University of Amsterdam Graduate School of Social Sciences International Development Studies Masters Thesis

Social Capital and Rural Livelihoods: Understanding how female smallholder farmers in western Kenya access and utilize community groups to improve their livelihoods

Jessica Peyla Nagtalon

August 2011

Cover photo: Community members at a public forum, Busijo, Samia District, Kenya. (Jessica Peyla Nagtalon 2011).

Social Capital and Rural Livelihoods: Understanding how female smallholder farmers in western Kenya access and utilize community groups to improve their livelihoods

University of Amsterdam, Graduate School of Social Sciences International Development Studies Masters Thesis Student: Jessica Peyla Nagtalon Student Number: 6274382 Address: Silodam 435, 1013AW Amsterdam E-mail: jessnagtalon@hotmail.com

Supervisor
Dr. Nicky R.M. Pouw Assistant Professor, International Development Studies Graduate School of Social Sciences University of Amsterdam Nieuwe Prinsengracht 130 1018 VZ Amsterdam The Netherlands Phone: +31(0)20-5254105 E-mail: n.r.m.pouw@uva.nl http://home.medewerker.uva.nl/n.r.m.pouw/

Second Assessor
Dr. Mirjam Ros-Tonen Assistant Professor, International Development Studies Graduate School of Social Sciences University of Amsterdam Nieuwe Prinsengracht 130 1018 VZ Amsterdam The Netherlands Phone: +31(0)20-5254179 E-mail: m.a.f.ros-tonen@uva.nl http://home.medewerker.uva.nl/m.a.f.ros-tonen/

Local Supervisor
Dr. Hannington Odame Centre for African Bio-Entrepreneurship Family Health Plaza Off-Langata Road P.O. Box 1285 Nairobi Kenya Phone: +254 (0)20600040 Mobile: + 254 (0)724226893 E-mail: hsodame@gmail.com

Abstract
This thesis presents the findings of a livelihoods study that looked at the extent to which female smallholder farmers in Samia District, western Kenya, are utilizing community groups as a source of social capital. It examined access, participation levels and the potential benefits of group membership, as well as the factors that can influence all of these things. Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected through a combination of focus group discussions, interviews, a household survey and participatory exercises such as community mapping and wealth ranking.

The findings reveal that a few common factors influence access to self-help groups and the flow of benefits that are necessary to bring about improvements in local livelihoods. These include poverty status, gender constraints, social relations, and conditions of community groups and their linkages with institutions.

Key words: women, female farmers, agriculture, community groups, livelihoods, social capital, institutions, gender, social-relational perspective.

Table of Contents
Abstract ......................................................................................................................... 5 List of Tables ................................................................................................................. 9 List of Figures .............................................................................................................. 10 List of Photos ............................................................................................................... 10 List of Abbreviations ................................................................................................... 11 List of Words ............................................................................................................... 11 Chapter 1. Introduction .............................................................................................. 12 Chapter 2. Theoretical framework ............................................................................. 14
2.1. The Livelihoods Approach........................................................................................... 14 2.1.1. Origins and purpose of the livelihoods approach ................................................... 14 2.1.2. Livelihoods Assets ................................................................................................. 15 2.2 Social capital ................................................................................................................. 15 2.2.1. Origins and different views on social capital ......................................................... 16 2.2.2. Benefits of social capital ........................................................................................ 17 2.2.3. Negative consequences of social capital ................................................................ 18 2.3. Gender ......................................................................................................................... 19 2.3.1. Gender, a social institution .................................................................................... 19 2.3.2. Farming in Africa through a gendered lens............................................................ 20 2.4. Call for a social-relational perspective .......................................................................... 22 2.5 Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 23

Chapter 3: Context ...................................................................................................... 24

3.1. Socio-economic characteristics of Kenya ...................................................................... 24 3.1.1. Economy, livelihoods and income disparity............................................................ 24 3.1.2. Gender inequality .................................................................................................. 25 3.2. Community groups in Kenya ........................................................................................ 27 3.2.1. Brief history .......................................................................................................... 28 3.2.2. Transformation of women s groups........................................................................ 29 3.3. Research area ............................................................................................................... 30 3.3.1. Location and size................................................................................................... 30 3.3.2. Physical resources................................................................................................. 30 3.3.3. Local livelihoods ................................................................................................... 31 3.3.4. District level government administration and programs ......................................... 31 3.3.5. Local Governance ................................................................................................. 33 3.3.6. CABE Network ...................................................................................................... 34 3.5. Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 34

Chapter 4. Methodology ............................................................................................. 36

4.1. Research questions ....................................................................................................... 36 4.2. Research Methodologies ............................................................................................... 36 4.3. Conceptual scheme ....................................................................................................... 37 4.3.1. Description of the schematic and connection between the main concepts ............... 37 4.3.2. Key assumptions .................................................................................................... 39 4.4. Units of Analysis .......................................................................................................... 39 Community groups .......................................................................................................... 39 4.5 Methods ........................................................................................................................ 40 4.5.1. Data collection ...................................................................................................... 40 4.5.2. Sampling methods ................................................................................................. 44 4.5.3. Methods of Analysis............................................................................................... 45 6

4.5.4. Limits to methods .................................................................................................. 46 4.6. Ethical considerations ................................................................................................... 46 4.7. Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 47

Chapter 5. Characteristics of rural livelihoods and female farmers in Busijo ......... 48

5.1. Research population ..................................................................................................... 48 5.2. Household Wealth Ranking and Survey Sample............................................................ 50 5.2.1. Composition of the household survey sample ......................................................... 50 5.2.2. Key household characteristics according to wealth ranking ................................... 50 5.3. Socio-economic status of female farmers ...................................................................... 53 5.3.1. Characteristics of the female respondents and their households ............................. 53 5.3.2. Livelihood attributes and challenges of female farmers .......................................... 57 5.3.3. Women s roles and responsibilities on the homestead ............................................ 62 5.3.4. Women s participation in public life ...................................................................... 63 5.4. Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 65

Chapter 6. Social capital in Busijo .............................................................................. 66

6.1. Community groups as social capital .............................................................................. 66 6.1.1. Types of community groups and some basic characteristics ................................... 66 6.1.2. Group activities ..................................................................................................... 69 6.2. Group Membership: who is participating and why ........................................................ 69 6.3. Other sources of social capital ...................................................................................... 71 6.4. Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 74

Chapter 7. Community groups and livelihood improvements ................................... 75

7.1. Level of benefits and access to other capitals through group membership ...................... 75 7.1.1. Increased income................................................................................................... 76 7.1.2. Participation in public forums, improved networking and empowerment................ 77 7.1.3. Access to shamba assistance, farm inputs and services .......................................... 78 7.2. Effectiveness of groups as social capital ....................................................................... 79 7.2.1. Internal challenges ................................................................................................ 80 7.2.2. External challenges: limitations of institutions ....................................................... 81 7.3. Community needs and recommendations for strengthening groups ................................ 83 7.4. Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 84

Chapter 8: Conclusion................................................................................................. 85
8.1. Findings ....................................................................................................................... 85 8.1.1. Community groups and how female farmers use them ........................................... 86 8.1.2. Constraints to access and the materialization of benefits....................................... 86 8.2. Reflection on the methodology .................................................................................... 88 8.3. Recommendations and follow-up studies ...................................................................... 89 8.3.1. Policy recommendations....................................................................................... 89 8.3.2. Recommendation for further research.................................................................... 90

Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................... 91 References .................................................................................................................... 92 Appendix 1. Maps of research area ............................................................................ 98 Appendix 2. Operationalization Chart ..................................................................... 100 Appendix 3. Data reference tables ............................................................................ 103 Appendix 4. Sample questions for focus groups and interviews .............................. 106 Appendix 5. Wealth ranking criteria ........................................................................ 112 Appendix 6. Household questionnaire ...................................................................... 113

Appendix 7. Sampling table for focus groups........................................................... 123 Appendix 8. Chapter 5 data tables ........................................................................... 124 Appendix 9. Daily schedules for Busijo farmers ...................................................... 128 Appendix 10. Chapter 6 data tables, text boxes and figures .................................... 129 Appendix 11. Chapter 7 data tables, text boxes and figures .................................... 135 Appendix 12. Photos .................................................................................................. 143

List of Tables
Table 3.1: Kenya Gender Gap Index 2010 ........................................................................... 26 Table 4.1: Composition of research clusters ......................................................................... 44 Table: 4.2: Household survey sample .................................................................................. 45 Table 5.1: Composition of the household survey sample ...................................................... 50 Table 5.2: Composition of household survey sample according to wealth levels .................. 51 Table 5.3: Housing type for survey respondents according to wealth level ........................... 51 Table 5.4: Utilization of farm laborers by survey households according to wealth level ....... 52 Table 5.5: Land size and average number of livestock for survey households according to wealth level ......................................................................................................................... 53 Table 5.6: Distribution of female respondents according to household type and their wealth levels .................................................................................................................................. 54 Table 5.7: Age of female respondents according to household type ...................................... 54 Table 5.8: Number of female respondents with little or no schooling according to age ......... 56 Table 5.9: Size of household for female respondents according to household type ............... 57 Table 5.10: Livelihood activities of female respondents according to household type ........... 58 Table 5.11: Average land sizes for female and male respondents, by gender and household type ..................................................................................................................................... 61 Table 5.12: Female respondents participating in farming decision-making according to household type .................................................................................................................... 62 Table 5.13: Level of attendance at chief s barazas by male and female respondents ............. 64 Table 6.1: Membership in community groups by respondent sex ......................................... 70 Table 6.2: Membership in community groups by female respondents according to wealth category .............................................................................................................................. 70 Table 7.1: Benefits of group membership experienced by female respondents in Busijo ....... 75 Table 7.2: Attendance at assistant chief s weekly baraza in Busijo by female farmers according to the group membership status ........................................................................... 77 Table 7.3: Awareness of female farmers about agricultural extension services ..................... 79 Table 7.4: Female respondents perception of the fairness of information distribution in Busijo ........................................................................................................................................... 82

List of Figures
Figure 2.1: Diagram of the Social Institutions Variables for the SIGI ................................... 20 Figure 3.1: Kenya s 2009 SIGI Index .................................................................................. 27 Figure 4.1: Conceptual scheme ............................................................................................ 38 Figure 5.1: Education level completed by female respondents according to household type ..................................................................................................................................... 55 Figure 5.2: Education level completed by female respondents according to wealth level ...... 55 Figure 6.1: Sources of farm and household assistance for female respondents not in community groups............................................................................................................... 72 Figure 6.2: Sources of financial assistance and accessing farm inputs for female respondents not in community groups. .................................................................................................... 73 Figure 6.3: Self-reliance of female respondents not in community groups by wealth level and type of household ................................................................................................................ 73 Figure 7.1: Heterogeneity of community groups: Percentage of female respondents belonging to groups with the following membership characteristics ..................................................... 81

List of Photos
Photo 5.1: Busijo Community Map...................................................................................... 49

10

List of Abbreviations
CABE DFID FAO FGD GGGI IDS IFAD IGA KAPP LGSCD NALEP NGO OECD SIGI UvA WEF Centre for African Bio-Entrepreneurship UK Department for International Development Food and Agriculture Organization Focus Group Discussion Global Gender Gap Index Institute of Development Studies International Fund for Agricultural Development Income Generating Activity Kenya Agricultural Productivity Program Locational Gender and Social Development Committee National Agriculture and Livestock Extension Programme Non-Governmental Organization Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Social Institutions and Gender Index University of Amsterdam Women s Enterprise Fund

List of Words Kiswahili

Baraza Boma Harambee Jembe Mandazi Mzungu Sakuma wiki Shamba

English
Meeting/Meeting place Homestead Common type of fundraiser; means let s pull together Hoe Small, fried doughnut-like snack White Person Vegetable similar to spinach Farm

Kisamia
Boda-boda Liguruus

English
Motorbike Village Elders

11

Chapter 1. Introduction
Recent publications, such as the Rural Poverty Report 2011 by the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), highlight the importance of addressing gender differences in farming for effective agricultural development and sustainable rural livelihoods. In the Africa context, 70% of Kenyan women participate in subsistence farming (Whitehead, 1994) and contribute to nearly half of all farm labor in Kenya (Kimani, 2008), in addition to caring for the home and children. The type of household and relations of the family unit to which she belongs influences how she carries out farming and other livelihood activities. In addition, the broader social and political environment in which a female farmer resides also affects her life and institutionalizes particular cultural norms (such as gender roles) that can perpetuate inequality and chronic poverty. These barriers prevent women from participating fully in society. Alternatively, empowering women can enhance economic growth and social development and benefit future generations

Since pre-colonial times collective actions by African women have played an strategic role in establishing their place in society and protecting their gendered interests (Udvardy, 1998). Today, women s groups have evolved but they are still important in that they help women carry out their livelihoods in an ever-challenging world. As a source of social capital, which is built through social interactions, women can utilize groups to access information, resources and services. The concern, however, is that Mwaniki s (1986) contention from twenty-five years ago still holds true: that is, women s groups in Kenya are important for meeting the immediate needs of poor women and their families, but their potential for greater impact on rural development is stifled by internal and external problems facing the groups, and even more so by the subordination and discrimination of women.

Building on that line of reasoning, I propose that understanding how female farmers are utilizing community groups today may help illuminate not only the livelihood benefits that they are experiencing, but also the challenges they face and some of the driving factors that keep rural African women marginalized. In addition, I hope to reveal how groups can be improved to better serve the needs and goals of women and complement community priorities for sustainable rural development.

This thesis utilizes the livelihoods approach in tandem with a social-relational perspective to answer the main research question: To what extent do female smallholder farmers in Samia District, western Kenya have access to community groups as a form of social capital and how do they use them to improve their livelihoods? 12

The research was carried out in collaboration with the Centre for African BioEntrepreneurship (CABE), which is supporting smallholder farmers in Samia District through a network of community groups. CABE wishes to identify, design and implement agricultural project activities and enterprises that will empower women and improve their livelihoods (Odame, Okumu and Pouw, 2010, p. 3). Thus, an additional motivation of my research was to contribute to gathering socio-economic information about rural Kenyan women that will support their future interventions.

The chapters following this one are laid out in the following manner: Chapter two describes the theoretical framework that guided this research. Chapter three provides background on Kenya and the research location. Then, the research questions and methodologies and the conceptual scheme are described in chapter four. Chapter five describes the socio-economic characteristics of the research population, and places special attention on the female respondents to understand how they compare to men for key attributes and how their gender determines their roles and responsibilities and social status. Chapter six sets out to describe the kinds of community groups that exist in the research area and how female farmers use them. Chapter seven, the final data chapter, examines the perceived benefits from group membership and the factors that can limit the impact of groups and also restrict access to them by certain segments of the population. The concluding chapter answers the main research question and presents some policy and follow-up research recommendations.

