods, and decreasing consumption of cereals and other basic foods. Methods of food

production, processing, and marketing are also changing rapidly and international trade in raw commodities and

4

processed foods has grown substantially. The increases in world population and urbanization are critical issues in

terms of food availability, access to food and nutritional well-being- more people will require more food, more

goods, more services, and more employment opportunities. With a projected world population of 7.8 billion people

by the year 2025, there is considerable concern on how to provide for this number of human beings, and to meet

their changing demands, in an adequate and sustainable way.

Statement of the Problem

Notwithstanding women’s contribution to global food security, women farmers are commonly underestimated and

ignored in development strategies and trade negotiations processes. They have experienced few concrete

benefits and in several cases have even been adversely affected in their living and development conditions as

result of the implementation of some policies. In fact, there is a general idea among policy makers, politicians,

trade officials and negotiators that trade liberalization will reduce poverty equally for men and women. It is also

believed that market access will promote development and improve the conditions of men and women evenly.

Accordingly, the design and implementation of policies at national and multilateral level are gender-blind in their

orientation; but not gender-neutral in their effects.

Women are frequently neglected in economic, trade and development policies and planning because of socio-

historical patterns in regard to gender-based division of labour. The role of women is generally associated with

non-economic and unpaid work, most of which takes place within the so-called reproductive economy. However, it

is the reproductive economy that supplies labour and social capital to the economy and transmits social and

cultural values to communities, even when such a contribution is not registered in systems of national accounts

(since no market value is attributed to the labour involved). Socio-historical standards and stigmatization of the

role of women lead as well to a lack of gender disaggregated data (FAO, 1999), particularly in agricultural

activities, which is one important obstacle for policy makers when taking into consideration the gender dimension

and performing an in-depth analysis of the impact of developmental policies on women as a group. According to

studies of FAO: “Gender bias and gender blindness persist: farmers are still generally perceived as 'male' by

policy-makers and development planners. For this reason, women find it more difficult than men to gain access to

valuable resources such as land, credit and agricultural inputs, technology, extension, training and services that

would enhance their production capacity. A lack of available gender-disaggregated data means that women's

contribution to agriculture in particular is poorly understood and their specific needs ignored in development

planning.

From the foregoing and considering the importance of household as a motivating unit for increased food

production and the participation of men and women in national development, there has to be a well-guided

5

incentives and policy to increase household women’ status and reduce gender inequity in decision-making

especially in those decisions bothering on well-being. Thus, this study will attempt to answer such question as;

• Who does what and with what resources?

• Who takes major decisions on the type of food to buy, eat and grow?

• Who has access to or control over resources and benefits within the household?

Answers to all these questions will enhance analyses of gender roles and responsibilities, constraints,

opportunities and incentives (resources) available to household members.

Objectives of the Study

The general objective of this study is to examine how the decision-making power of men and women influence the

food security status of rural households in Ekiti State. The specific objectives of the study are to:

1) Investigate and characterize the determinants of food security among rural households in Ekiti State.

2) Examine the effect(s) of gender inequity in decision making on the food security status of these households.

3) Access various food insecurity coping strategies (formal or informal) adopted by the households whenever

there is a shortfall.

Rationale for the Study

There is a need to acknowledge the fact that improving women’s decision making power relative to men’s within

households would lead to improvements in a variety of well-being outcomes for members. This is because while

women’s decision making power within households, where most of the decisions about care for household

members take place, is known to be lower than that of men, women are the main caretakers of household

members (especially children and the aged) in most of the developing countries of the world. Past studies have

demonstrated that when women’s power is increased, they use it to direct household resources toward improving

their caring practices and therefore the health and nutritional status of household members (Thomas, 1997;

Kishor, 2000; Smith et al, 2003; Smith and Byron, 2005).

On the other hand, persistent malnutrition among inhabitants of these countries is continuously crippling the future

of the generations upon which any country must ultimately depend. Food insecurity problem is often reflected

among pregnant women and is a major cause of low birth weight and associated high infant and preschool

morbidity and mortality. These are exacerbated when mothers are undernourished during lactation because of

food insecurity. This malnutrition also limits the contribution of these mothers to their important and social

responsibilities to their families and communities at large. Again, food insecurity has indirectly contributed to the

declining productivity levels recorded among farmers and even children in their schools in terms of cognitive

performance. Research focusing on food security has now shifted from global and national to household and

6

individual food security and from food availability to food accessibility. Despite these developments, much of the

literature on food security has concentrated at higher levels, paying little attention to household level (especially

rural households). Also, the issues of food accessibility (affordability) are yet to receive adequate attention in

Nigeria.

Therefore, research is needed on how best to reduce gender inequity and ensure food security as it relates to the

present and future policies on household roles and responsibilities, information on which food or nutritional

problems should receive priority and how resources are to be allocated among various target groups. Moreover,

socio-cultural/economic factors affecting food distribution, availability and accessibility within the household needs

to be known as the knowledge of community food supplies or overall household consumption alone is not enough.

