Upload
ccanepa
View
503
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Citation preview
Webinars on
Women’s Collective Action (WCA) in
Agricultural Markets
Webinar 2: Typology
August 30, 2011,12:00-14:00 (GMT)
Facilitated by
Three organisations with different perspectives, but a
common issue of interest
Collaboration to co-host
WCA webinars
WCA Webinars –a space where different organisations
can share their research and learning on WCA
WCA
Pathways
Programme
Researching
women’s
collective
action
project
Research on
member-based
organisations,
etc.
Webinar 3: Synthesis of
findings, WCA projectSep. 20
Webinar 2: Typology of collective
action
Webinar 1: Conceptual framework
Aug. 30
Webinars 4-6Starting in November
Theme 1: Tools for Analysing Collective Action
Themes and topics not yet identified
Suggestions welcome!
Road map for webinars
Objective for today’s webinar on the ‘Typology’:
•Establish a shared understanding of the strengths and limitations of the
characterisation used by Oxfam in Phase II of the WCA project
•Determine how the typology may be or applied
•Identify specific suggestions for further developing the typology on CA
Today !
Output: Summary
of feedback
Output: Summary
of feedbackSynthesis
paper
• Towards a typology on
WCA in agricultural
markets
• Lessons learned from a
typology on microfinance
organisations
• Comments and questions
to stimulate discussion
• Discussion in plenary
• Wrap up and next steps
Agenda for today
Sally Baden,
Oxfam
Anuj Jain,
Coady Institute
Mary, McVay,
Enterprise Dev. Kiosk
Ruth Vargas-Hill,
IFPRI
Design Finding
Different characteristics of CA groups
determine: • Who joins
• Functions
• Structure
• Interactions with others (inc market )
Characterising existing groups helps to: • Identify and compare gender-based patterns across
subsectors, countries
• (potentially) Guide practitioner thinking about pros and
cons of supporting different types of groups
Why a typology of WCA ?
LEGAL/POLICY
FRAMEWORK- Membership criteria
- Registration procedure
- Trading permit
PATTERNS OF
COLLECTIVE ACTION
Gender
relations
Social
capital
External
intervention
Membership
Gender
Composition
Functionality
Degree of
formality
Group
dynamics
& evolution
Governance
structure
CHARACTERISTICS OF
THE DIFFERENT SUB-
SECTORS-Barriers to women‟s entry
-Gender segregation in
various market segments
-Risks and opportunities
IMPROVED CAPACITY FOR WOMEN TO BECOME EFFECTIVE ACTORS IN THE MARKETNew spaces and roles for women
Capacity to negotiate more equitable terms of trade
Fewer barriers to women‟s participation in the sub-sector
Linking to the conceptual framework
Design FindingDimension Criteria
1. Characteristic
of the organisation
(function)
A. Specialised marketing (sub-sector-based)
B. Mixed marketing (working in several products/sub-sectors)
C. Mixed multi-purpose (marketing and other services)
D. Does not engage in markets directly, but facilitates market entry (e.g. finance, training, inputs)
2. Degree of
women's involvement
A. Passive members (mixed groups)
B. Active members (mixed groups)
C. Active members and hold positions of leadership (mixed groups)
D. Women-only group
3. Degree of formality
A. Formally registered, official name, well-defined rules and norms, explicit membership,
affiliated into an umbrella federation of similar organisations
B. Formally registered, etc., but not affiliated to higher tier federation
C. Semi-formal: non-registered, follows some agreed rules and norms, regular meetings and
activities, may have links with other organisations
D. Informal: non-registered, more ad hoc forms of collaboration, no formal partnerships/linkages
4. Degree of
external support
A. Mainly externally supported, highly dependent on one primary source of finance
B. Some level of ongoing external support (e.g. technical trainings, advice, funds)
C. Significant degree of autonomy despite past support
D. Group initiated by members and mainly reliant on internal resources
Characterisation for Phase II
research
Design FindingExample from Tanzania
Typology of CAStaple Export/
Traditional high value
Non-traditional
high value
Rice1 Maize2 Chickpea1 Allanblackia2 Local
chicken1
Vegetable2
1. Total number of CA groups 16 10 7 12 26 10
2. Characteristic of the organisation
Number of specialised groups 4 0 0 12 2 1
Number of multi-purpose groups 12 10 7 0 24 9
3. Degree of women’s involvement
Number of mixed groups 15 9 7 12 25 9
Number of women-only groups 1 1 0 0 1 1
4. Degree of formality
Number of formal groups 15 6 7 12 22 4
Number of informal groups 1 4 0 0 4 6
5. Degree of external support
Externally-supported 15 9 7 12 22 9
Self-driven 1 1 0 0 4 1
1Sub-sector in Shinyanga region,
2Sub-sector in Tanga region
DeIInisign Finding
Function:
• Specialised correlates with formal/ externally
supported
• Exports, esp HV non traditional exports :
specialised groups (e.g. tiger nuts, sesame, shea
butter, allanblackia, coffee). Mixed/ male
dominated; except shea butter?
• Women more present in multi-functional, service
and production oriented groups
• But many groups may co-exist
Initial findings
Design Finding
Degree of formality:
• Formal groups „the norm‟ across most sub-
sectors (not ground-nut/ millet and sorghum).
• Informal groups – mainly female participation
• Informal groups may support or be offshoots of
formal?
• Degree of external support:
• Some degree of support is the norm. Few
examples of self initiated groups?