13

Chapter 2. Theoretical framework

This chapter describes the theoretical framework of my research. It is grounded in the livelihoods approach enhanced with a social-relational perspective in order to understand the complex context in which female smallholder farmers carry out their livelihoods. This framework also allowed me to pull together the main concepts in my research: specifically gender, social capital and institutions. The relationships between them can be visualized in the conceptual scheme, which is presented in chapter 4, section 4.3. In the meantime, this chapter is laid out in the following manner: section one describes the livelihoods approach, which is followed by a section on social capital one of the five livelihood assets. It includes

an overview of the potential benefits of social capital, as well as some of the negative consequences of social interactions. Section four addresses gender and agriculture, focusing on female farmers in sub-Saharan Africa. The final section describes why a social-relational perspective is needed in conjunction with the livelihoods approach and social capital for poverty reduction.

2.1. The Livelihoods Approach

2.1.1. Origins and purpose of the livelihoods approach The livelihoods approach is a cross-disciplinary/multi-sector development concept that examines how people make a living. It gained popularity during the 1990s at a time when there was increasing interest in understanding the local perspective of the poor and engaging community-based organizations in development and natural resources management projects (Butler and Mazur, 2007). While Amartya Sen laid the foundation for livelihoods thinking by bringing attention to the socio-economic causes of poverty and famine (1981) and to the agency of poor people to do something about their situation (Wikimedia Foundation, 2011), the article by Chambers and Conway (1991) Sustainable rural livelihoods: practical concepts for the 21st century is often cited as triggering the popularity of the livelihoods approach. From this followed a sea of literature, by authors such as Scoones (1998), Carney (2002), Ashley and Carney (1999), Bebbington (1999) and Ellis (2003); the creation of methodologies, and the uptake of the livelihoods approach by organizations such as CARE, UNDP, Oxfam, the Institute of Development Studies (IDS) and the United Kingdom s Department for International Development (DFID). The livelihoods approach sets out to understand the strategies and aspirations of poor people; the reasons behind their decisions; and how development efforts can reinforce the positive aspects of these strategies and mitigate against constraints (IDS, 2011, n.p.). In the rural context, households typically cannot obtain sufficient food and income from farming

14

alone, [so] they depend on a diverse portfolio of activities and income sources, nurturing the social networks of kin and community that enable such diversity to be secured and sustained (Butler and Mazur, 2007, pp. 606-607). The livelihoods conceptual framework captures these dynamics through five inter-related components that are described in the next section. 2.1.2. Livelihoods Assets Central to the livelihoods framework are five types of assets, also known as capitals. These include: 1) human capital (skills, education, health); 2) physical capital (produced goods); 3) financial capital (money, savings, loan access); 4) natural capital (water, trees, etc.); and 5) social capital (social interactions, networks) (Ellis, 2003, p. 3). Most people do not have access to all of these assets at the same time or in the same amount. The livelihoods approach looks at how people put them to productive use via different strategies (IDS, 2011, n.p.). In general, livelihood strategies allow people to pursue their priorities and deal with (or reduce) risk and vulnerability in their environment. For example, a female farmer may use her human capital and membership in a community organization (social capital) to participate in income generating activities. This in turn can help her raise money (financial capital), which may be used for purchasing farm inputs or pay for school fees. Livelihood outcomes can be as diverse as the livelihood strategies; they are the priorities, aspirations, and goals of an individual or household within a particular context.

The livelihoods approach generally describes people s actions and interactions within two different contexts: 1) environmental and 2) institutional. In the present research, I only deal with the institutional context, which set the terms of reference (Thomas-Slayter, 1994, p. 1486) that shape how people interact (North, 1990 cited in Bratton, 2007). Institutions can be both formal and informal. Written laws and policies and the structures that enforce them (Leftwich and Sen, 2011) are considered formal institutions. On the other hand, informal institutions include social norms and practices that are customary rather than statutory; therefore they tend to not be written (Leftwich and Sen, 2011), but they can still have a significant influence on people s livelihoods. Socio-cultural and political structures and processes can both enable and stifle social relationships, while at the same time collective actions can transform these institutions.

2.2 Social capital

As described above, social capital is one of the five assets in the livelihoods framework. In general, it is viewed as an important resource that can be built through social interactions and which people can tap in order to improve their incomes (Grootaert, 1998 cited in Mansuri and Rao, 2004) and gain access to information and other types of capital. It emerged in its 15

contemporary form, along with the rising popularity of the livelihoods approach and participatory development, over the past thirty years. The wealth of literature on social capital reflects its recognized role and importance in development (Woolcock and Narayan, 2000). There are a variety of accepted definitions, sources and applications, and different levels at which social capital is studied (CARE, 2002; Grootaert and van Bastelaer. 2002; Grootaert, 2001; Portes, 1998). As we will see in the following paragraph, some scholars focus on the sources of social capital; that is different types of social relations, while others examine the consequences, which can be positive or negative. An assumption is that social interactions between people have tangible benefits that can improve well-being (Grootaert, 2001), but this view is not unequivocally accepted in all literature. 2.2.1. Origins and different views on social capital Portes (1998, p. 21) argues that social capital is not new, and that the concept encompasses different mechanisms that have been studied under other labels in the past. He provides a review of some of the authors that have contributed to the contemporary understanding and usage of the term social capital. Woolcock and Narayan attribute the origins of the current usage of the term social capital to Lyda J. Hanifan who described social capital as tangible substances [that] count for most in the daily lives of people Woolcock and Narayan, 2000, p. 229). (Hanifan, 1916 cited in

The scholar that is perhaps most cited as the originator of the current conceptualization of social capital is Putnam who authored an influential study on civic participation and institutional performance in northern Italy (cited in Woolcock and Narayan, 2000; Grootaert, 2001; Mansuri and Rao 2004). Coleman s seminal research on education (Woolcock and Narayan, 2000, p. 229) picked up on economist Glen Loury s (see Woolcock and Narayan, 2002 and Portes, 1998) connection between social capital and the creation of human capital, while Portes (1998) adds that he was also responsible expanding the term social capital to include different mechanisms that generate it. One such mechanism can be the construction of or institutionalization of group relations for the purpose of creating a social network (Portes, 1998, pp. 3, 4). This was the idea of Bourdieu, a French sociologist, who focused on formal networks as a source of social capital and the benefits they can confer on members (cited in Portes, 1998). On the other hand, Burt emphasized informal social capital and the existence of structural holes that can facilitate a person s advancement (cited in Portes, 1998, p. 6). This is because in the absence of strong connections or dense networks , people must rely on weak ties that can be sources of new knowledge and resources (Portes, 1998, p. 6). Similarly, people utilize personal connections or community organizations to meet their needs when there are gaps in the provision of public goods/services by the state. 16

Yet, from all of these different contributions to the study and conceptualization of social capital, there is often still confusion about what it is. Social capital is not simply networks of people, whether family members, neighbors, faith groups or farm associations. These externally observable social structures [ ] and the rules and procedures they embody, can be defined as structural social capital (Uphoff, 2000 cited in Grootaert and van Bastelaer, 2002, p. 3). However, for social capital to exist, people (or groups) need to relate to or interact with others (Portes 1998), and these interactions are governed by/influenced by norms of trust and reciprocity, rules and regulations, civil and political liberties, etc. (CARE 2002; Woolcock. 1998). Grootaert and van Bastelaer (2000, p. 3) define these as cognitive social capital and the authors add that the two forms of social capital are mutually reinforcing and cannot exist without each other. Woolcock (1998, p. 185) prefers not to confuse trust and reciprocity as social capital itself, although he recognizes that they are nurtured in and can help facilitate social relationships. He argues that there are various types and combinations of social relationships, and that definitions of social capital should focus on the source rather its consequences (Woolcock, 1998, p. 185). For example, bonding social capital is built among family and people with close ties that create a sense of identity and common purpose (Astone et al., 1999 cited in Woolcock and Narayan, 2000, p. 230). These relationships help the poor deal with vulnerability and shocks (Cleaver, 2005) in order to make their livelihoods more secure in the absence of other sources of security

(Bebbington et al. 2005, p. 1971). Bridging social capital is considered weaker than bonding social capital, and encompasses inter-community ties or associations that cross various social divides (Woolcock and Narayan, 2000, p. 230). These relationships are attributed more with helping people get ahead because members with diverse backgrounds can expand opportunities for accessing and trading resources. Finally, linkages with institutions, such as government agencies and NGOs, provide poor people with the opportunity to promote

their interests (Cleaver, 2005, p. 893). 2.2.2. Benefits of social capital Social capital, depending on the type, can generate benefits as well as potentially negative consequences. On the positive side, social capital can provide parental and kin support; help maintain discipline and promote compliance ( social control ) (Portes, 1998, p. 10); increase availability of information and lower transaction costs among actors; create mutual trust that enables collective decision making and collective action; and reduce opportunistic behavior (Grootaert and van Bastelaer, 2002; Collier, 1998). Associations between people, such as community groups, can improve access to resources and services such as improved seeds and livestock breeds, farm technology, and household goods; provide collective labor; create opportunities for income diversification; provide moral and spiritual support and 17

empowerment; and access to sources of power and decision making (Place et al., 2004; Robertson 1996; Thomas-Slayter, 1994; Thomas, 1988). Many livelihoods studies1 have examined the impact of social capital, such as membership in a group, and found positive relationships between income and group membership. For example, Narayan and Pritchett (1997) found that investments in social capital (defined as frequency of group membership and characteristics of groups) have a much larger effect (5 8 times) on household incomes than investments in human capital such as education in rural Tanzania (Place et al., 2004, p. 259).

In order to understand how these benefits are brought about or which conditions maximize or inhibit them, many studies have examined group heterogeneity2. For example, heterogeneous groups provide greater benefits to individual members, because people have different asset bases and affiliations that can open up opportunities for sharing information and knowledge (Grootaert, 2001, p. 11). Groups with members of similarly low-income levels can result in limited benefits or stopgap solutions because none of the members can contribute in a significant way (Olson, 1973 cited in Mansuri and Rao, 2004); however income inequality can strain social cohesion (Knack and Keefer, 1997 cited in Escobal and Ponce, 2011, p. 367). At the same time, more homogeneous membership is conducive to carrying out activities that benefit the entire group or a community because people have similar values, viewpoints and interests and a stronger sense of solidarity (Bandiera, Barankay and Rasul, 2005; Grootaert, 2001). In terms of the latter, Westermann, Ashby and Pretty (2005) find that solidarity, and collaboration in general, increases in groups where women are present. Size also appears to matter: participation levels and social integration are higher for smaller groups/areas (Beard and Cartmill, 2007). Finally, a key component for building social capital and effective collaboration is having a mechanism or forum to manage differences and resolve conflict (Bandiera, Barankay and Rasul, 2005; Mansuri and Rao; 2004). 2.2.3. Negative consequences of social capital A critique of social capital and the livelihoods approach is that they do not pay enough attention to why these differences exist and how mechanisms of power play out in social and economic structures and political systems (Scoones, 2009; Cleaver, 2005; Harriss, 2001 cited in Mansuri and Rao, 2004; Parpart, 2000). Power and politics not only determine rights, access and governance of livelihood assets (Scoones, 2009), but they can create and perpetuate inequalities and exclusion (Mosse, 2010; Grischow, 2008; Beard and Cartmill,
1

See Place et al. 2004 and Grootaert 2001 for a summary of some of these studies, such as the World Bank Local Level Institutions Studies. 2 The degree of diversity among group members.

18

2007; Harriss 2007; Portes, 1998). The poor have weaker networks than the rich (or less access to bridging and linking social capital) and their capacity to use their agency to move ahead can, in fact, be limited by elites who use social capital to control and reproduce power structures (Bebbington et al., 2005; Cleaver, 2005; Mansuri and Rao, 2004; Woolcock and Narayan, 2000). As a result, the poor are likely to engage in networks that help them survive but that do not address the causes of livelihood problems (Bebbington et al., 2005, p. 1967). Power exerted through gender norms also impacts the accumulation of benefits from social interactions. For example, income-generating activities carried out by women s groups do not necessarily create empowerment because men are often still responsible for control over the money (Rankin, 2002 cited in Beard and Cartmill, 2007, p.193). In addition, Mwaniki (1986) found that women s groups in Kenya suffered from poor leadership and management skills; lack of time by the members to attend meetings and participate in group activities; lack of funds and collateral to access credit; opposition by fellow women; poor flow of information about resources and services; and lack of support from husbands and the government.

2.3. Gender
2.3.1. Gender, a social institution As a social construction and something that is learned, gender manifests itself most visibly in the way that roles, responsibilities and power relations are different between men and women (Ellis, 2000 cited in Manda and Mvumi, 2010; Danida, 2008). All of these exist at different levels from the household to institutions and structures (Beard and Cartmill 2007), and they

vary widely both within and between cultures , and they are also changeable over time (Danida, 2008, p. 16). Furthermore, not only does it magnify other individual differences, such as class and ethnicity, but gender differences and the related beliefs about status, roles, responsibilities and competencies, are reaffirmed or denied on a daily basis through interactions between men and women (Ridgeway and Smith-Lovin, 1999 cited in Beard and Cartmill, 2007).

Two global indices report on gender equality. The Global Gender Gap Index was introduced by the World Economic Forum in 2006 as a way to measure the magnitude and scope of gender-based disparities in countries around the world and track their progress (Hausmann, Tyson and Zahidi, 2010, p. 3). Each country is given a composite score and specific rankings for four different Gender Gap sub-indexes: Economic Participation and Opportunity; Educational Attainment; Health and Survival; and Political Empowerment. The Social Institutions and Gender Index (SIGI) looks at the root causes behind the inequalities that are captured in the Global Gender Gap Index. It focuses on twelve socials institutions 19

variables that are grouped into five sub-indexes: Family Code; Physical Integrity; Civil Liberties; Son Preference; and Ownership Rights (OECD Development Centre, 2009a; see Figure 2.1). The 102 non-OECD3 countries in the SIGI are ranked and given a score ranging from zero to one, where 0 means low or no discrimination against women and 1 means high discrimination. Figure 2.1: Diagram of the Social Institutions Variables for the SIGI

Source: Adapted from OECD Development Centre, 2009a. 2.3.2. Farming in Africa through a gendered lens Farming systems in Africa are based on a complex inter-relation of men s and women s

work (Whitehead, 1994, p. 36) that are determined by a combination of socio-economic and political factors and gender norms. An important responsibility of the smallholder women farmer is growing and processing food crops for her family s consumption, in addition to taking care of the home and the children. Men often participate in land clearing and preparation and caring for livestock. Women also grow cash crops but at a significantly lower level than men, and they may carry out other income-generating activities. The time they spend on each activity, however, varies from society to society (Whitehead 1994). Along with socio-economic status, the type of household to which women belong and their position within it, determines their rights and responsibilities, their access to resources, and the nature of their economic activities (Whitehead ,1994, p. 38). For example, better-off women, such as those with husbands or sons sending remittances, are less likely than poorer women to rely on the hoe for farm work (O Laughlin, 1995). Poorer women may also work as casual or seasonal laborers and their farm plots are smaller. In Kenya, socio-economic
3

These are primarily developing and emerging economies that are not part of OECD s current membership, which to date is 34 countries from around the world.