This study is therefore justifiable based on the issues raised above.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK/LITERATURE REVIEW

Theoretical Framework

The first framework employed considers household as a motivation creating unit for improving the food security

status, the level of productivity and the decision-making abilities of its members, especially women. Two

approaches for thinking about household decision are the unitary household model and the collective household

model (World Bank, 1995; Thomas, 1997). The unitary household model assumes that households pool resources

and allocate them according to a common set of objectives of their members by allocating income and other

resources to the individuals and enterprises that promise the highest rate of return, as reflected in prices and

wages. An increase in household income increases the well-being of all household members. However, recent

evidence has challenged the underlying assumption that the household’s interest can be aggregated into a single

utility function. These assumptions are especially problematic in many societies where the division of obligations

for family maintenance is highly gender specific. In these societies, men and women allocate the resources under

their control to activities that best enable them to fulfill their obligations rather than to activities that are most

productive. A very clear case is that of a polygamous household, in which income is not pooled and each wife has

clear and distinct responsibilities to herself and her children.

In the collective household model, the welfare of individual household members is not synonymous with overall

household welfare. Resources are not necessarily pooled, and the household acts as a collective, with members

having their own preferences. Decisions on resource allocation reflect market rates of return. But they also mirror

the relative bargaining power of household members within the group. Bargaining power is a function of social and

cultural norms as well as of such external functions as opportunities for paid work, laws governing inheritance and

control over productive assets and property rights. Thus, an increase in household income may benefit some

7

household members but leave others unaffected or worse-off. The outcome depends on member’s ability to

exercise control over resources both within and outside the household and it cannot be assumed that individual’s

well-being increases as household income rises. The collective household model helps to explain why gender

inequalities persist even though household income increase over time. The gender concept here will enable us to

provide evidence for the fact that household food security status is determined mainly by intrahousehold

differences.

The second framework is a household production framework used to examine the determinants of household food

security (Strauss and Thomas, 1995). The household is postulated to maximize a utility function, which comprises

the nutrition of each household member, food and non-food items purchased, household production and leisure.

This will be achieved by modeling household activities. This is because household models account for the

interrelationship of production, consumption and resource use or allocation. However it is worthy of note that the

literature on the determinants of household food security makes it clear that the choice of dependent variables has

varied across studies. Thus, there has been a shift from objective measures to subjective measures (e.g. Maxwell,

1996; Maxwell et al. 1999). While some researchers have used such objective measures as food availability as a

proxy for food security, others have measured the same using food intakes. The latter takes into account the food

accessibility issues.

Literature Review

Women have been ascertained to play a very significant role in national development but it is rather unfortunate

that women are still being treated as second fiddle while in some communities they are relegated even to the

extent that they are not allowed to hold any key positions and yet the bulk of household responsibilities rest on

them. Redressing gender inequalities in developing economies since the United Nations Decade for women

between 1975 and 1985 has brought some progress to understanding gender related issues but a lot still need to

be done to adequately address the problem associated with it. Gender inequality therefore describes the socially

determined attributes of men and women including male and female roles (Poats, 1971) and this has proved to be

the most useful way to disaggregate the rural households and analyze intrahousehold behaviour (Cloud, 1987).

The gender concept here will enable us to provide evidence for the fact that household food security status is

determined mainly by intrahousehold differences.

It has been established that too wide gender gap could lead to lopsided policy, misplacement of priority and

inefficient allocation of resources. For instance, in communities where there are gender discrimination women are

the worst hit of any program or project aimed at boosting the standard of living of the people. In some part of Asia

and other developing countries, young females are often exposed to excess poverty-induced nutritional and health

8

risk within household and these appears to be one factor explaining the missing millions of women (Muhavi and

Preston, 1991). Women work longer than men to achieve the same level of living. There is evidence that, as

women participate more in market work under pressure of poverty their domestic labour is not substantially

reassigned to men (Bardhan, 1985). Also, women face lower chances of independent escape from poverty in part

because women’s large share of domestic commitment prevent them from seizing new and profitable work

opportunities as readily as men (Haddad, 1991). Again, one of the few systematic studies (Dreze, 1990b) shows

that nuclear widow-headed households in India are by far the poorest (even average expenditure per person is 70

percent below overall average). The younger the oldest male in such households, the deeper their poverty. Thus,

an important way in which poverty is feminized is that male-dominated societies make the escape from poverty

harder for women. This suggests that poverty is more likely to be chronic for women and transient for men.

However, enhancing the food security status of household members is a major challenge facing the increasing

number of hungry and undernourished populace of developing countries the world over. A country and its people

are food secure when production, market and social systems work in such a way that food consumption needs are

always met (Maxwell, 1990). Thus, a food-secured household is expected to have access to the food that will

ensure adequate dietary intake for its members. Hunger and under-nutrition has continued to be serious problem

for many people in many countries. Persistent hunger is a condition brought about by not having enough to eat.