Initial findings
Design Finding
Degree of women‟s participation:
• Low incidence of women only groups in Tanzania
compared to Ethiopia and esp. Mali?
• Women dominated groups in some sub-sectors
(shea butter, millet/sorghum, groundnuts, spices)
• Women dominated groups in some functions (e.g.
S&C, processing?)
Initial findings
Design Finding
• Function: some categories not covered;
multiple functions (as well as multi-sector)?
• Gender composition – a spectrum; women‟s
participation/ leadership conflated ?
• Missing: nature of relationship with market? – Informal trading networks
– Vertical alliance (PO)
– Horizontal collaboration
– Buyer driven/ company supported
– Hybrid/ cluster models
NB: How does this fit in conceptual frame?
Challenges
Design Finding
• Tension between complexity and usefulness
as tool? (esp. when multiple dimensions)
• Static nature of typology: does not capture
evolution of groups
Challenges
Design Finding:
• Phase II analysis: Completing gaps in data
where possible to finalise (inventories)
• Phase III research:
– Categories help with quant research (survey
design)?
– Use typology to focus our efforts on limited range of
categories/ cases
– Separate gender composition and women‟s
leadership - gender composition a primary
category of analysis
Ways forward: research
Design Finding:
Starting point is
„what types of organisation (or ways of
organising) work to engage women in
markets‟ and „how can practitioners support
them‟
Useful – but are we ready? Develop broad
categories and possible pros and cons?
Is a typology the best tool?
Ways forward: practitioner
guidance?
Anuj Jain
May 2011
Community Based
Microfinance Typology
Context Member
profile
Operating
Environ-
ment
Existing
Services
Program Interventions Approach/
Products
Delivery
Channel
Goals Impact Efficiency Sustainability
Program Design Framework
MFIs/ BanksMember owned
Institutions (MoIs)
Federation
4. VSNL groups3. SHGs/
Village Banks
2. Finance Association/
SACCOs
1. CU/ Finance Coop.
Community Based, Members Owned
Microfinance methodologies
Key difference
Formal Informal
VSLA/ Savings
Groups
Self Help
GroupsOnly savings V/s
External capital
Regulated/ registered
Credit
Unions and
large Coops.
SACCOs/
RuSACCOs/
FSAs
Finance +/ Multipurpose
Only FinancialRange of services
and products
Size of primary group
membership/
geographical cover
Scale of aggregation
More integrated in market system Less Integrated/ more decentralized
Influencing Factors - location, Livelihood opportunities, gender; governance and management capacity, range of finance products,
financial and institutional viability; linkages with formal sector; resources and goal of promoting org.
Financial / Support org
Institutional Approaches/
Banks/ MFIsOwnership
Federation/ II Tier and/ or III Tier organization
Microfinance approaches
• Mary McVay
Enterprise Development Kiosk
• Ruth Vargas-Hill
IFPRI
Commentators
Comments: Mary McVay
• Typologies in general are helpful for understanding and processing complex information – for laying a foundation for tools that practitioners can use to improve development outcomes.
• This typology is “true” – reflects reality. All these types exist. Useful for assessing the extent of different types indifferent sectors, regions, etc. But, are the defining factors of the different types what we want to measure, and why?
• What are the research questions? What are the hypotheses? This will help focus the framework and typology.
• Back to the beginning: The Framework is effective in today‟s format: as analytical tool and causal model .. i.e.– To help address the challenge: how is the group linking to the market?
Understanding of sub-sector (right) will provide this information
• Endorse: Program design framework – matching program to context, don‟t just study one element – the program, the CA
Comments: Mary McVay (cont.)
What are the research questions?• Measurement tool: how do we assess
effectiveness for women‟s equality and empowerment? Focus on women‟s benefits and power as determining factor of “type”. Assumption is that “characteristics” matter less or can vary according to context, all can work.
• Strategy option – which type or structure should we support in what context? What are best practices for each different type?
• What elements - across different types groups –support women‟s equality and empowerment?
Gender environment
• Individual: level of education, skill set
• Household: marital status, husband‟s location, roles, control over resources, norms
• Community/Culture: mobility, financial autonomy, roles
• Policy/rights
Sector Environment
• Gender identified crop?
• Responsibilities:
extent/type of women‟s
work
• Rights: to use land, to
determine crop strategy;
to access cash,
determine spending
• Gender roles along the
value chain: involvement,
power, exploitation
Comments: Mary McVay (cont.)
TypologyResearch questions
Comments: Mary McVay (cont.)
Comments: Ruth Vargas-Hill
• In its current form, the typology seems designed to categorise more than to draw comparisons and lend to hypotheses.
• Specifying the research question will help to guide the principles/dimensions that underpin the typology.
• Accounting for the relationship between markets and CA in one of these dimensions may be necessary to get an accurate picture of the dynamics of CA
• Find a balance between having a manageable number of categories of classification within the typology and having enough disaggregation so as to have some variation across the characteristics of each group.
Design Finding• What aspects of the typology of collective action in
agricultural markets resonate with you?
• What did you find surprising?
• What is missing?
• How can we build on this work on typology to:
– integrate research and practice?
– guide phase 3 of the research on WCA?
• Other comments?
Questions for discussion
• Main highlights of discussion
• Next steps
• Upcoming webinars:
– Synthesis of phase II findings, Sep. 20
– Webinars 4-6 starting in November (looking for
presenters!)
Summary and next steps
Finalise research design of
next phase
Summary of today’s webinar
discussion
Further develop typology
Complete Phase II
synthesis of findings paper