20

changes that began during colonization, and which have continued since independence, have heightened social differentiation; changed the division of labor between men and women; and created a more pronounced dichotomy between subsistence and cash cropping (O Laughlin, 1995; Thomas-Slayter, 1994; Whitehead, 1994). Indeed, the commoditization of agriculture and the out-migration of men in search for employment in urban areas has given rise to more female-headed households and increased the workload of women.

Constraints facing female farmers include limited rights and access to land; low decisionmaking power about farm management and harvests; lack of access to agricultural inputs and technology, information, credit services and markets; and poor extension services (IFAD, 2010; The World Bank, FAO and IFAD, 2009; Thomas, 1988; Whitehead 1994; etc.). The latter, including agricultural research and development, have been dominated by men and have largely ignored women s role in crop production (Jiggins, Samanta, and Olawoye, 1997) and have not focused on women s needs for technology and information (The World Bank, FAO and IFAD, 2009, p. 525). Women may be absent from information campaigns, decision-making processes and development interventions due to lack of free time, disempowerment due to illiteracy and poor education, language barriers and social norms (The World Bank, FAO and IFAD, 2009; Danida, 2008). The literature also points out that the productivity of women in agricultural production is typically overlooked or downplayed and rarely captured in traditional socio-economic data (Horwith, 1989; Pankhurst, 1991; Chinyemba et al., 2006 all cited in Manda and Mvumi 2010; Safilios-Rothschild, 1994; Whitehead 1994). Part of the reason is that women s unpaid farm labor is not considered work and therefore is not captured in statistics. Female farmers also face challenges related to womanhood and motherhood, such as having to take time away from their agricultural activity during menstruation, pregnancy and breastfeeding (Peterman, Behrman and Quisumbing, 2010).

There is disagreement in the literature about the degree to which women have control over their own labor and the proceeds of their work. For example, men may claim women s labor for cash cropping, or women may do it in their absence, but the income derived from it typically goes to men (Whitehead, 1994). However, O Laughlin (1995, p. 75) writes, Not only do women do the greater part of everyday agricultural tasks in many parts of Africa, but they also have considerable autonomy over how they use their time and their resources. But she goes on to say that: It is precisely the relationships between social differentiation and the options open to different groups of women within the household that needs to be clarified. For some, conjugal ties have never been established. For others, autonomy is the outcome of a 21

social process in which conjugal ties have been ruptured through death and divorce. We know that in many parts of Africa a high proportion of those who are de jure or de facto heads of households are in fact desperately poor (O Laughlin, 1995, p. 76).

And still, other literature reports that women and men may decide jointly about the timing of agricultural activities (Manda and Mvumi, 2010), and when husbands are away, there is considerable variation in the extent to which women are able to make decisions over land management (Mugo, 1999 cited in Place et al., 2006, p. 194). Thus, the factors determining women s work are likely a combination of her marital status (conjugal ties), the household type, the women s position within the household, and the way that the household participates in the rural/urban labor market. The Gender in Agriculture Sourcebook calls for a better understanding of the differences in the roles, responsibilities and strategic needs of men and women; of what men and women perceive as important in their livelihoods; and the unequal power relationships between men and women in order to improve crop production and reduce poverty (The World Bank, FAO and IFAD, p. 526).

2.4. Call for a social-relational perspective

In line with the above recommendation, both Mosse (2010) and Harriss (2007) call for an approach to poverty that incorporates the dynamic, structural and relational factors including various components of power and emphasizes social categorization and identity ,

all of which make poverty persistent. Poverty is a political issue, yet these authors point out that contemporary research plays a role in depoliticizing it. The idea is to put social and political-economic context back into poverty research, not simply to characterize how people are poor (i.e. lack of financial, natural and/or social capital) but to illuminate what is making them poor.

Thus, while staying close to the livelihoods approach, I will build in a social-relational perspective into my theoretical framework. Based on relational sociology , it is recognized that individuals are part of a larger web of social connections and that categorical models (e.g., race, social status, and social class) alone rarely partition people in a way that confirms with observed action (Ramirez-Sanchez, 2007, pp. 52, 53). I will pay special attention to social interactions as well as institutions both structures and socio-political processes to

describe the complex context in which female smallholder farmers carry out their lives. It will also allow me to capture the dynamics of community groups and how women may use them to improve their livelihoods.

22

2.5 Conclusion
This chapter has set out to describe the theoretical framework that guided the research in Kenya. It is structured around the livelihoods framework, which includes five assets, one of which is social capital. Networks are seen as an important resource that people of all income levels, albeit at varying degree or levels, can utilize to access other resources, information and services to improve their livelihoods. However, we have seen that mobilizing and sustaining social capital is not straightforward, and like the livelihood approach, it has been criticized particularly for not paying enough attention to the influence of power structures. Therefore, the theoretical framework in this research is enhanced with a social-relational perspective that, among other things, helps to provide context for understanding female farmers and the social capital they utilize.

23

Chapter 3: Context
This chapter provides a socio-economic overview on Kenya and a brief history on community groups in the country in order to set the context and environment in which this research was carried out. It also includes information on the research location and some of the districtlevel government departments that work with and provide services to local farmers through community groups.

3.1. Socio-economic characteristics of Kenya

3.1.1. Economy, livelihoods and income disparity Kenya is an East African country of approximately 38.6 million people, with nearly equal proportions of men and women making up the population (KNBS, 2009). Approximately 80% of the population is rural (IFAD, 2007) and 11% are found in the Western Province where this research took place (KNBS, 2009). Kenya s GDP in 2010 was 35.787 billion USD and the GDP per capita was 875 USD (Global Finance, 2011). Agriculture is an important sector of Kenya s economy. In 2007, it was estimated to account for 27% of the GDP, 60% of total exports and 45% of government revenue (IFAD, 2007). In the rural areas of Kenya, 70% of the population makes their livelihoods from agriculture. According to IFAD (2007), commercially oriented smallholders sell a significant portion of their farm produce, perhaps as much as 80%, while subsistence smallholders grow food primarily for consumption. Rural smallholders also include semi-subsistence smallholders, agropastoralists, and pastoralists (IFAD, 2007). Rural women produce as much as 70% of subsistence crops in Kenya and they account for nearly half of all farm labor (Kimani, 2008). On the other hand, they only make up 32% of the non-agricultural paid labor (Hausmann, Tyson and Zahidi, 2010). The Grand Coalition Government4 that was sworn into office on April 17, 2008 governs Kenya, and a new constitution is being implemented following approval by Kenyans in a referendum on 4 August 2010 (The World Bank Group, 2011a). Vision 2030 is Kenya s development blueprint by which the country wishes to be transformed into a middle-income country with a high quality of life for all its citizens by 2030 (GoK, 2007, p. 1); however, many social development issues remain a problem in the country. Approximately 46% (2006) of the population lives below the national poverty line (The World Bank Group, 2011a), and in the rural areas it is nearly 50% (IFAD, 2007). There are many causes of

This coalition, which gives equal power to Mr. Mwai Kibaki from the Party of National Unity as president and Mr. Raila Odinga from the Orange Democratic Party as prime minister, was established was established under a National Accord and Reconciliation Agreement with following post-election violence in 2007.

24

poverty in Kenya, such as low agricultural productivity; land issues and insecure land ownership structures; poor roads and infrastructure that hinder market access; high costs of health services; and poor governance, to name a few (IFAD, 2007; Oluoko-Odingo, 2009). Food insecurity is often a consequence of household poverty, although it can also be a cause (Oluoko-Odingo, 2009). In addition, HIV/AIDS reduces the country s productivity. Currently, 6.3% of the population is infected with the HIV virus, and the incidence rates are highest among working-age adults (KNBS and ICF Macro, 2010). The Gini coefficient, which measures income disparities5, is estimated at 39% in rural areas and 49% for urban areas in Kenya; it is 53.2% percent in the Western Province where this research took place (The World Bank Group, 2011a). Income inequality exists not only between regions but also between genders. For example, according to the Global Gender Gap report, estimated earned income (PPP US$) for women in Kenya is 1,213 compared to 1,874 for men, and this gap actually increased by 0.17 from 2009 to 2010 (Hausmann, Tyson and Zahidi, 2010). Women s earnings have decreased while men s have increased. Kenya s score for wage equality for similar work has also changed over the last couple years: it has decreased by approximately one point, from 5.85 to 4.84, between 2008 and 2010. This is likely due in part to the global economic recession that began in 2007/2008. 3.1.2. Gender inequality Kenya ranks 96 out of 134 countries in the Global Gender Gap Index (GGGI; see table 3.1), which was introduced along with the Social Institutions and Gender Index (SIGI) in chapter 2, section 2.4. It scores lowest on the political empowerment sub-index, with a score of 0.0776, which reflects Kenyan women s low representation in leadership positions. The new Kenyan Constitution maintains the requirement that either gender should have at least 1/3 minimum in elective public bodies (Federation of Women Lawyers, 2011). Table 3.1 also reveals that Kenya has made progress in achieving gender parity in net primary education enrollment, which is at approximately 98% with equal proportions of boys and girls attending school (UNESCO cited in The World Bank Group, 2011b). Similarly, adult literacy levels are nearly equal for both genders, as is the case in Samia District, but they are not high. For example, 61% of both men and women surveyed7 during the 2009 Kenya National Census have achieved only a primary school education.

5 6

The higher the percentage the higher the level of inequality. 1.00 means gender parity has been achieved. 7 83,887 people out of a total district population of 93,500.

25

Table 3.1: Kenya Gender Gap Index 2010 Gender Gap Index Sub-indexes Economic Participation and Opportunity 82 Labour force participation 29 Wage equality for similar work (survey) 49 Estimated earned income (PPP US$) 43 Legislators, senior officials, and managers 121 Educational Attainment 102 Literacy rate 97 Enrollment in primary education 1 Enrollment in secondary education 99 Enrollment in tertiary education 106 Health and Survival 101 Sex ratio at birth (female/male) 1 Health life expectancy 106 Political Empowerment 98 Women in parliament 102 Women in ministerial positions 67 Years with female head of state (last 50) 44 Source: Adapted from the Global Gender Gap Report 20109. Score8 Rank 96 (out of 134 countries) 0.650 0.615 0.88 0.69 0.65 0.05 0.940 0.92 1.00 0.96 0.70 0.968 0.94 1.02 0.077 0.11 0.18 0.00

Kenya s composite (2009) SIGI score is 0.13704, ranking 57 out of 102 countries (see figure 3.1). This score reflects Kenya s dual existence of customary (traditional) and modern, statutory institutional frameworks that can undermine the freedoms of women (OECD Development Centre, 2009a). For example, women only own 4 per cent of land in

Kenya (OECD Development Centre, 2009a, p. 2). Traditionally, it is held communally or by men and women gain access from their father or through marriage (Kimani, 2008). Under Kenya s Succession Act men and women are supposed to have equal rights to inheritance, however, women can be denied the right to land because the Act also states that traditional laws pertaining to land inheritance take precedence if a man dies without a will (Kimani, 2008). The new Kenyan Constitution guarantees women the right to inheritance and unbiased access to land (Federation of Women Lawyers, 2011), but it remains to be seen if it will avoid the same difficulties with the Succession Act.

Kenya law establishes sixteen as the minimum age for marriage, but girls may marry younger than this because Muslim and customary family codes do not stipulate a minimum age. According to the 2008-2009 Kenya Demographic and Health Survey, half of all women enter marriage before the age of 20, but when comparing female age groups, they found that early

8 9

0.00 = inequality; 1.00 = equality Hausmann, Tyson and Zahidi, 2010, p. 180.

26

marriages are occurring at a lower rate (KNBS and ICF Macro, 2010). There is no law in Kenya protecting women against domestic violence and the SIGI reports that it is generally accepted by public opinion and women are frequently beaten by their husbands (OECD Development Centre, 2009a, p. 2). Furthermore, they find that 40 percent of women in Kenya have undergone FMG although it is forbidden by the government.

Kenya scores best in the Son Preference and Civil Liberties sub-indexes, receiving a SIGI ranking of 1 out of 122. However, the Civil Liberties sub-index does not measure women s participation in public forums and decision-making processes, an area where women in Kenya are greatly under-represented. Figure 3.1: Kenya s 2009 SIGI Index

Source: Adapted from OECD Development Centre, 2009.

3.2. Community groups in Kenya

Prior to colonialism, Kenyan women had traditional social protections and methods of arbitration that would have helped them deal with some of these gender discriminations (Kimani, 2008, p. 10). In fact, this would likely have been the realm of female elder councils, but these indigenous associations and their traditional roles have diminished over time in connection with changes in the socio-economic and political structure of Kenya and the roles of Kenyan women since colonialism. This section provides a brief history of community groups in Kenya, with a focus on women s groups and how they have evolved.

27

3.2.1. Brief history Very often, when one thinks of collective action and local associations in Kenya, the first thing that comes to mind is the harambee10 movement. Former president, Daniel Arap Moi (1985) called harambee a basic Kenyan institution that embodied the grass-roots voice of the people (cited in Thomas, 1987, p. 465). The name harambee reflects the community

focus and the collective action necessary to plan, organize and implement a local project through the utilization (primarily) of peoples own resources (Thomas, 1987; Ngau, 1987). This form of community action and fundraising blossomed after independence in 1963: from 1965 to the end of 1984, the total nominal valuation of harambee projects in Kenya came to Ksh 3.2 billion (Ngau, 1987, p. 526). It continued to be encouraged by the government when it shifted the primary responsibility for planning and implementing rural

development from the headquarters of ministries to the districts in its 1984-1988 National Development Plan (Thomas, 1987, p. 464). Today, harambees are still organized, often to raise money for funerals, but projects may also include nursery schools, cattle dips, churches or community halls.

However, for both men and women, collaboration has been an essential part of the traditional Kenyan culture and idea of harambee pre-dates Kenya s independence from Britain. Ngau (1987, p. 524) defines historical harambee efforts in Kenya as a social exchange of labor

and forms of mutual assistance that served educational purposes, defined one's own group identity, and fostered moral values through group ethics. One traditional form was ngwatio, an arrangement whereby two or more people (usually from equal-age groups or same-sex groups) would agree to help each other, on a rotating basis, for example with agricultural work or to restore a house (Ngau, 1987; MacKenzie, 1986). Another was called gutumana wira (MacKenzie, 1986), where labor for larger projects was taken up among members of clans from one or two villages (Ngau, 1987).