Under-nutrition results from insufficient intake of specific nutrients in a diet and this may or may not coexist with

hunger but both are closely related to poverty. The essential determinants of food security are access to food,

availability of food and risks associated with either access or availability. It is clear that a country or region that is

food insecure will have its citizens suffering. Thus, food insecurity leads to hunger and under-nutrition. This

invariably results into loss of productivity and inefficient resource allocation due to diminish work performance,

lowered cognitive ability and school performance, and inefficient or ineffective income-earning decisions. In other

words, food insecurity is a threat to increased production and actualization of national goals and aspirations.

What is very clear from these findings is that in spite of the roles and relevance of women in nation building they

are not remunerated the way they are supposed to. To buttress this assertion, Obasanjo and Mabogunje (1991)

observed that women play a vital role in stimulating and conditioning the performance, contribution and disposition

of the younger generation to matters connected with the development and greatness of the nation. In a way,

women have major control over the most nutritionally at risk group, infants and children as well as nearly total

control over their prenatal health. Data from Brazil show that giving women more control over non-labour income

has a larger impact on child’s anthropometric measures, nutritional intakes, and the proportion of the household

budget devoted to human capital development (Thomas, 1994).

The World Bank (1995; 1996) reported that the depth of poverty in sub-Saharan Africa is typically higher than

elsewhere in the world and that people in Nigeria, as in other sub-Saharan Africa and in southern Asian countries

9

remain the poorest in the world. In the same vein, Broca and Oram (1991) posit that about 595 million people

were calorie deficient in developing countries, with the exception of China. In Nigeria, for instance, during the

period between 1970 and 1979, the average annual deficit in per capita calories intake was 24.4 percent, and

within the periods 1980 and 1989 and 1990 and 1994, it became 23.58 percent and 8.38 percent respectively

(CBN, 1993; African Development Bank, 1996). The food situation in Nigeria has led to a tremendous increase in

the price of food over the years and a decline in the living conditions of many families. Poverty/food insecurity in

Nigeria has been found to be a rural phenomenon with 8.4 million of the 10 million extremely poor people being

from the rural areas. The rural sector is made up of small-scale poor farmers, food processors, informal traders

and other micro enterprises who are said to account for about two-thirds of the population living in poverty

(Okunmadewa, 1998; Oluwatayo, 2004). Afonja (1996) also observed that there are regional differences in the

distribution of poverty; for example, while poverty was found to have declined in the south from 42 percent to 26

percent, extreme poverty in the north only declined from 36 percent to 32 percent.

On the whole, an understanding of the importance of gender issues in decision making as it relates to rural

household food security, access and control of resources will among other things ensure effective resource

allocation, bridge gender gap and play a pivotal role at giving women their prime place in the scheme of things

through empowering and equipping them adequately as the task of enhancing household welfare rest on them.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The Study Area

The study area is Ekiti State. Ekiti State is one of the six states created on the 1st October, 1996 by the Provision

Ruling Council (PRC) of the late Head of State, General Sanni Abacha. This makes Ekiti State one of the thirty-six

States of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The state was curved out of the former Ondo State. Before its creation,

Ekiti has twelve Local Government Areas but four more Local Government Areas were created making the

number to be sixteen on its creation. Ekiti State is located between latitudes 7025 and 8005’N and between

longitude 4045’ and 5’46N East. The State is bounded to the south of Kwara and Kogi States while it is bounded

by Osun State to the west. To the East of Ekiti State is Edo State and to the South is Ondo State. Ekiti State is a

landlocked State, having no coastal boundary.

The ‘Ekitis’ are culturally homogenous and speaks a dialect of the Yoruba language known as Ekiti. In terms of

arts and culture, Ekiti State is among the richest in the federation in the variety and quality of its tradition, arts,

music, poetry and witty sayings. The Ekitis are good wood carvers, blacksmith, and ornamental potters, mat

weavers and basket makers. The main occupation of Ekiti people is farming. There are 123,000 farm families in

Ekiti State, hence the State is agrarian in nature and therefore has many rural settlements. According to the

population census of 1991, the State had 824,224 males and 804, 538 females making a total of 1,628,782.

10

Data Requirements and Sources

The study used primary data collected with the aid of well-structured questionnaires. Open discussions, interviews

and physical observation were also employed to complement the data for accuracy and reliability. Information

gathered includes:

a) Socioeconomic/Demographic Data: Data under this category include-age of household head, gender, marital

status, years of formal education, type of occupation, household type, household size, total household income

(from farm and off-farm and income received as gift from relatives, friends), membership of any association (e.g.

cooperative societies).

b) Information on decision making within the households-Decisions on who provides money for food, the type of

food to buy, food to eat, crops to grow, decision on how to spend income generated from proceeds, decision on

acquisition of assets, whether the woman is involved at all or not, whether she has access to own private property

e.t.c.

c) Household Consumption Data: Data were collected on expenditure on food and non-food items (health,

education, transportation, water, furniture, household, recreation, books, wears, newspapers and magazines) and

non-commodity expenditures - transportation, communications, repairs and other household utilities.

Sampling Technique

A multistage sampling technique was employed. Ekiti State is divided into two zones by the Agricultural

Development Projects with each zone administering eight local government areas. The data used for the study

were collected from a sample of 254 households in Ekiti State using a multistage sampling technique. The first

stage was the selection of ten local government areas (LGAs) from the two Agricultural Development Projects

zones. The second stage involves the selection of 15 villages based on the number in each LGAs. The third stage

was the selection of representative households using probability proportionate to size.