Among Kenyan women, indigenous groups during pre-colonial times took the form of councils consisting of elder women or the highest age-grades. These female councils provided solidarity and were important for upholding their status and role in society (Robertson, 1996). They wielded significant authority not only among their own gender but also within their families and villages (Robertson, 1996; Stamp, 1991). For example, Kikuyu female elders were responsible for handling initiation ceremonies in which knowledge was passed on to girls and boys necessary to function as successful adults in their society (Robertson, 1996). In addition, women oversaw food crops and the use (but not ownership)
10

Kiswahili word for let s pull together.

28

and fertility of land; took actions to promote rainfall (Udvardy, 1998; Robertson, 1996); organized their own labor (Stamp, 1991; MacKenzie, 1986); arranged ngwatios (Udvardy, 1998; Robertson, 1996); and they had a voice regarding their own harvests (Shaw, 1995; Clark, 1980 all cited in Udvardy, 1998, p. 1754). The female councils also maintained their communities health (including reproductive) and they could take action against men who had acted improperly (Robertson, 1996, p. 625). According to records from H. E. Lambert, the councils punished men who maltreated women by levying fines to be paid in gourds,

cooking pots, or millet beer; by the men's wives withdrawing their services; by ostracism; or by a traditional practice called guturamira ng'ania where a woman barred her private parts to place a curse on the male transgressor (cited in Robertson, 1996, p. 625). In essence, women s groups defined women s sphere (Robertson, 1996) and served to protect or improve their strategic gender interests (Udvardy, 1998, p. 1752). 3.2.2. Transformation of women s groups MacKenzie (1986), Ngau (1987), Thomas (1988) and Robertson (1996) all note correlations between the trajectory of women s associations and socio-economic and political changes in Kenya that began during colonization and continued after Independence. Robertson (1996) identifies the period between the 1930s and the 1950s as when women s groups began to transform and new ones emerged, modeled on the ngwatio and in part on the small groups lead by some European women who taught classes on home economics and handicrafts during colonialism. She wrote: The issues that roused these women to action were economic and intimately connected to their labor, their agricultural wellbeing, and their trade. The exploitative burden of colonialism in Kenya fell heavily on women, who, in addition to handling an increased agricultural workload at home, did much of the forced labor on roads and farms, while their authority structures were ignored by the British (Robertson, 1996, pp. 626, 627).
11

that were connected to their recognized social positioning

MacKenzie (1986) refers to agricultural policies initiated in the 1950s, such as the Swynnerton Plan (1954), that emphasized individual titles, and as a result the land that women had access to via their father, husband or son was diminished as more went to growing cash crops such as coffee and tea. The focus on cash crops and a cash economy continued after independence. However, rural women had few opportunities to generate income and they did not have the right to accumulate the wealth generated from cash crops

11

A term coined in Molyneux 1985 cited in Udvary, 1998, p. 1752.

29

(Thomas, 1988). Furthermore, they were still responsible for food crop production but their access to land remained limited, the plot sizes were smaller, and they had less time, particularly because men were being drawn to urban centers for work (MacKenzie, 1986).

As a result, women s groups shifted from upholding their strategic position and function in society to dealing with the constraints they faced. While the element of collective labor to help each other with their farm activities continued to be of great importance, many women s groups began focusing primarily on income generation and accessing farm inputs and home goods. By raising their own money in women s groups, they could circumvent some of the traditional constraints they faced and make their own decision about how to spend their profits (Thomas, 1988, p. 415). As this thesis will reveal, many of current women s groups continue to serve these functions.

3.3. Research area

3.3.1. Location and size The fieldwork for this thesis took place in Samia District in western Kenya (see figure 3.1a, appendix 1). Samia is near the Uganda border and comprises seven locations and 29 sublocations covering 265.1 square km, with a population of 93,500 (Kenya Ministry of State, 2009). Before the restructuring under the new Kenyan Constitution, it was formerly part of the old Busia district (Odame, Okumu and Pouw, 2010; Kenya Ministry of State, 2009). My research was concentrated in Busijo, which is one of four sub-locations in Bwiri location of Funyula Division, Samia District in the Western Province. Busijo12 is in southern Samia, bordering Bujwanga on the north, Hakati and the Nanguba and Nabuganda hills on the East, Busembe on the South and Lake Victoria on the West. (see figure 3.2a, appendix 1). Busijo is 11.1 km sq. and has a population of 4,274 people, with 2002 males and 2,272 females. It is comprised of 11 villages and 814 households. 3.3.2. Physical resources Sio Port is the main market centre that serves Busijo. It has several shops, as well as churches and schools nearby. Busijo has its own medical dispensaries, at least two primary schools and one secondary school. Infrastructure is poor in the area. Electrical wiring exists but most homes cannot afford to be connected. Piped water is not provided to homes in Busijo, therefore people must collect it themselves. Lake Victoria is the main source of water but Busijo also has community bore holes. The area has a fairly extensive road network but the conditions are generally poor due to heavy use, damaging rains, and low financing of road

12

From here forward called simply, Busijo.

30

maintenance (Kenya Ministry of State, 2009). The traditional housing of mud/earth huts with thatched roofs is found throughout Busijo and Samia in general. 3.3.3. Local livelihoods According to statistics in the Samia District Development Plan 2008-2012, the average household income is 1,239 Ksh, of which agriculture contributes 35.4% (Kenya Ministry of State, 2009). However, in Busijo farming is carried out primarily for subsistence and by women. There are two rain seasons: the long rain from March to May and the short rains from late August to October. These allow for a variety of crops to be grown. The main subsistence crops are maize, cassava, sorghum, beans and sweet potatoes. Kales, tomatoes, citrus, avocadoes and watermelon are more likely to be grown for income generation. However, unreliable rains have made farming difficult. The hardiest of all the crops is cassava. The average land size is 2.0 ha in Samia district and 1.3 ha in Busijo.

Whereas farming is primarily a women s domain, men carry out fishing. At one time it was considered more productive than farming but due to decreasing fish harvests and theft, it is currently unreliable. Busijo, in fact, is notorious for its high rates of theft of fishing gear and other crime. This has pushed some men out of the fishing industry; others have moved their activities to Uganda and those that have the resources may start fishponds along the lake. Therefore, much of the fish harvested in Busijo is consumed directly by the households. The primary species include tilapia, Nile Perch and omena13.

Other livelihood activities in Busijo include small-scale businesses, such as running kiosks for produce and food items, selling second-hand clothing or charcoal, brick-making, providing boda-boda14 transport, rearing and selling livestock, construction and basketry. 3.3.4. District level government administration and programs Samia District has two local administrative headquarters ( authorities ), one of which is in Funyula town (Kenya Ministry of State, 2009), approximately 16 km from Busijo. There are 4 electoral wards in the town council of Funyula namely Nangina ward, Namboboto ward, Odiado ward and Wakhungu ward. The district still relies on the former Busia district s County Council, which has 3 wards. This therefore, calls for the district to come up with its own County Council (Kenya Ministry of State, 2009, p. 3). Various district-level offices, such as the Ministry of State for Planning, National Development and Vision 2030; the Ministry of Agriculture; and the Ministry of Gender, Children and Social Development,
13 The 14

common Luo name for the tiny cyprinid Rastrineobola argentea. Kisamia word for motorbike.

31

operate out of Funyula town or nearby. These are the three that I engaged with during the field research. They provide programs and services that are targeted to community groups, or they work with them, as a way to reach local farmers and their families.

District Development Office, the Ministry of State for Planning, National Development and Vision 2030. The district office is part of the Ministry s Rural Planning Department. Its mission is to foster sustainable socio-economic development at the grass root through correct interpretation, dissemination and implementation of Government policies, mobilization of resources, effective planning, coordination and participatory selection of feasible community projects (Kenya Ministry of State, 2011). It is comprised of a District Development Officer, field staff15 and four committees: 1) the District Development Committee, which assesses progress of activities and how to boost district development activities; 2) the Executive Committee, which has the responsibility of assessing district programs funded by the government; 3) the District Technical Committee, which streamlines program related to HIV/AIDS; and 4) the District Tender Committee, which is mainly concerned with the tendering of infrastructure projects (Key Informant Interview 2). District Office for the Ministry of Agriculture. The mandate of the Ministry of Agriculture is to promote and facilitate production of food and agricultural raw materials for food security and incomes; advance agro-based industries and agricultural exports; and enhance sustainable use of land resources as a basis for agricultural enterprises (Kenya Ministry of Agriculture, 2008). At the district level the ministry has six departments that cover a wide range of subject areas, such as crops, agro-business development and marketing, extension services, value addition, agricultural engineering, and monitoring and evaluation. Extension services are the core activity for the district agriculture office; they are provided on demand, down to the locational level (i.e. Bwiri location) by three extension officers (Key Informant Interview 4). Three of the Ministry of Agriculture s programs operating in Samia District include: the National Agriculture and Livestock Extension Program16 (NALEP), which provides an enabling environment and support services to Kenyan farmers to improve their livelihoods (Kenya Ministry of Agriculture, 2010); the Orphan Crops program, which promotes the cultivation of traditional food crops such as cassava, sorghum and millet; and Njaa Marufuku Kenya, which in line with
15

When this research was executed in February-April 2011 the District Development Office had only two of the seven field staff. 16 This program is linked with the Ministry of State.

32

Millennium Development Goal 1 is directed toward eradicating hunger and food insecurity by 2015 (Kenya Ministry of Agriculture, 2011). Department of Gender and Social Development in the Ministry of Gender, Children and Social Development. Commonly called Social Services 17, the mission of the Department of Gender and Social Development is To mobilize and build capacities of communities in a gender responsive manner through participatory approaches for gender equality and sustainable socio-economic development (Kenya Ministry of Gender, 2011a). Within this department are two administrative divisions that operate in Agang a in Samia District: 1) Community Mobilization and Development and 2) Gender and Development. The Division Gender and Social Development Officer18 oversees registration of community self-help groups in the district and monitors them on a periodic basis to see that they are meeting their objectives. He also interfaces with the groups through the Locational Gender and Social Development Committees (LGSDC), which meet once a month in a different location in Samia district. Each committee is comprised of fifteen members who are elected from the community groups within the location; youth and disabled are represented, while local NGOs and Community Based Organizations serve as ex-officio members (Key Informant Interview 1). The district/division office is also supposed to provide capacity building for community and group leaders; facilitate the conflict resolution process for groups; and assist with the provision of grants for community groups/community projects (Kenya Ministry of Gender, 2011b), such as the Women s Enterprise Fund (WEF; Key Informant Interview 1).

Overall, these programs have the common objective of contributing to the improvement the livelihoods and wellbeing of Kenyans. Their capacity to serve their stakeholders and contribute to development will be examined in chapter seven. 3.3.5. Local Governance Governance in Busijo is provided by a local administrative team that consists of a chief at the location level (Bwiri), an assistant chief (one for each of the four sub-locations) and two elders for each of the eleven villages. The chiefs are civil servants hired by the government of Kenya and they can serve until they are 60 years old, unless they are asked to step down by the public or a local Member of Parliament (Key Informant Interview 8). One of the key

17

Because it was established in December 2006 through the merger of the Departments of Gender and Social Service. 18 Locally, this position is called the Community Development Officer.

33

activities of the assistant chief is to hold a weekly barazas19, which is the primary venue for accessing information in Busijo.

The village elders are volunteers, elected by the community at a chief s baraza for their upstanding qualities and ability to be role good models. They are required to have a good understanding or familiarity with their village; be focused, straightforward and married (Community Meeting 1). Their responsibilities include: ensuring law and order; encouraging people to do development; conflict resolution; providing a link between the community and government; and attending the assistant chief s baraza and then transmitting the information to the residents of their respective villages (Community Meeting 1). There is no time limit for serving as a village elder but they can be removed if the administration or the local people feel they are not fulfilling their duties (Community Meeting 1). Each village also has a council that is made up of seven to ten community members, including women and the elderly, who help handle conflict resolution. 3.3.6. CABE Network Another important institutional actor in the research area is the Centre for African BioEntrepreneurship (CABE), a non-profit knowledge sharing organization based in Nairobi, Kenya, with a strong presence in Samia District. Founded in 2003, CABE works to enhance and improve the welfare of smallholder and youth entrepreneurs in Africa (CABE, n.d.). In Busijo, CABE provides outreach and capacity building to smallholder farmers through a network of formal community groups. Currently, five groups and others of mixed gender some comprised of women

meet on a bimonthly basis with a CABE employee and a

member of the Bwiri LGSDC. In addition to monitoring the groups progress, CABE facilitates a savings scheme for the group members and connects them with opportunities for marketing their products and incorporating value addition; accessing grants, microfinance, and planting materials; and participating in trainings on improved farm management and techniques. CABE also creates exposure for the groups by introducing them to other groups, individuals and institutions both within and beyond their sub-location. Together, these activities and services provided by CABE help enhance the livelihoods of the local farmers.

3.5. Conclusion
Agriculture is an important sector in Kenya s economy and a mainstay for most of country s rural population. In the research area of Busijo, Samia District, women primarily carry out subsistence farming and men fish in Lake Victoria. Around the country, poverty, food insecurity, land issues, low education levels, poor infrastructure, and HIV/AIDS impact
19

Kiswahili word for meeting/meeting place.

34

livelihoods. Gender inequality is also a national issue that plays out in various ways. Women s rights to inherit and own land, for example, are compromised by formal and informal institutions that are often contradictory. Community and clan organizations have been a part of Kenya s history, connected to the agricultural lifestyle and transforming in their role in conjunction with Kenya s changing political, socio-economic landscape. The local administrative team in Samia District, along with the line ministries, encourages participation in community groups to access resources and services. In addition, the CABE Network brings together groups of farmers in Busijo to connect them with opportunities for improving their livelihoods. The following chapter will describe the methodology utilized to carry out this research.

35

Chapter 4. Methodology
With knowledge of the theory and context that provided the framework for this research, I now present the research questions, followed by a description of the methodologies. In the third section, the conceptual scheme brings together the main concepts and the relationships between them, which also helps the reader understand the units of analysis and the methods of data collection. The final section describes the ethical considerations that were taken in this research.

4.1. Research questions

As discussed in chapter 2, section 2.2, social capital is considered an important asset can be built through social interactions in order for people to gain access to other resources (i.e. financial capital and human capital), information and services. Furthermore, as described in chapter 3, section 3.2, women in Kenya have long used social groups as a source of camaraderie, assistance, community activism, and to uphold their role in traditional society. Therefore, the main research question is: To what extent do female smallholder farmers in Samia District, western Kenya have access to community groups as a form of social capital and how do they use them to improve their livelihoods? Sub-questions: 1. What is the socio-economic status of the female farmers? 2. What types of formal/informal community groups exist and how do female farmers use them? 3. What are the main characteristics of the community groups that female farmers utilize? 4. What are the formal/informal institutions that influence female farmers and the social capital they utilize? 5. What livelihood benefits, and potential hindrances, have female farmers experienced as a result of group membership? 6. How can groups be improved or made more effective to meet the needs of women and the broader community?