Methods of Data Analysis

(i) Descriptive Statistics: This was employed to analyse the socioeconomic characteristics of the households,

access and control profile of resources and benefits among the respondents. This helps us to identify what

resources individuals command within the household.

(ii) Construction of Food Poverty Line: This was done to categorise the respondents into food secure and non-

food secure group using the two-third mean per-capita food consumption expenditure (World Bank, 1986; IFPRI,

11

2001; Oluwatayo, 2005) as the benchmark. Households whose mean consumption expenditure falls below the

food poverty line are regarded as being food insecure while those with their expenditure above the benchmark are

food secure.

Per-capita Food Consumption Expenditure (PCFEXP) = Food Consumption Expenditure/Household Size

Total Per-capita Food Consumption Expenditure (TPCFEXP) = Summation of PCFEXP

Mean TPCEXP = TPCEXP/ Total Number of Households = MTPCEXP

Food Poverty Line (FPL) = 2/3 * MTPCEXP

(iii) Logit Analysis: The logit model was used to investigate the determinants of food security among households

in the study area (Objective 1). A food poverty line (FPL) was constructed to disaggregate the households into

food secure and food insecure group. Therefore, households whose per-capita food consumption expenditures

(PCFEXP) were above the poverty are regarded as being food secure while those with their PCFEXP below the

FPL are regarded as being food insecure. Thus, the regressand takes the value ‘1’ and ‘0’ for food secure and

food insecure households respectively. Households’ socioeconomic characteristics were used as regressors

(independent variables).

Logit model is a model used in estimating the probability of events based on dependent dichotomous variables

(Gujarati, 1995). This model has found several applications in the literature (Cramer, 1991; Adesina et al, 2000). A

dichotomous dependent variable assumes only two values (either zero or one).

Suppose that food security is represented by ‘fs’ where, fs is 1 if a household is food secure and 0 otherwise. The

logit model to be estimated is given as:

)exp(1

)exp()1(

itfs

itfsitfs Z

ZYP

ββ

+==

)exp(1

1)1(1)0(

itfsitfsitfs Z

YPYPβ+

==−==

Where, Yit is the dependent variable, which takes on the value of ‘1’ if the ith household is food secure and ‘0’

otherwise,

β is a vector of unknown coefficients and

Zit is a vector of explanatory variables related to ith household.

Previous studies in sub-Saharan Africa suggest that food security is influenced by various household

characteristics. The magnitude and direction of these influence are however country and/or location specific, and

determined by cultural factors and socioeconomic environment.

Thus, in this study, the explanatory variables included in the model are:

X1 = Age of household head (AGE) in years

12

X2 = Gender of household head (GEND) – Male =1, Female = 0)

X3 = Marital Status of household head (MSTAT) – Married =1, Not married = 0)

X4 = Household Size (HSIZE)

X5 = Household head years of formal education (HEADUS)

X6 = Belonging to Social Group (BELSRG) - Yes =1, No = 0

X7 = Primary Occupation (Farming = 1, Non-Farming = 0)

X8 = Income of Respondent (Naira)

X9 = Expenditure on Non-food items (NONFOOEXP) – Naira

Household food security is an important dimension of well-being. Although it may not encapsulate all dimensions

of poverty, the inability of households to obtain access to enough food for an active, healthy life is surely an

important component of their poverty. In this context, devising an appropriate measure of food security outcomes

is useful for several reasons: to identify the food- insecure, characterize the nature of their insecurity (for example,

seasonal versus chronic), monitor changes in their circumstances, and assess the impact of interventions.

(iv) Coping Strategies Use Index (CSUI): This was also employed to access the extent of use of the coping

strategies by these households (Objective 3). The knowledge of this allows a better understanding of the possible

area(s) of intervention (formal or informal strategies) either by government or other stakeholders in the area.

In analysing the extent of use of any of the coping strategies by the rural households, a coping strategy index

(CSI) was developed by ranking. The extent of use of the CSI was expressed using a four-point scale with the

scoring order 3, 2, 1 and 0 for frequently used, occasionally used, rarely used and not used respectively. The

formula used to obtain the CSI score was adapted from Islam and Kashem (1999) where they estimated the use

of Ethno-veterinary medicine in livestock management and rearing. This was modified to obtain the CSI as:

0123 4321 XNXNXNXNCSUI +++=

Where:

CSUI = Coping strategies use index

N1= Number of households using a particular CSI frequently

N2= Number of households using a particular CSI occasionally

N3= Number of households using a particular CSI rarely

N4= Number of households not using any of the Coping strategies.

The CSUI was used in rank order to reflect the relative position of each of the CSI in terms of their use. The extent

of use of the CSI was then obtained for all households in the study area.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

13

Socioeconomic Characteristics of Respondents

Respondents’ socioeconomic characteristics- age, gender, marital status, household size, educational status,

religion, primary occupation, secondary occupation and membership of social groups were analysed descriptively

and the results are presented thus.

The results reveal that the mean age of household head in the study area is 44 years indicating that majority of

the respondents are youth and therefore are still in their active years. Household heads distribution by gender

reveals that there are more male-headed households (54.3 percent) than female-headed households (45.7

percent). Also, there are more married household heads (52.8 percent) than single (40.2 percent), divorced and

widowed (7.0 percent) household heads in the study area. Average household size is 5 indicating that household

size in the study area is fairly large and that men in the study area have at least secondary education while

women in the study area have at least primary education. Meanwhile, household heads’ distribution by religion

indicates that Christianity (85.0 percent) is the predominant religion of the respondents, the next to this is Islam

(10.6 percent) and the rest of them are traditional worshipers (4.4 percent).

However in terms of occupational distribution of respondents, farming is the highest employer of labour (47.6

percent), this is closely followed by government salaried job (23.6 percent) while others are engaged in the

informal sector. More so, households’ distribution by secondary occupation reveals that even for those engaged in

non-farm activities as their primary occupation, a lot of them still rely on agriculture (55.9 percent) as their

secondary income source. This in other words explains the relative importance of farming as the most patronized

activity in the study area. Others are either engaged as to social group shows than those belonging to social

group (60.6 percent) are more than those traders or artisans to augment their income sources. Again, household

heads’ distribution by those belonging not belonging (39.4 percent) to any of the social groups in the study area.

Their belonging to social group is seen as the easiest means of coping with food insecurity since the association

could assist them with loan to augment household needs especially when there is a shortfall. The distribution is

depicted in Table 1 below:

14

TABLE 1: Households’ Distribution by Socioeconomic Characteristics

Household Characteristics Frequency Percentage of Respondents

Age <25 26-35 36-45 46-55 >55

22 60 64 59 49

8.6 23.6 25.2 23.3 19.3

Gender Male Female

138 116

54.3 45.7

Marital Status Married Single Divorced Widowed

134 102 9 9

52.8 40.2 3.5 3.5

Educational Status No education Primary Secondary Tertiary

11 27 105 111

4.3 10.6 41.4 43.7

Household Size 1-3 4-6 7-10 >11

84 114 36 20

33.1 44.8 14.2 7.9

Religion

Christianity Islam Traditional

216 27 11

85.0 10.6 4.4

Primary Occupation Farming Government Salaried Job Trading Artisans Private Salaried Job

121 60 32 27 14

47.6 23.6 12.7 10.6 5.5

Secondary Occupation Farming Government Salaried Job Trading Artisans Private Salaried Job

142 28 76 3 5

55.9 11.0 29.9 1.2 2.0

Belonging to Social Group Yes No

154 100

60.6 39.4

Source, Computed from Survey Data No. of Observations: 254

Estimation of the Food Poverty Line (FPL)

Per-capita Food Consumption Expenditure (PCFEXP) = Food Consumption Expenditure/Household Size

Total Per-capita Food Consumption Expenditure (TPCFEXP)

= Summation of PCFEXP = N420, 065.8

Mean TPCEXP = TPCEXP/ Total Number of Households

15

= MTPCEXP = N420, 065.8/254

= N1, 653.802

Food Poverty Line (FPL) = 2/3 * MTPCEXP = 2/3 * N1, 653.802

= N1, 102

Table 2: Distribution of Respondents by Food Poverty Status and Gender

Food Insecure Food Secure Gender Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage Male 63 60.6 66 44.0

Female 41 39.4 84 56.0

Total 104 100.0 150 100.0 Source: Computed from Field Survey Data As revealed in Table 2, more male-headed households are food insecure (60.6 percent) than female-headed

households in the study area and this is consistent with findings in many of the developing countries of the world

(e.g. Haddad, 1991).

Explaining Determinants of Food Security among Households in Ekiti State, Nigeria

In explaining the determinants of food security status among households in Ekiti State, Nigeria the regressand

(i.e. the food poverty index- 1 for food secure and zero otherwise) was regressed against a number of

socioeconomic variables – age, gender, marital status, household size, educational status of household head,

income, belonging to social group, expenditure on non-food items using a logistic model. The results of the

analysis as depicted in Table 3 reveals that age, gender, educational status of household heads, income and

belonging to social group are positively related to the respondents’ food security status. In other words, an

increase in the value of any of these variables is associated with the likelihood (log-odds) of an increase in the

value of the regressand (e.g. as educational status of respondents increases, their food security status increases

as well). However, household size, non-food expenditure and primary occupation are negatively related to the

regressand. For instance, as household size increases there is the likelihood of household being food-insecure.

This is because increase in household size indirectly reduces income per-head (per-capita income) and this affect

households’ expenditure on food thereby increasing the likelihood of the household being food insecure. Also,

farming households have the likelihood of being food insecure than non-farming households. More, so, the higher

the expenditure on non-food items, the higher the likelihood of the household being food insecure. However, while

the coefficients of gender, educational status of household head, primary occupation are significant at 1 percent,

the coefficient of household size and belonging to social group are significant at 5 percent. On the other hand,

16

while the coefficients of age is significant at 10 percent, that of marital status and non-food expenditure are not

significant in the study area.