4.2. Research Methodologies

The research used mixed methods, which was based on elements of survey research, phenomenological research and feminist standpoint analysis. The first methodology allowed me to carry out the quantitative portion, which included a wealth ranking process and a household survey. The phenomenological research and feminist standpoint analysis 36

methodologies, on the other hand, enabled me to gather the qualitative data that made up the bulk of my data collection. The former emphasizes the personal perspective and is helpful for surfacing deep issues that can be collected through interviews (Lester, 1999, pp. 1, 4). I paired this with feminist standpoint analysis because ...it enables us to connect everyday life with the analysis of the social institutions that shape that life (Hartsock, 1981 cited in Hekman, 1997, p. 343). Therefore, I was able to capture in the qualitative portion of my research the gender issues that influence the lives of female farmers.

The epistemology of this research is constructivism with a realism theoretical perspective. The basis of Realism is that there is a physical reality which exists independently of our cognition but that we cannot appraise it dependent observers we can only describe it due to the fact that we are

and we are not independent of events (Sumner and Tribe, 2009, p.

63). It takes into account that reality for my research subjects existed without me and continues now that I left Busijo. Furthermore, I acknowledge that the data I was able to gather was dependent on the connections I had through my host organization and my social status (i.e. people wanted to talk to me because I am a mzungu20). I strived to remain objective and gather information from various perspectives, but there was always a chance that people were telling me what they thought I wanted to hear. My findings do not constitute the truth but compilation of stories about how female farmers navigate and interpret their world.

4.3. Conceptual scheme

The conceptual scheme below, which is based on the livelihoods framework (see chapter 2, section 2.1), highlights the main concepts in this research. (They are also operationalized in table 4.1a, appendix 2.) While most of these have been addressed in chapter two, here I explain the connection between them, define other important terms that are found in the scheme and throughout the thesis, and describe some key assumptions. 4.3.1. Description of the schematic and connection between the main concepts Figure 4.1 is an adaptation of the livelihoods framework, but in this schematic social capital is highlighted rather than giving equal attention to the other four capitals of the livelihoods approach. The line flowing from the female farmers on the left to the livelihood assets in the center of the scheme represents that access is required before an asset can be utilized. The line is dashed to indicate that the relationship is not guaranteed. People do not have access to all capitals at the same time or in the same amount. Furthermore, people may have access to

20

Kiswahili word for white person.

37

different types of a certain capital. For example, in this research community groups, which are defined as a collection of people who come together with a common purpose to achieve a common goal (Key Informant Interview 1), were considered the main source of social capital. However, female farmers may also build social relationships with their neighbours or fellow church members. Figure 4.1: Conceptual scheme

Source: J.P. Nagtalon, 2011, adapted from DFID, 1999. The livelihoods approach also looks at how people put assets to productive use via different strategies in pursuit of their priorities (IDS, 2011). The solid arrow flowing from the livelihoods assets to the outcomes indicates this relationship. Livelihood strategies can include farming and non-farming activities in order to diversify income and meet household needs (IDS 2011, n.p.). Depending on the strategy chosen and the constraints faced along the way, the outcomes can include increased income, increased well-being, empowerment, improved food security, reduced vulnerability, etc. Finally, all the aforementioned components of the conceptual scheme are embedded within an institutional context that is comprised of formal and informal institutions and power dynamics. The thick arrows that point inward from the top and the bottom of the scheme indicate this relationship. Institutions, according to the livelihoods approach are both formal and informal social and political structures, as well as the policies and processes that shape a person s access to assets and their strategies to pursue their desired livelihood outcomes (IDS, 2011). I include as formal institutions: structures like the village council and government departments, their 38

programs and services that impact female farmers. For informal institutions, I include: households (structure and organization), traditional laws and practices at the village level, and gender roles and relations. A household in this research is defined as the cooking unit: a group of people who eat from the same pot. Community members are the people living within the same village or sub-location (i.e. Busijo) boundaries. 4.3.2. Key assumptions First, it is not assumed that all female farmers have access to social capital. However, for those that do, a key assumption is that benefits from collaboration or membership in a group cannot flow to an individual without interaction with others, or at least from some form of contribution, be it money, time, or goods. Therefore, it is also assumed that payment of a membership fee is conditioned on the expectation that something will be gained in return. Thus, reciprocity is also tied to attendance or participation in a group activity and payment of a membership fee.

Another key assumption is that women (female farmers) are influenced by all of the institutional structures and arrangements identified in the conceptual scheme; however, the degree and consequences of the influence can vary. For example, a widow heading a household may not experience gender norms in her home in the same way that a wife does in a male-headed household. They also play out at the community level, but again the level can differ, for example, due to education, marital status, etc.

4.4. Units of Analysis

It is necessary to understand female farmers in relation to other actors and institutions. Therefore, this research had multiple units of analysis, each of which are described in turn, beginning with the most broad and ending with individual farmers. Institutions district to village-level For the institutional context, I studied the villages in Busijo and the provincial administration (i.e. chiefs, sub-chiefs and village elders), as well as three government ministries operating in Samia District: the Ministry of Planning, National Development and Vision 2030; the Ministry of Gender, Children and Social Development; and the Ministry of Agriculture. Community groups In accordance with my main research question, community groups were one of my main units of analysis. They included various types of self-help groups, both informal and formal.

39

Some of them were part of the CABE Network and within Busijo; two others were in the northern part of Samia District. Households During the wealth ranking exercise and the household survey 81 households spanning all eleven villages in Busijo were analyzed. Households are the domain of female farmers and a window through which to understand their socio-economic situation; their livelihood activities and strategies; and how they interact with other members of the household. Individual farmers Female farmers within the eleven villages of Busijo comprised my main unit of analysis. Men were engaged in an attempt to get a sense of gender dynamics at the household and community level. I interacted with the farmers throughout the fieldwork period, but especially during the focus groups discussions, the execution of the household survey, and in one-onone interviews.

4.5 Methods
4.5.1. Data collection The data collection was based on mixed methods, which included key informant interviews, meetings with community groups, participatory exercises such as community mapping, wealth ranking and farm demos, a household survey and structured, one-on-one interviews. I used triangulation by adding different sources and ways of gathering information to confirm my findings, thereby improving the accuracy of my research. The CARE toolkit (2002) notes that triangulation is particularly important when gathering information over a short time period. Westermann, Ashby and Pretty (2005) also showed that triangulation is important when dealing with gender issues. Parts of my data collection strategy were based on methods that have been tested through other livelihoods/social capital assessments in developing countries (i.e. Grootaert, C. and van Bastelaer, T. 2002). It also should be noted that the data collection was conducted with the help of a research assistant/translator. Therefore, the quotes used throughout this thesis were translated and paraphrased, but quotations are used to indicate that they are the opinions and expressions of the farmers and not my own. The following paragraphs describe the main steps of my data collection (see appendix 3 for corresponding tables).

Introduction to the research site and institutional framework The purpose of the first stage of my research was to become acquainted with Samia District and Busijo, the local officials, key informants and members of the CABE Network, and to 40

gather background information about the services and programs provided by the line ministries. I presented the objectives of my research; sought permission to conduct fieldwork in the area; and requested their cooperation in carrying out my research. From the area chiefs I learned about the structure, organization and operations of my research area, and their role and responsibilities to the residents. I also received a tour of Busijo. In addition, I interviewed officials from the line ministries listed in section 4.4. and reviewed government documents such as the 2009 Kenya National Census, the Samia District Development Plan: 2008-2012 and the registry of formal community groups in Funyula Constituency (Samia District). A list of the interview questions can be found in appendix 4.

Community mapping and wealth ranking During the third week I organized a community meeting with the village elders and one opinion leader from each village (see photo 4.1a, appendix 12). This meeting served three purposes: the first was to gather information about the composition and organization of the village council; how the leadership is elected; their roles and responsibility to the community; the decision-making process and who can participate; etc. The second objective was to develop a map of Busijo and the third was to carry out a wealth ranking of the households. Both of these exercises were participatory activities. They allowed the community members to be engaged in the research process and the outputs were utilized in subsequent stages of my research. The meeting was lead by a local female leader with community development training and chaired by a village elder.

In creating the map (see chapter 5, photo 5.1) the community members were asked to identify the key resources/assets in their sub-location and they had to agree on the geographical boundaries and placement of physical markers. For the wealth ranking exercise, the participants were asked to develop wealth categories for their sub-location and identify key attributes for each level. This exercise led to a lively debate. Subsequently, each village elder and their opinion leader took their respective household list and sat together to rank the households according to the defined criteria (see appendix 5). The results of the wealth ranking are described in chapter 5, section 5.2.

Focus group discussions The next major stage of my field research was conducting six focus group discussions (FGDs) with male and female household heads from all the villages in Busijo. The purpose of the discussions was to gather community perceptions about key assets in the sub-location; their livelihood activities and challenges; and they types of social capital they use (see appendix 4). Therefore, the first set of meetings comprised people who were identified as not participating 41

in formal community groups, whereas the second set included only people holding membership in formal community groups.

Household survey The information gathered during earlier steps of my work plan helped guide the development of a household survey. During the sixth week the questionnaire was created and then reviewed by my research assistant to ensure that the questions were culturally sensitive. It was pilot tested by administering it to three21 households in Busijo. After adjustments were made, the final version (see appendix 6) was administered during weeks seven and eight to 81 households with the help of my research assistant and two local women. It contained the following sections: 1. Village and household identification. 2. Household characteristics. The main purpose of this section was to gather socio-economic characteristics and composition of the households. It was also a way to cross-check the accuracy of the wealth ranking exercise by asking questions that corresponded to the criteria for the different wealth categories. 3. Livelihood activities and division of labor. The focus was on agriculture and fishing since these are the main livelihood activities in Busijo. It also set out to identify land size and ownership, and the person(s) responsible for shamba decision-making and work. 4. Group involvement. This section was relevant for respondents/households in formal or informal community groups. For those who were not, they were asked why and then the survey administrator proceeded to the next section. The purpose of this section was to understand the types of groups households use; how and why; and the possible benefits derived from group membership. 5. Other forms of social capital. This section attempted to find out what other sources of social capital exist in Busijo, such as family and neighbors. It asked questions about where people turn to for assistance and perceptions about fellow villagers. 6. Exclusion and conflict resolution. The purpose of this section was to understand the differences (i.e. wealth or religion or education level) that may exist in the community, which can create problems and prevent people from collaborating and thereby limiting livelihood improvements.

21

A target of six completed questionnaires was set, but the heavy rains continued to make mobility in the field difficult and dangerous.

42

7. Development. The final section asked various questions about topics that can influence household and/or community level development. It included two open-ended questions that allowed the respondents to provide development priorities for women and women. Structured one-on-one interviews In the ninth and tenth week of my fieldwork, I conducted follow-up interviews with eleven people, one person from each village, who had participated in the household survey. The purpose of these one-on-one discussions was to seek clarification and go deeper on some of the issues covered in the household questionnaire, such as: livelihood activities and challenges; gender; social capital; community cohesion and development. I also interviewed one village elder who represented the Muslim community and two female community leaders. Although the female leaders were also Muslim, their interviews were set up to address opportunities and challenges facing all women in Busijo. The interview questions can be found in appendix 4. Meetings with community groups I conducted eight meetings with formal community groups throughout the duration of my fieldwork. Both group leaders and group members attended the meetings. I attempted to hold separate meetings for the general group members so they would be more free to discuss group dynamics and the effectiveness of their leadership teams, however due to communication issues none of the meetings ended up being segregated. Nevertheless, the questions asked (see appendix 4) during the meetings were posed to gather information about group structure, operations, membership heterogeneity, group dynamics, perceived benefits gained from participating in groups, and the linkages they have (or don t) with institutions. Participant observation This exercise allowed me to experience first hand the rigor of farming, the planting techniques that female farmers in the area use and the dominant crops they plant during the long rains. I worked side-by-side with some farmers in the shamba and attended a farm demo organized by CABE for one of the community groups in their network.

End of fieldwork - preliminary findings workshop During the final week I organized a public forum for the community members to relay the preliminary findings of my research and to seek their input on development priorities/challenges. Approximately 160 people attended.

43

4.5.2. Sampling methods Busijo comprises 813 households22. I broke it into two clusters in order to organize and carry out the research activities in a convenient manner. The two clusters include the following villages and number of households, as displayed in table 4.1. Table 4.1: Composition of research clusters Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Villages Bumayenga Mumbaka Mukhondo Mugonga Rudacho Sibinga A 6 villages Number of Households 62 62 60 82 81 63 410 5 villages 403 Villages Sibinga B Buyukha A Buyukha B Mangula Busijo Number of Households 65 80 83 100 75

Source: Busijo Field Research 2011. Focus groups My target was eight FGDs, with 12 participants in each group. Six were successfully completed. The samples were drawn randomly from the household lists by utilizing the wealth ranking to determine the appropriate proportions of participants from poor, middle, and rich households (see table 4.8a, appendix 7). The first set of FGDs included householdheads who were not in formal community groups. There were two for women only Cluster 1 and one for Cluster 2, and two mixed gender one for

again one for Cluster 1 and one for

the Cluster 2. The second set of FGDs comprised participants who were members in formal, registered community groups. Due to the long rains only two FGDs were held rather than four. Clusters 1 and 2 were combined and the samples were drawn to reflect the composite wealth ranking proportions for the entire sub-location. There was one FDG for women and a second one for both men and women. Household survey The sample for the household survey was drawn randomly from the ranked household lists. From these lists I knew the number of households per village, which households were maleheaded or female-headed and whether or not the household-head was in a formal community group. The sample was designed to be representative of the wealth categories in Busijo and
22

The Kenya Census 2009 identified 814 households in Busijo but the household lists compiled by the village elders identified only 813.

44

also representative of the proportion of households in (36%) and out (64%) of formal groups. This is reflected in Table 4.2 below. In addition, all the villages were targeted and I strived to have 60% female respondents and 40% male respondents since women were my main unit of analysis, and I expected to find more women at home than men. In the end, 81 questionnaires were completed by 59 (73%) female respondents and 22 (27%) male respondents. Table: 4.2: Household survey sample Wealth category * Poor (29%) = 23

Group membership status In group (36%) = 8 Non group (64%) = 15 Middle (69%) = 55 In group (36%) = 20 Non group (64%) = 35 Rich (2%) = 2 In group (36%) = 1 Non group (64%) = 1 Source: Busijo Field Research 2011/Community Meeting 1. Structured one-on-one interviews The sample for the follow-up interviews was a purposive sample. Purposive sampling is a non-probability method that is used to capture the diversity of conditions or characteristics that are present in an area or population (CARE, 2002, p. 17) and which are important to a study. It also allows multiple perspectives to be captured. My target was one person from each village, and I considered the respondents characteristics (i.e. marital status and number of children), their group membership status, and their answers to the survey questions. I also wanted to achieve the same female/male ratio as the respondents for the household survey. Therefore, the sample for the interviews consisted of eight women (73%) and three men (27%). See table 4.5a, appendix 3, for a list of the interviewees with their details. Interviews with community groups The sample for the interviews with the community groups was also purposive. I chose to meet with formal groups because they are accessible through the CABE Network and Social Services. In addition, as registered groups, they are expected to have specific criteria and hold regular meetings so I was able to gather similar information from each group. My sample included all of the groups in the CABE Network and one youth group in Busijo, as well as two groups from the northern part of Samia District (see table 4.6a, appendix 3). 4.5.3. Methods of Analysis The data from the survey questionnaires were analyzed using SPSS. Frequency tables and cross tabulations were used to summarize the key findings about the socio-economic

* To accommodate for the missing households, I increased the percentage of the poor and middle categories by 1 percent each.