From the foregoing, the results generally reveals that age, gender, household size, educational status of

household head, income, and belonging to social group are major determinants of food security among

households in the study area.

Table 3: Logistic Results Showing Determinants of Food Security in Ekiti State Socioeconomic Variables Coefficient X1 0.0317* (0.0172) X2 0.1251*** (0.0916) X3 0.1679 (0.0452) X4 -0.0557** (0.0232) X5 0.1932*** (0.0993) X6 0.2469** (0.2101) X7 -0.2736 (0.1960) X8 0.1297*** (0.1024) X9 -0.5207 (0.1726) Constant - 0.0677 (1.0109 Author’s computation from Survey Data *** Coefficients significant at 1 percent No of Observations = 254 ** Coefficients significant at 5 percent Standard Errors are in Parenthesis * Coefficients significant at 10 percent Log likelihood = - 87.214671 Prob. > chi 2 = 0 >0.001000

Households’ Decision-making on Food by Gender and Its Effects on Food Security

In addressing the effect of gender inequity in decision-making and its effect on food security status of the

respondents, a number of information bordering on decisions about food security were obtained and analysed

using discuss analysis and the results are presented as indicated in Table 4. Thus, decisions on food and other

household needs were coded 1 for respondents taking the decision and 0 otherwise.

17

Table 4: Households’ Distribution by Decisions on Food and Other Needs Household Decisions Decision Maker

Type of Food to Buy Men Women

0 1

When to Take the Food Men Women

0 1

Number of Times to Take Food Men Women

1 0

Acquisition of Inputs Men Women

1 0

House Rent Men Women

1 0

School Fees Men Women

1 0

Keep Household Money Men Women

1 0

Spend Proceeds from Occupation Men Women

1 0

Coping Mechanisms to Adopt Men Women

0 1

Other Households’ Needs Men Women

0 1

Source: Computed From Survey Data

The result in Table 4 revealed that of the ten decisions bothering on food security considered, only three decisions

were taken by women. The decisions taken by women are those concerning type of food to buy, when to take the

food and food insecurity coping strategies to adopt. Other decisions like input acquisition, house rent, paying of

school fees, keeping of proceeds from occupation and spending of the proceeds were the sole responsibility of

men in the study area. From the analysis above, it is very clear that the bulk of the decisions impacting on food

security are taken by men thus putting women at a disadvantaged position in spite of their prime importance in

ensuring household food security. More so, a critical look at the data revealed that about three-quarter of the

respondents indicated that women are usually not consulted by men when taking decision about their households.

This is because in most of these households, women interviewed reported that they are frequently left out of

decision-making in their households simply because their husband feels they know how best the house should be

run.

18

Ranking of Food Insecurity Coping Strategies Based on Frequency of Use

The ranking of food insecurity coping strategies (Table 5) was done by using a four-point scale to score

households’ responses. These scores are 3, 2, 1 and zero for frequently used, occasionally used, rarely used

and not used respectively. Generally, about 11 different coping strategies were very prominent among the

available strategies employed. The study indicates that withdrawing from personal savings is the most widely

used of all the informal coping strategies in the study area. This is closely followed by reduction in the number of

meals taken and taking loans from friends and relations respectively. The respective percentages of households

using these strategies are 23.0 percent, 18.1 percent and 12.9 percent. However, a good number of the

respondents (11.9 percent) resort to selling their assets as means of coping especially in households having land.

The overall distribution explains the clearly explains the importance of credit as insurance against food insecurity

and this why a good a large number of the respondents belong to one social group or the other. Credit as an

important means of coping with risk has however been stressed in a study in Northern Nigeria and India by Udry

(1994); Eswaran and Kotwal (1989). Meanwhile, the least used of all the food insecurity coping strategies

employed is begging for alms from passers by where only about 2.3 percent of the respondents indicted its usage.

Table 5: Ranking of Food Insecurity Coping Strategies Based on their Frequency of Use COPING STRATEGY Frequently

Used (3) Occasionally Used (2)

Rarely Used (1)

Not Used (0)

CSUI % of Households

RANK

Reduce Meals taken 35 27 173 29 332 18.1 2

Begging for alms 2 10 17 25 43 2.3 11

Withdraw from Personal

Savings

106 35 34 5 422 23.0 1

Borrowing from

Relatives/Friends

45 28 45 129 236 12.9 3

Sell Assets e.g. land 23 41 67 56 218 11.9 4

Run to Relations/Friends 10 6 26 124 68 3.8 10

Cut down expenditures on

non-food items

21 9 44 103 125 6.8 5

Migrate to cities 5 12 51 77 90 4.9 8

Withdraw Children from

school

3 2 101 139 114 6.1 7

Send out Children for paid

Jobs

11 4 74 117 115 6.2 6

Result to Praying and

Fasting

16 10 5 12 73 4.0 9

TOTAL 1836 100.0

Source: Computed From Survey Data

19

SUMMARY OF MAJOR FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary of Findings

The findings of this study revealed that women are still not actively being involved in decision making as their

male counterparts and this however has some effects on food security attainment for men and women in the study

area. The reason(s) for inactive participation of women could be linked to the gender inequity in resource

allocation and asset acquisition. It was also found that the male respondents were better educated than their

female counterparts and this directly impact on their earning capacity and their ability to exert some influence on

decision-making within the households. On the issue of food security, it was found out that large-sized,

uneducated, low-income and male-headed households are less food secure than small-sized, educated, high-

income and female-headed households.