45

characteristics and group participation of the research population. The qualitative data was organized and coded using TAMS Analyzer. Comparisons between the female and male participants were made for interesting or illustrative cases; otherwise the data analysis focused primarily on the female respondents in order to answer the presented research questions. 4.5.4. Limits to methods The main limitations or challenges I faced in my data collection were related to being a novice field researcher. Certainly understanding the local language would have provided richer qualitative data. In addition, it became evident once I was in the field that men needed to be included in my data samples. While that is what I did, looking back I would have arranged for equal male representation in the household survey so that I could have drawn more comparisons with the female respondents.

Finally, the wealth ranking was a challenging exercise and it was not necessarily carried out in an optimal manner because we attempted to rank households from eleven villages in one afternoon. When I reviewed the household lists the following day, I found that about 2% about the households had accidently been missed. Furthermore, when the wealth ranking was discussed with the local chiefs they thought some households were ranked too low.

4.6. Ethical considerations

Special attention was taken to carry out the fieldwork in an ethical manner. I acknowledged and utilized the local leaders as the gatekeepers to the villagers and I kept them informed on the status of my research. Whenever I interacted with new people I explained the purpose of my research, my affiliation with CABE and UvA, and informed them that they were under no obligation to participate, and that anonymity and confidentiality would be maintained. There was evidence of dependency syndrome and expectation to get paid for attending meetings. We did not promise anything. However, after consultation with my local supervisor and research assistant, a small stipend and lunch was provided for the participants of the community mapping and wealth ranking exercises.

I always wore appropriate clothing and I strived to minimize interferences with people s daily schedules. We sought approval from community members prior to scheduling and conducting any research activity. When the rains began, interviews or meetings were not scheduled in the morning when people would be in the shamba, unless a participant requested it. The household questionnaires averaged about 45 minutes to one hour and the follow-up interviews about one to 1.5 hours. 46

4.7. Conclusion
The research presented in this thesis was carried out using mixed methods to explore rural livelihoods and social capital in Samia District, Western Kenya. The data collection methods included key informant interviews, FGDs, meetings with community groups, a household survey and structured, one-on-one interviews. A wealth ranking exercise was conducted early in the fieldwork not only to understand the socio-economic characteristics of the research population but also so that wealth levels could be incorporated into the samples. Both women and men were engaged as research participants in order to get a gendered perspective on livelihoods in Busijo. Interviews with community groups provided insight into how they operate and the benefits that members are experiencing. A final community forum at the end of the research allowed the public to hear the preliminary findings and have a dialogue about their development challenges and priorities. In the following chapters, the data is presented and discussed in connection with the theory.

47

Chapter 5. Characteristics of rural livelihoods and female farmers in Busijo

The purpose of this chapter is to describe the socio-economic characteristics of female farmers in Busijo. I will explain their situation from a social-relational perspective in order to begin to understand how they compare to men for key attributes at the household and community levels. The chapter begins by providing a brief description of the research population; then in the second section, the wealth ranking process and results are discussed while presenting a broad overview of the household characteristics for the entire research population. The third and fourth sections zoom in on the female respondents by examining their key socio-economic characteristics and farm-related attributes in relation to the household type to which they belong (or lead). The daily schedules of the interview participants are also presented to provide a glimpse into the uneven workload of rural Kenyan women. The final section describes women s limited participation in public forums as a way to understand how their interactions and social status at the community level are influenced by gender norms. The primary data source in this chapter is the household survey, with some data is drawn from the FGDs and interviews.

5.1. Research population

The rural livelihoods described in the pages of this thesis are based on the experiences of the Busijo residents. As described in chapter three, section 3.3, Busijo comprises eleven villages with 814 households and a total population of 4,274 people (see photo 5.1). Agriculture sustains the residents of Busijo. It is the dominant livelihood activity for 93%23 of the households, with women providing most of the farm labor. Fishing is also important in Busijo due to its proximity to Lake Victoria. However, no data is presented in this thesis on fishing characteristics or harvest levels because for households where it is practiced, most female respondents did not know the details of their husband s fishing activities. At the same time, it needs to be noted because the fishing lifestyle permeates other aspects of life in Busijo. For example, school dropouts and teen pregnancies are attributed to girls being wooed by young men with money from fishing at Lake Victoria (Key Informant Interview 6; Interview B0180). According to the Samia District Development Plan: 2008-2012, 64% of the students who dropped out of primary school were girls (Kenya Ministry of State, 2009). This is a particular concern because education levels among women in the district are already low: 88% have never attended school or at the very most, primary schooling (KBNS, 2009).

23

According to results of the household survey conducted in this research.

48

Furthermore, young, uneducated24 women also are at risk of contracting HIV. HIV prevalence rates are 2.7% for girls in Kenya between the ages of 15-19 compared to 0.7% for their male counterparts in the same age range (KNBS and ICF Macro, 2010). Photo 5.1: Busijo Community Map

Source: Busijo Field Research 2011/Community Meeting 1; photo by J.P. Nagtalon. Many women, as well as men, in Busijo participate in community groups. These are categorized as either formal or informal, where the essential difference is that formal groups are registered with Social Services. Membership in a community group can be seen as a livelihood strategy since the benefits received can help households increase or diversify their assets and access other important resources.

The female respondents from the research population are categorized in the following three manners: 1) by wealth categories (poor, middle, rich); 2) by household types (male-headed, female-headed and de facto female-headed; and 3) by group membership (formal, informal, none). In this thesis, the term de facto female-headed household is used to define those households where the husband is absent; however, it does not assume that the woman who operates the household on a daily basis is the primary economic provider or decision-maker.

24

Nine percent of women between 15-49 years old who have not completed primary school are HIV positive, compared to 6.9% for women with a secondary education or higher (KNBS and ICF Macro, 2010).

49

5.2. Household Wealth Ranking and Survey Sample

5.2.1. Composition of the household survey sample Table 5.1 describes the composition of the household survey sample according to the respondents age, marital status and education level. The sample was designed to be representative of the research community aforementioned. Women between the ages of 19 and 87 years old comprised 73% of the sample. Adult males between the ages of 20 and 62 made up the remaining respondents at 27%. Fifty-eight percent of the female participants were married; 37% were widowed; 3% had never been married and one (or 2%) was abandoned. In comparison, 95% of the male respondents were married and none were widowers. Like the district-wide figures, education levels among the female respondents in Busijo was quite low, with 79% having attended some primary schooling or none at all, and only 21% completed primary school or higher. However, 64% of the male respondents had at least competed primary school. Table 5.1: Composition of the household survey sample 59 73% Male Female Age Age Youngest 19 Youngest Oldest 87 Oldest Mean 41 Mean Martial status Marital status Married 34 58% Married Never married 2 3% Divorced Widowed 22 37% Abandoned 1 2% 25 Education level Education level Primary schooling incomplete or Primary schooling incomplete none at all 46 79% or none at all Primary school or higher 12 21% Primary school or higher Source: Busijo Field Research 2011/Household Survey. 5.2.2. Key household characteristics according to wealth ranking The first step in understanding the socio-economic status of female farmers in Busijo was carrying out a wealth ranking of the households in which they reside. As described in chapter 4, section 4.5.1., this was a community participatory exercise. The local chiefs called into question the accuracy of the rankings because they thought some of the households, particularly those in villages near Lake Victoria, were ranked too low. Despite the knowledge of the potential inaccuracy or bias in the wealth rankings, the decision was made to still use
25 Education

22 20 62 41 21 1

27%

95% 5%

8 14

36% 64%

level for one female respondent was missing. The relationship between education level and sex is statistically significant at the 95% probability level (Chi-square test =13.410; see table 5.1a, appendix 8).

50

them to draw the research samples because they represent the community s opinion. The wealth levels have also been employed to examine some of the data. Table 5.2 below presents the composition of the household survey sample according to the wealth levels. Approximately 70% female respondents and 73% of the men fell in the middle wealth level. Table 5.2: Composition of household survey sample according to wealth levels Wealth level Female [n=59] Male [n=22] Poor 17 29% 6 27% Middle 41 69% 16 73% Rich 1 2% 0 0% Source: Busijo Field Research 2011/Household Survey. In attempt to check the wealth levels, socio-economic questions were built into the household survey that corresponded to the wealth criteria developed by the village elders and opinion leaders (see appendix 5). In doing so, it became evident that the respondents, particularly those in the middle wealth level, did not fall into clear-cut categories. For example, one of the attributes assigned for the middle level was being able to have semi-permanent housing (i.e. a hut or house with a metal sheet roof). Yet, 47% of the households in the middle wealth level live in mud huts with thatched roofs and mud floors (see table 5.3 below and photo 5.1a, appendix 12). This is a higher percentage than the households in the same category having brick or mud houses with metal sheet roofs. However, taken as a whole, only 48% of the survey sample lives in non-permanent housing, which is approximately half the districtwide statistic. According to the 2009 Kenya National Census, 85.4% of the population in Samia District lives in traditional mud huts (KNBS, 2009). In addition, the only homes built by family or well-wishers were not for the poor but for three households (or 5%) in the middle category. Table 5.3: Housing type for survey respondents according to wealth level Poor [n=23] Middle [n=57] Rich [n=1] Total [n=81] Type of house Mud hut w/ thatch roof & mud floor 12 52% 27 47% 0 0% 39 48% Mud hut w/ metal roof 9 39% 18 32% 0 0% 27 33% Concrete or brick house w/ metal or tile roof House not observed House built by Owners Family or well-

1 1 22 0

4% 4% 96% 0%

11 1 53 3

19% 2% 93% 5%

1 100% 0 0%

13 2 76 3

16% 2% 94% 4% 51

1 100% 0 0%

wishers House not observed 1 4% 1 2% Source: Busijo Field Research 2011/Household Survey.

0%

2%

The ability to hire labor to help in the shamba was another attribute assigned to the middle wealth category, and indeed eleven respondents indicated that they use laborers to help with land preparation, weeding and/or harvesting, and one middle household purchases water rather than collecting it themselves (see table 5.4). However, this comprises only 19% of the middle households, and when we look at the entire survey sample, we see that in total only 16% can afford to hire laborers. Table 5.4: Utilization of farm laborers by survey households according to wealth level Poor [n=23] Middle [n=57] Rich [n=1] Total [n=81] Utilizes laborers YES 1 4% 11 19% 1 0 100% 0% 13 68 16% 84%

NO 22 96% 46 81% Source: Busijo Field Research 2011/Household Survey.

For mode of transportation, 61% of the poor households and 39% in the middle tier walk to their destinations, while the rich household hires a motorbike or car (see table 5.2a, appendix 8). In line with the wealth ranking criteria, the middle level and rich households are able to manage transportation through a variety of means, such as bicycle, motorbike or car, whereas the poor households are reliant on either walking or a bicycle. This analysis suggests, first, that a fourth wealth category was probably needed to accurately classify the households in Busijo. Approximately 70% of the households were ranked in the middle category, and except for a few anomalies, such as a middle household that owned a car; the above data suggests that in fact many of the middle households are poor . For example, nearly 50% live in non-permanent housing, and out of fifty-seven middle households only eleven can afford to hire farm labor.

Second, the wealth ranking would have benefited from more time to develop and refine the criteria. Shamba sizes and the number of livestock that households own are possible indicators of wealth. The findings in table 5.5 reveal that shamba size does correlate with the wealth categories because the average shamba size is smallest for the poor, at 0.97 acre, and it increases up to 3.0 acres for the rich. However, livestock ownership does not follow this clean trend. For example, most households own local breed poultry, and the average number in the flock increases with income level. Yet, chickens are prone to disease and commonly die, so

52

the flocks can decrease unexpectedly and vary greatly both within and between wealth categories. Furthermore, middle households own other types of livestock, such as local breed cattle, pigs and goats in equal (average) amounts to the poor, while the rich household owns none. Table 5.5: Land size and average number of livestock for survey households according to wealth level Poor Avg. land size (acres) 0.97 Middle 1.40 Rich 3.00

Livestock (type & avg. #) Local poultry 2 3 Local breed cattle 1 1 Pigs 1 1 Goats 1 1 Source: Busijo Field Research 2011/Household Survey.

5 0 0 0

Attendance by a couple neutral but informed participants to review the ranked household lists would also have benefited the exercise. Nevertheless, my observation over a period of two and a half months reveals that in general the standard of living in Busijo is quite low. This is supported by the current Samia District Development Plan, which reports that 66% of the population in Samia lives in absolute poverty (Kenya Ministry of State, 2009).

5.3. Socio-economic status of female farmers

The following section describes the socio-economic status female farmers in Busijo. It is presented in a way that begins to shed light on the factors that contribute to the challenges they face, not simply as women but also as food providers and caregivers. The analysis is primarily carried out by comparing the female survey respondents according to their household type, because it determines their social status; their rights and responsibilities; their access to resources and the nature of their economic activities (Whitehead, 1994). 5.3.1. Characteristics of the female respondents and their households Table 5.6 presents the distribution of the female respondents in the household survey according to the type of household to which they belong. It also provides a break down of their households by wealth ranking. As we can see, most of the female respondents represent either male-headed or female-headed households, which are primarily of the middle wealth level. Twenty-eight women (or 47%) come from male-headed households, twenty-four (or 41%) from female-headed households, and seven (or 12%) from de facto female-headed households. Within the male-headed households, 71% are in the middle wealth level and 53

29% are poor. For the female-headed households, 67.5% are in the middle wealth level and 37.5% are poor. One (or 14%) of the de facto female-headed households falls in the rich category and the remaining 86% are from the middle wealth category. Table 5.6: Distribution of female respondents according to household type and their wealth levels, n=59 Household type Wealth levels Count (% of total) Poor Male-headed Female-headed De facto female-headed Totals 28 (47%) 24 (41%) 7 (12%) 59 (100%) 8 (29%) 9 (37.5%) 0 (0%) 17 (29%) Count (%) Middle 20 (71%) 15 (67.5%) 6 (86%) 41 (69%) Rich 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (14%) 1 (2%)

Source: Busijo Field Research 2011/Household Survey. Table 5.7 presents the age range of the female respondents according to their household type. Women in the male-headed households are the youngest, with the average age being 30 years. In the de facto female-headed households the average age is 37 years. The oldest women in the survey sample come from female-headed households, where the average age is 54 years. This is not surprising given the fact that these women are primarily widows. However, they are not all elderly. While the research did not establish how the women lost their husbands, the prevalence of HIV/AIDS in western Kenya is a likely contributor to creating many young, female-headed households. The youngest widow in the survey sample is 32 years old. Table 5.7: Age of female respondents according to household type Minimum age Maximum age Mean age Household type (years) (years) (years) Male-headed 19 52 30 Female-headed De facto female-headed 19 24 87 55 54 37

Source: Busijo Field Research 2011/Household Survey. The following paragraphs describe some attributes where there are striking differences among the female respondents and with the male respondents.

Education levels As reported above in section 5.1, education levels among the research population are low, especially for women. It is worth reiterating that 79% of the female respondents did not complete primary school or received no education at all, compared to 36% of the men (see

54

table 5.1 above)26. While women s education levels in Busijo are slightly better than the district-wide figure (88%), we see in figures 5.1 and 5.2 that they vary by household type and wealth level. The group with the largest proportion having no schooling is the female-headed households. Fifty-two percent of women in female-headed households, compared to 28% in male-headed households are illiterate. At the same time, 50% of the female respondents from poor households have no schooling, while nearly the same percentage of women in the middle wealth category received some primary schooling. For the single household in the rich category, the female respondent completed primary school. Figure 5.1: Education level completed by female respondents according to household type

Source: Busijo Field Research 2011/Household Survey. Figure 5.2: Education level completed by female respondents according to wealth level

Source: Busijo Field Research 2011/Household Survey.

26

The relationship between education level and sex is statistically significant at the 95% probability level (Chi-square test =13.410; see table 5.1a, appendix 8).

55

One would assume that the women in the female-headed households are also the poorest in the Busijo survey sample. Poverty is considered the main barrier to education (Cotton, 2007). However, according to the wealth ranking, more female-headed households actually fall in the middle wealth category. Thus, it is necessary to also look at age levels and education attainment. Over half of the women with no schooling are over the age of forty (see table 5.8), and ten of them come from female-headed households. For all of these women early marriage is a likely explanation for their lack of education; however, for the elderly it is also possible that when they were school age, education was not considered important for girls. This mentality still exists to a certain extent, but there is more attention on girl-child education. Education is considered one of the best ways to reduce gender inequality, the spread of infectious diseases and to improve life prospects for not only for women but for future generations as well (UNESCO, 2011; Cotton, 2007). Table 5.8: Number of female respondents with little or no schooling according to age Age range (years)
27

Education level No schooling Primary school (incomplete) 3 18

19 to 40

41 to 87+ 17 8 Source: Busijo Field Research 2011/Household Survey. Size and composition of their households Women in this research are responsible for managing households that have an average size of four to six other people. As indicated in table 5.9, the male-headed households comprise the largest families, with one having twelve members; the smallest household is female-headed. The other members include husbands and children. The children are not only the women s offspring, but also their grandchildren, nieces and nephews, and in some case their co-wives children. Again, the prevalence of HIV/AIDS in the area has contributed to this situation: according to UNAIDS (2010), there are 1.2 million (2009) children under the age of 18 orphaned by AIDS in Kenya. As a result, even one of the most elderly women in the survey sample, an 81-year-old widow, is caring for orphans. While some receive financial assistance through a government cash-transfer program that provides a monthly stipend to the caregivers, not all the female respondents know of this resource. Many women struggle to provide for all their children, such as paying school fees, purchasing uniforms and medication. Indeed, the problem is so significant that some community groups, as we will

27

The + sign is added to the age range 41-87 to account for 4 elderly women who did not know their exact age.

56

learn in the next chapter, have formed specifically to assist and support orphans and people living with HIV/AIDS. Table 5.9: Size of household for female respondents according to household type Minimum # of Maximum # of Avg. # of other Household type other members other members members 28 Male-headed [n=28] 2 12 5 Female-headed [n=24] De facto female-headed [n=7] 1 4 10 7 4 6

Source: Busijo Field Research 2011/Household Survey. Mode of transportation Mode of transportation is an important characteristic to consider because it can reveal a lot about a person s gender; their wealth level; and it also affects their time management. In Busijo, 59% of the female respondents across all of the wealth levels rely on walking to get to their destinations compared to only 5% for men29. However, many indicated that their mode of transportation depends on how far they are going and if they have money to hire a motorbike or car (see table 5.5a, appendix 8). Only one female respondent, from a femaleheaded household, owns a vehicle. What is perhaps even more interesting is that only one or two female respondents in each household type (5% in total) use a bicycle, although it is an easy and fairly affordable option. In comparison, 45% of the male respondents indicated using a bicycle as their main mode of transportation (see table 5.3a, appendix 8). This suggests that gender norms may be the reason women are less likely to ride a bicycle; however income and ownership rights could also play a role. Nevertheless, there is an extra burden on women s time due transportation limitations. 5.3.2. Livelihood attributes and challenges of female farmers The social status of female farmers is inextricably linked to how they are characterized and the challenges they face in their livelihoods. Both male and female respondents acknowledged that women are inferior to men due to their cultural traditions. The differences have existed from time immemorial; we have been brought up this way, stated one female farmer (Interview E0133). Men are seen as superior to women because it is written in the bible; so there are no reasons (Interview M0160, male). In concurrence with the literature presented in chapter 2, section 2.3.2, we will see that one way this gender inequality plays out at the household level is through the control of assets, including farm
28

The average was rounded down to the nearest whole number because it is not possible to have part of a person (i.e. 5.86 persons). 29 This difference is statistically significant at the 95% probability level (Chi-square test =11.283; see tables 5.3a and 5.4a, appendix 8).

57

produce. Another is in the roles and responsibilities ascribed to women because of gender norms, which also limit their participation in public life. Livelihood activities Farming is practiced by 98% of the female respondents, as indicated in table 5.10. Only one woman (2%) could not farm due to old age and lack of land, so she made baskets. For 63% of the female respondents farming is their sole livelihood activity. However, another 30% carry out supplemental income generating activities (IGAs) and 5% indicated that they run small businesses as their primary IGA and farm on the side. This is not uncommon for rural households, as noted in literature such as the 2011 Rural Poverty Report by the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD): In order to secure their livelihoods, rural households can derive their income from a range of sources: from their own on-farm production (crops and livestock), from employment (agricultural and non-agricultural), from self-employment and from transfers, including remittances and social transfers (IFAD, 2010, p. 53). In Busijo, the common IGAs for women are basket-making, rearing and selling local poultry, and running small (informal) businesses selling second-hand clothing, fish, charcoal, or cereals. In addition, 34% of the women, nine of them belonging to female-headed households, indicated that they sometimes provide farm labor in order to generate income (see table 5.10). Table 5.10: Livelihood activities of female respondents according to household type Household type Livelihood activities Farmers: Farming only Farming + other IGA(s) Small business + farming Sub-total Non-farmer -Basketry Total Male-headed [n=28] 15 11 1 27 1 28 54% 39% 3.5% 96.5% 3.5% 100% Female-headed [n=24] 16 6 2 24 0 24 67% 25% 8% 100% 0% 100% De facto femaleheaded [n=7] 6 1 0 7 0 7 86% 14% 0% 100% 0% 100% All households [n=59] 37 (63%) 18 (30%) 3 (5%) 58 (98%) 1 (2%) 59 (100%)

Participation in wage farming: YES 8 29% 9 37.5% NO 20 71% 15 62.5% Source: Busijo Field Research 2011/Household Survey.

3 4

43% 57%

20 (34%) 39 (66%)

58

Crops and livestock Farming in Samia District is rain-dependent, so female farmers cultivate a variety of crops that are suited for the agro-ecological conditions of the area (see chapter 3, section 3.3.3). However, there are some differences among the household types. As indicated in table 5.6a in appendix 8, all the female farmers who participated in the Busijo household survey grow a combination of cassava, maize, sorghum, and beans, and to a certain extent, sweet potatoes as well. However, 11% of the male-headed households and 14.3% of de facto female-headed households also grow oranges but the female-headed households do not. Maize is the top crop for all the three household types, and specifically for male-headed and female-headed households. Only two female-headed households are growing indigenous vegetables, such as sakumu wiki30 and cowpeas. Women as well as men in Busijo keep livestock. According to the results of the household survey, 70.6% of the female respondents in all three household types are raising local breed poultry. In addition, nearly 40% of the female respondents indicated keeping local breed cattle. This figure includes eleven female-headed households, which is interesting because managing livestock, such as milking a cow used to be taboo for women. While they could rear poultry, generally rearing and managing livestock was the male s domain (Informal Conversation 1). The other types of livestock raised by households in Busijo include pigs, goats, sheep, ducks and geese. Control over assets Nearly everything that is raised by households in Busijo is used for consumption. Only 5% of the female farmers31 indicated that their households sell some maize (Survey respondents A0202; C0203 and A0206). This is a factor of small harvests due to harsh weather and agroecological conditions and low income levels, but also cultural norms. Like financial resources and even home goods, rural Kenyan women generally do not have control over the farm produce that they are responsible for growing and harvesting (Key Informant Interview 3). The reason for this, as expressed by nearly all of the interview participants (male and female), is that due to poverty and small or unreliable harvests men regulate the sale of farm produce because they fear it might run out and then there will not be food for their families. If this happens it will fall to the husbands to go looking for money and food for the family (Interview J0224). A female farmer stated that she decides about planting, but the produce remains with her husband. She doesn t know why it is this way, but they are forced to comply (Interview F0238).
30 31

Local green vegetable like spinach. They were two female farmers and one widow.

59

As reported in the literature (Agarwal, 1994; Quisumbing et al., 1995; Zwarteveen and Meinzen-Dick all cited in Valdivia and Gilles, 2001) women s unequal access and control over resources can threaten food security of rural households. In the research, the potential for this situation was evident in different ways. For example, the interviews revealed that men generally do not trust women to share income (from the sale of the produce; Interview B0180) or to use money wisely. They think they will buy things with the money that are not useful to the household, such as mandazi32 and chapatti (Interview J0224). At the same time, another female farmer reported that some men steal farm produce and sell it to buy beer when their wives are away in the shamba (Interview R0169). He demands this or that for dinner but doesn t know how the wife manages to provide it. But she fears causing problems or maybe being beaten or breaking up the marriage, so she does what she has to do (Key Informant Interview 5). As a result, wives may have to work around in other people s shambas and some may sell their farm produce covertly: one young female farmer said she has to sell sorghum when her husband goes to the lake (Interview E0133). Still others may turn to handouts. According to Social Services, dependency syndrome is evident when a Member of Parliament is coming to the area and women are found loitering around wanting handouts (i.e. money) from them (Key Informant Interview 3). Land size and ownership/access Female farmers in Busijo access land through their husbands. As reported by Kimani (2008) and others, land is rarely owned outright by women unless it is inherited upon the death of their spouse. The Constitution gives men and women equal ownership and inheritance rights, but customary traditions pertaining to land tend to favor men (see chapter 3, section 3.1.2). Therefore, women are essentially prohibited from owning land. A husband and wife interviewed during the fieldwork had this to say about land ownership: Women should not own land because if they did, their devotion to men would deteriorate and they would be more independent (Interview B0228).

Nearly 50% of the women surveyed access land that is owned (or rented) by their husbands, another male or the family (i.e. men in the family; see table 5.7a). Approximately 26% of the female respondents hold land and these are household heads. Even then, there are some cases where land was not passed to the wife but another male in the family, or the family holds it communally. This may explain why 21% of female-headed households rent land. For the de facto female-headed households, land is owned by absentee husbands and/or rented.

32

Small, fried doughnut-like snack.

60

The Rural Poverty Report 2011 notes that globally, men s landholdings average almost three times the size of women s (IFAD, 2010, p. 61). In Busijo, the average size of land farmed by the female respondents is 1.05 acres, compared to 1.92 acres for men (see table 5.11)33. Not surprisingly, male-headed households and de facto female-headed households have slightly larger shambas than female-headed households (see table 5.11). Table 5.11: Average land sizes for female and male respondents, by gender and household type Gender Household type (All respondents) (Female respondents) MaleFemale- De facto femaleFemale Males headed headed headed Average shamba 1.05 1.92 1.38 1.13 1.25 size (acres) Source: Busijo Field Research 2011/Household Survey. Farm management Despite not being able to own land, this research found that women in Busijo are actively involved in farm decision-making and management. This entails handing the daily activities in the shamba, but it can also include acquiring planting materials and deciding what to cultivate and when. However, the degree to which women participate in farm management is related to their marital status and household type (see chapter 2, section 2.3.2). In Busijo, 55.6% of the female respondents in male-headed households and 85.7% in de facto femaleheaded households handle shamba decision-making and management (see table 5.12). In line with findings from Manda and Mvumi (2010), 22.2% of women share the responsibility with their husbands, while only one shamba is managed by an absentee husband. However, daily management does not mean decision-making can be made independently because, as already mentioned, women have limited access and control over assets. According to one married female farm manager, she is required to consult her husband regarding farm inputs34 because she needs to find out what they can afford and get money to purchase them (Interview P0137).

33

This difference is statistically significant at the 95% probability level (Chi-square test = 10.096; see table 5.8a, appendix 8). 34 Such as seeds or fertilizer. However, most farmers use planting materials from the previous season and fertilizer is often unaffordable.

61

Table 5.12: Female respondents participating in farming decision-making according to household type Male-headed [n=27]
35

Household type Female-headed De facto female[n=24] headed [n=7] 6 0 1 0 7 85.7% 0% 14.3% 0% 100%

Decision-maker Household head 6 22.2% 24 100% Wife 15 55.6% 0 0% Absentee husband 0 0% 0 0% Shared 6 22.2% 0 0% Total 27 100% 24 100% Source: Busijo Field Research 2011/Household Survey. 5.3.3. Women s roles and responsibilities on the homestead

Another defining characteristic of female farmers is their heavy workload. In addition to their role as food providers, they are also caregivers and housekeepers for their households. According to the 2011 Rural Poverty Report, rural women in most developing countries often have 16 hour work days, which is much longer than men s, in order to complete their farm work, household chores and income-generating activities (World Bank, FAO and IFAD, 2008 cited in IFAD, 2010). Similarly, a survey conducted by Social Services in 2004 found that women in Samia work on average 17-19 hour per day (Key Informant Interview 3). However, women s work is not seen as productive because it does not earn income for the household and often it does not show up in statistics (Key Informant Interviews 3, 5; Horwith, 1989; Pankhurst, 1991; Chinyemba et al., 2006 all cited in Manda and Mvumi, 2010; Whitehead, 1994; Safilios-Rothschild, 1994).