Conclusion and Recommendations

As revealed by the findings of this study, it is very clear that there is gender inequity in decision-making among the

households surveyed and this is impacting negatively on the food security status of households in the study area.

Also, female-headed, small-sized, educated, high income households and those belonging to social group are

more food secure than male-headed, large-sized, uneducated, low income and those not belonging to association

respectively. Thus, it is recommended that:

●Efforts should be intensified at capacity building (education of the girl-child) through increasing investment in

education as this will better enhance the earning capacity of respondents and invariably improve their food

security status.

●Households in the study area should be educated on the need to imbibe the use of contraceptives of other

family planning facilities so as to curtail their family size having found that large-sized households were less

food secure.

●There should be redistribution of income to favour women more than men since it has been documented that

women are better managers of homes and that the more the resources they are in control of the higher the

likelihood of the household being food secure.

REFERENCES

Adesina, A. A., D. Mbila, G. B. Nkamleu and D. Endamana (2000) Econometric Analysis of the Determinants of Adoption of Alley Farming by Farmers in the Forest Zone of Southwest Cameroon. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 1581 (2000) 1-11.

Afonja, S. (1996) The Challenge of Underdevelopment and Poverty. Obafemi Awolowo University (OAU), Ile-Ife

Inaugural Lecture Series 109, OAU Press Limited, Ile-Ife.

20

African Development Bank-ADB (1996) Selected Statistics on Regional Member Countries. Bardhan, K. (1985). “Women’s work, Welfare and Status”, Economic and Political Weekly 20: 51-52. Bhargava, A., H. Bouis, and N. Scrimshaw (2001) Dietary Intakes and Socioeconomic Factors Are Associated

With the Hemoglobin Concentration of Bangladeshi Women. Journal of Nutrition 131 (3): 758-764.

Broca, S. and P. Oram (1991) Study on the Location of the Poor. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington D.C. USA.

Carr, Marilyn (editor). 1991. Women and Food Security: The experience of the SADCC Countries. London:

Intermediate Technologies. Central Bank of Nigeria-CBN (1993) Economic and Financial Review 31(2) June. Cloud, K. (1987) “Gender Issues in AIDS Agricultural Projects: How Efficient Are We”? USAID Washington, D. C.,

USA. Division of the Advancement of Women-DAW (1999) World Survey on the Role of Women in Development:

Globalization, Gender and Work. Department of Economic and Social Affairs. New York: United Nations.

Dreze, J. (1990b) “Widows in Rural India”, DEP No 26, London. London School of Economics. Development Economics Research Programme.

Eswaran, M. and Kotwal, A. (1989) Credit as insurance in Agrarian Economies. Journal of Development

Economics, Vol. 31, no. 1, 37-53. Food and Agriculture Organization- FAO- (1997) Agriculture food and nutrition for Africa: A resource book for

teachers of agriculture. Food and Nutrition Division. Information Division, Rome, Italy. FAO (2001) The State of Food Insecurity in the World. Food and Agricultural Organisation. Rome, Italy. Food Consumption and Nutrition Division- FCND (1999) Technical Guides for Operationalising Household Food

Security in Development Projects. Washington: International Food Policy Research Institute. Gujarati, D. N. (1995) Basic Econometrics, Third Edition. New York and London. McGraw-Hill International

Editions. Haddad, L. (1991) “Gender and Poverty in Ghana”, IDS Bulletin, 22 (1): 5-16. Harcourt, W. (2005) The Millennium Development Goals: A Missed Opportunity? Development, 48(1), 1-4, Society

for International Development (SID) 1011-6370/05. IFPRI (2001) Food Security in Practice, Methods for Rural Development Projects, Edited by John Hoddinott.

IFPRI, Washington, D. C. USA. Islam, M. M. and M. A. Kashem (1999) Farmers use of Ethno-veterinary Medicine (EVM) in the rearing and

management of livestock: An Empirical Study in Bangladesh, Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, Vol. 13, No.4 pp. 39-56.

21

Johnson-Welch, Charlotte (1999) Focusing on Women Works: Research on Improving Micronutrient Deficiencies through Food-based Interventions. Washington: International Center for Research on Women.

Kishor, S. (2000) Empowerment of Women in Egypt and Links to the Survival and Health of their Infants. In

Women’s Empowerment and Demographic Processes, ed. H. Presser and G. Sen. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Levin, Carol, Daniel G. Maxwell, Margaret Armar-Klemesu, Marie T. Ruel, Saul S. Morris, and Clement Ahiadeke

(1999) “Working Women in an Urban Setting: Traders, Vendors, and Food Security in Accra.” Discussion Paper No. 66. Food Consumption and Nutrition Division. Washington: International Food Policy Research Institute.

Lupien, J. R. (1999) Food Perspectives and Food Demand Beyond 2000. Keynote Address for the 10th World Congress of Food Science and Technology Sidney, Australia, October 4, 1999.

Maxwell, S. (1996) “Food Security: A post-modern Perspective”. Food Policy, 41(2): 385-99). Maxwell, S. (1990). Food security in Developing Countries: Issues and Options for the 1990s, IDS Bulletin 21 (3):

2-13. Maxwell, Simon and Timothy R. Frankenberger (1992) Household Food Security: Concepts, Indicators,

Measurements. New York and Rome: UNICEF and International Fund for Agricultural Development. Maxwell, D., C. Ahiadeke, C. Levin, M. Armar-Klemesu, S. Zakariah and G. M. Lamptey (1999) “Alternative Food

Security Indicators: Revisiting the Frequency and Severity of Coping Strategies”. Food Policy, 24:411-29. Muhavi, D. K. and Preston S. H. (1991) “Effects of Family Consumption on Mortality Differentials by Sex among

children in Matlab, Thana, Bangladesh Population and Development Review, 17 (3). Obasanjo, O. and A. Mabogunje (1991). “Elements of Development” Printed by C and A Prints (Nigeria) Ltd,

Africa Leadership Form. Okunmadewa, F.Y. (1998) Poverty and the Agricultural Sector in Nigeria: Situation Analysis. A seminal paper

presented in the Department of Agricultural Economics, Staff Seminar Series, University of Ibadan, Nigeria. Dec. 1998.

Oluwatayo, I. B. (2004) Income Risk and Welfare Status of Rural Households in Nigeria: Ekiti State as a Test

Case. WIDER Research Paper (RP. 2004/61), 20pp. UNU/WIDER, Helsinki, Finland. Oluwatayo, I. B. (2005) The Effect of Poverty on Children’s Upbringing in Ibadan, Oyo State, Nigeria: A Case

Study of Abadina Community. Multidisciplinary Journal of Empirical Research Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 21- 30. Poats, S. V. (1971). “The Role of Gender in Agricultural Development Consultative Group on International

Agricultural Research (CGIAR) Issues No. 3. Quisumbing, A. R., and J. A. Maluccio (2003) Resources at Marriage and Intrahousehold Allocation: Evidence

from Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Indonesia, and South Africa. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 65 (3): 283-328.

22

Rao, S., C. S. Yajnik and A. Kanade (2001) Intake of Micronutrient-Rich Foods in Rural Indian Mothers Is Associated With the Size of Their Babies at Birth: Pune Maternal Nutrition Study. Journal of Nutrition 131 (4): 1217-1224.

Sen, A. (1981) Poverty and Famine: An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Smith, L. C., U. Ramakrishna, A. Ndiaye, L. Haddad, and R. Martorell (2003) The Importance of Women’s Status

for Child Nutrition in Developing Countries. Research Report 131. Washington D. C.: IFPRI, USA. Smith, L. C. and M. E. Byron (2005) Is Greater Decision making Power of Women Associated with Reduced

Gender Discrimination in South Asia? FCND Discussion Paper 200, IFPRI, Washington D.C. USA. Swiss International Development Agency-SIDA (1985): Plan of Action: The Women’s Dimension in Development

Assistance, SIDA Authority, Sweden. Strauss, J. and D. Thomas (1995) “Human Resources: Empirical Modeling of Household and Family Decisions”.

In J. Behrman and T. N. Srinivasan, eds., Handbook of Development Economics, Vol. 3. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

Thomas, D. (1994) “Like Father, Like Son; Like Mother, Like Daughter: Parental Resources and Child Height”.

Journal of Human Resources, 29(4): 950-88. Thomas, D. (1997) Income, Expenditures, and Health Outcomes: Evidence on Intrahousehold Resource

Allocation. In Intrahousehold Resource Allocation in Developing Countries: Models, Methods, and Policy, ed. L. Haddad, J. Hoddinott, and H. Alderman. Baltimore, Md., USA: John Hopkins University Press for the IFPRI.

United Nations Family Planning Agency (1999) Food for the Future: Women, Population and Food Security.

UNFPA website (http://www.unfpa.org/modules/intercenter/food). Udry, C. (1994) Credit Markets in Northern Nigeria: Credit as Insurance in a Rural Economy, In World Bank

Economic Review, Vol. 4 no. 3, 251-71. U. S. Agency for International Development (1997) Draft USAID Policy on Food Security. Washington, D. C. USA.

World Bank (1995). A New Agenda for Women’s Health and Nutrition, Towards Gender Equality: The Role of Public Policy. Development in Practice, Washington, D. C., USA.

World Bank (1986) Poverty and Hunger: Issues and Options for Food Security in Developing Countries.

Washington, D. C., USA. World Bank (1996) Poverty Reduction and the World Bank-Progress and Challenges in the 1990s. The World

Bank, Washington D. C. USA.