Figure 5.1a in appendix 9 provides a visual display of the daily schedules or routines for eight women and two men in Busijo who participated in one-on-one interviews following the household survey. According to this research, we see that women s days are not significantly longer than the men s but they carry out a greater variety of tasks. A female farmer s day typically begins between 6:00 and 6:30 when she wakes up and goes to the shamba. She will spend from two to four and a half hours doing farm work in the morning. Then, she returns to the house. She may take a brief rest, but most women tend to household chores and livestock and begin preparing for lunch, which entails collecting firewood and water. On average, the female respondents collect water two to four times a day. The frequency of collection depends on the level of consumption, distance to the water source, and who is collecting it. While lunch is cooking a female farmer can tend to other tasks, such as cleaning, doing

35

One female respondent is not included because her household does not farm.

62

laundry and bathing the children. Lunch is generally taken between 13:00 and 14:00 when the school age children are home for a break. In the afternoon, more farming or household chores are done, such as gathering vegetables for dinner, or some women carry out incomegenerating activities. Dinner is eaten between 18:00 and 20:00, after which time most women rest or go directly to bed.

There are exceptions to this general schedule, however, which can relate to a woman s marital status, household type and/or wealth level. For example, one woman is able to hire laborers to work in the shamba and to help with domestic chores (Interview B0180). This frees up time so she can run a chemist shop and train with her net/football team. As for the men represented in the sample, they spend time in the shamba and/or on other livelihood activities, but they do not do household chores or caregiving.

Women do not question the unbalanced workload. According to a female leader, women know when they marry they will be farming and giving birth (Key Informant Interview 6). However, another community leader believes that women do not know their rights and do not know their importance to the family (Key Informant Interview 5). Meanwhile men underestimate or underrate women because they feel women have nothing to contribute (Interview J0224). There was also an indication of fear: You do not question the husband or household head she fears causing problems or maybe being beaten or breaking up the marriage, so she does what she has to do (to feed her husband and children) (Key Informant Interview 5). Women cannot challenge or disobey men because they house them and the women might be turned out if they don t comply (Interview J0224).

At the same time, some roles are evolving. As already mentioned, women are now tending livestock. Some men are also taking on more traditional female tasks. For example, one female farmer stated that she does not go to the market during the day because her husband does the shopping for the household when he is already out (Interview E0154). In addition, all the women that were interviewed, both married and widowed, said they have control over their time. O Laughlin (1995) made a similar observation about the autonomy of African women and the role of social differentiation. 5.3.4. Women s participation in public life At the community level, gender inequality is perhaps most easily witnessed through women s low or silent participation in public forum and decision-making processes. According to the survey results presented in table 5.13, only 24% of the female respondents compared to 59%

63

of their male counterparts often attend the assistant chief s weekly baraza36, which is an important venue for sharing and receiving information in Busijo. Overall, only 33% of men and women are participating on a regular basis. Table 5.13: Level of attendance at chief s barazas by male and female respondents Respondent Sex I often attend the assistant Male Female Total chief s weekly baraza. [n=22] [n=59] Agree 13 59% 14 24% 27 (33%) Partly agree 5 23% 11 18% 16 (20%) Disagree 38 (47%) 4 18% 34 58% Total 22 100% 59 100% 81 (100%) Source: Samia Field Research 2011/Household Survey. There are many factors that can contribute to both women and men not participating in public forums, as stated by the area chief: Some of the reasons are negative attitudes, lack of time, ignorance and different political viewpoints. Many people think the barazas are not for them but for the village liguruus37 and sub-chiefs. People are not information conscious (Key Informant Interview 8).

Similar research by Cleaver (2005) found that poor people in Tanzania consider participation in local meetings an onerous and burdensome responsibility (pp. 902). He associated this response with their extremely low wealth levels and high opportunity costs. This is certainly relevant for women in Busijo who are multiply impacted by their low economic status, inferior social status, cultural norms and power struggles that limit their role and participation in public life. Because they are always busy in the shamba and in the home, they may be too tired or feel that they cannot spare the time to attend the chief s baraza (Key Informant Interviews 3 and 8). The barazas are intended to relay government information and advertisements to a population that is highly illiterate. Yet, ironically, women are intimidated to participate in public forums because of their low education levels (Key Informant Interview 8). According to Cleaver (2005), even non-poor women experience exclusion due to their inability to effectively express themselves (pp. 903).

In addition, traditional views held by both men and women contribute to women s limited public activity. Men believe that it is not the women s place to collect or relay information or voice their opinions (Interview E0154). Control of knowledge is related to power structures,
36

This difference is statistically significant at the 95% probability level (Chi-square test = 10.011; see table 5.9a, appendix 8). 37 Kisamia word for village elders.

64

as noted by Parpart (2000) and Scoones and Thompson (1998 cited in Parpart, 2000), so men are threatened by women in public forums because they are not supposed to be more influential than men or be seen as leading them (Key Informant Interviews 4 and 8). For those women brave enough [to speak up], they will be harassed because men don t think they have something substantial to contribute (Interview B0180). Another female farmer relayed a time when she attended a public forum and was told by some men present to go home and tell her husband to come instead: do you see our wives here? (Interview E0154). As a result women are conditioned to be shy, submissive, and intimidated (Key Informant Interview 4). They believe men should attend the barazas and bring back information to them, but not all of them do (Key Informant Interview 8).

The exceptions are the female farmers who are educated or have a leadership role in the community (Interviews B0180 and B0228). Women are allowed to be village elders (there are three in Busijo) and they are supposed to be represented in the village council. I also observed female community health workers and group leaders interacting quite freely with men during meetings and workshops. The area chiefs stated that they are trying to use the barazas to sensitize men and women to gender issues that negatively impact public participation (Key Informant Interview 8), but this is difficult when the attendance levels are low. Attitude changes also need to take place at the household level, as one female farmer stated: if you [a woman] can t do this with your husband then it is difficult to expect a woman to do it in front of an entire baraza (Interview L0215).

5.4. Conclusion
This chapter has described the research population in Busijo and examined the accuracy of the wealth ranking exercise in light of results from the household survey. Special attention was given to presenting data on the livelihoods and socio-economic status of female farmers. The picture that emerges is that the female farmers are primarily from the poor and middle wealth levels, they are poorly educated, and overburdened not only by their heavy workloads, but also due to agro-ecological and social-health conditions in the area. For example, the high incidence of HIV/AIDS in the area means that many women care for orphans in addition to their own children. Furthermore, women are disadvantaged by their inferior social status in many respects, from their mode of transportation to their control over assets and resources. At the same time, we see that gender norms are so engrained in the local Busijo/Samia culture that both women and men accept the gender differences that exist.

65

Chapter 6. Social capital in Busijo

This chapter sets out to describe the kinds of community groups that exist in Busijo and the level of utilization by female farmers. It also begins to examine the factors that can influence formation, participation and effectiveness of social capital. The first section provides a brief overview on the scope and activities of community groups in the entire Samia District. Section 6.2 describes the level of group participation by people in Busijo. Section 6.3 presents the findings for other types of social capital, namely social relationships between people within the same family, boma38, or village but which are not built through membership in a group. Data for this chapter is drawn from the household survey, FGDs, and interviews with key informants and community members.

6.1. Community groups as social capital

Community groups are commonly utilized by Kenyans and have a long history in the country, as described in chapter 3, section 3.2. The official definition of the Social Services for community groups is: a collection of people who come together with a common purpose to achieve a common goal (Key Informant Interview 1). In this sense, community groups can be a source of bonding or bridging social capital, depending on the level of affiliation. Group formation is encouraged by the government, NGOs and development agencies as a way for people to access community resources and to work and learn together in order to improve their livelihoods. Likewise, farmers in Busijo who are members in community groups agree that they serve many essential functions. They are a place to exchange information and skills (Interview J0224); to gain knowledge and capacity in applicable skills like improved farming techniques that build empowerment; they provide a venue to help each other with welfare issues, such as funerals and raising food together to prevent hunger (Group 4 -140411 Interview); they build togetherness; and they facilitate individual and group income generation that helps members meet their households financial needs. 6.1.1. Types of community groups and some basic characteristics The main categorization of community groups in this research is formal versus informal. Formal groups go through a registration process with the Division Gender and Social Development Officer whereas informal ones do not, and therefore Social Services and local leadership may not know they exist. The advantage of being registered is that formal groups are eligible for development assistance, such as grants, loans and capacity building. As such, groups can be sources of linking social capital (see chapter 2, section 2.2.1), because they help connect people to opportunities.
38

Kiswahili word for homestead.

66

Nearly all community groups, whether formal or informal, can be defined as self-help groups (see table 6.1a, appendix 10). This is a broad category of groups that are created to improve the socio-economic status of its group members (Key informant interview 1). According to Mutugi (2006), self-help groups in Kenya started out among rural women within the same family or residential proximity as a way to create social and economic empowerment (pp. 81). According to records39 from the District Social Development Office in Busia, there are approximately 600 formal community groups in Funyula Constituency that registered between 2006 and 2011, of which approximately 93 are in Bwiri location. However, there are easily many more groups in existence given that this research identified approximately sixty different formal and informal groups for Busijo through the various data collection methods. One of the most common are merry-go-rounds. The name refers to an activity where money, goods, livestock, shamba assistance, etc. are rotated to a different member each month or at each sitting. While all types of self-help groups may carry out this activity, the informal ones are often organized through a church or at the village level. Another popular type of informal village group in Busijo is specifically set up so the group members can save money for Christmas-time feasts. Groups of this type are not found in the formal category recognized by Social Services because they do not contribute to the long-term socio-economic well-being of their members.

According to Social Services, groups can generally be formed in two ways: 1) Spontaneously or demand driven these groups are initiated by community members themselves; or 2) prompted or supply driven these groups are prompted to be formed through external influence; often because there is a development opportunity that targets groups (Key informant interview 1). For example, Group 4 is a self-help farming group that was started when a small group of community members came together as a merry-go-round to help each other in their shambas (Group 4 -140411 Interview). Alternatively, Group 5, a women s selfhelp group, is considered a prompted group because it was formed primarily to take advantage of microcredit provided by the Western Kenya Community-Driven Development program (Group 5 -150411 Interview).

Regardless of how or why groups come together, in order to be registered with Social Services they must follow a registration process that, among other things, requires them to

39

Although several attempts were made, it was not possible to get a comprehensive list of all the registered groups in Samia District, or Busijo going back ten years because the electronic recordkeeping system was incomplete. Furthermore, new groups form each year but many end up going dormant or disbanding for various reasons.

67

have a constitution, minutes recording when the group was formed, an endorsement from a local chief and money to pay the registration fee (see text box 6.1a, appendix 10). Some informal groups are not aware of this process (Interview B0180) and others may be deterred from it because they are illiterate40 and/or they cannot afford the registration fee. Formal groups are also required to hold regular meetings and have an executive committee that consists of, at a minimum, a chairperson, a vice-chair, a secretary and a treasurer. Leadership terms are typically41 three years. One of the responsibilities of the leadership team is overseeing decision-making, conflict resolution and group planning, which is consider an essential function for good internal operations as well as dealing with external changes (Bandiera, Barankay and Rasul 2005). Generally, the groups follow a procedure whereby an idea or issue is brought to the executive committee and discussed before it goes to the entire group membership to make the final decision (Group Interviews).

Both formal and informal community groups collect membership fees. There are registration fees, regular monthly membership contributions and fines for missing group meetings or activities. For example, new members of Group 1 pay 200 Ksh for first-time membership registration; then 50 Khs annually to renew membership and 50 Ksh for every group activity that they miss (Group 1 - 270211 Interview). Group 2, a self-help producer and marketing group, requires each member to have at least 30 citrus seedlings and in-coming members pay a 1000+ Ksh registration fee (Group 2 040311 Interview). Meanwhile, fees for informal

groups are not necessarily less than those collected by formal groups. One village group requires 200 Ksh per meeting: 50 Ksh goes to the host and 150 Ksh is the member s contribution to purchase a bull at Christmas-time (Interview E0133). If a member cannot make their monthly payment, they have to catch up later or they will not get as much meat because their shares will be lower (Interview 0137). At a minimum, this equates to 2,4004,800 Ksh annually since most groups meet once or twice a month (see previous paragraph). This appears to be quite high for an activity that does not bring long-term livelihood benefits, and in fact, the very poor are likely to be indirectly excluded from groups because they cannot make the regular contributions (Cleaver, 2005). Some groups in Busijo do offer assistance if the need arises. Group 1 said its members may decide to waive the registration fee of a new member or help out an existing member if she comes to them with a problem, such as a drunk husband, as long as she promises to participate actively (Group 1 270211 Interview).

40 41

Group constitutions and the registration form are written in English. I met with one formal group in north Samia that elects officers every year.

68

6.1.2. Group activities Community groups carry out activities that are related to their objectives but there is a great deal of crossover and some groups have multiple activities or projects (see table 6.2a, appendix 10). This correlates with Thomas (1988) findings in her study of women s groups in Murang a District in central. For example, welfare groups generally provide assistance to members in times of need, such as after the death of a loved one or during financial difficulties. They may also extend their activities to the broader community such as offering care and support to orphans, the elderly or people living with HIV/AIDS. Some groups focus on just one activity, such as collective/cooperative farming. This can occur through a merrygo-round structure where female farmers take turns helping their fellow group members in their shambas, such as during land preparation, weeding or harvesting. In this way community groups connect women to human capital that can lighten their workload. Other groups are set up to generate income for its members and therefore they organize activities such as raising livestock or horticulture crops and then selling them within their community. Furthermore, many groups regardless of their purpose operate merry-go-rounds and/or table banking42.

Group 1 is an example of a formal women s group that is providing welfare support in the community, as well as carrying out income generating projects that support their group activities and their members. It is comprised of women from a local church whose main objectives are supporting orphans, widows/widowers and people with HIV/AIDS, and running a day school for children (Group 1- 270211 Interview). The members contribute both time and money, such as purchasing uniforms for the orphaned students, helping out at the primary school and cooking for the elderly and HIV/AIDS patients to ensure they have a good diet. The group rears local poultry and they operate a group shamba where they plant cassava, maize, beans, and millet. The farm products are sold to support the orphans. In addition, Group 1 organizes a merry-go-round and table banking that enables members to have access to money and loans on a rotating basis.

6.2. Group Membership: who is participating and why

According to table 6.1, 58% of all respondents/households in the Busijo household survey sample are members in community groups. It also reveals that 73% of the male respondents participate in community groups compared to 53% of the female respondents.

42

Table banking got its name because group members bring their money to a meeting; they each place their contributions/savings on the table; it is collected and recorded, and then loan requests are discussed and transacted (Informal Conversation 2).

69

Table 6.1: Membership in community groups by respondent sex Respondent Sex Female Male All respondents respondents Respondents Membership Status [n=59] [n=22] [n=81] Yes 31 53% 16 73% 58% No 28 47% 6 27% 42% Total 59 100% 22 100% 100% Source: Busijo Field Research 2011/Household Survey. Women holding group membership come from the middle and poor wealth categories (see table 6.2), and those in female-headed households (including de facto) are more likely to participate than their counterparts in male-headed households (see table 6.3a, appendix 10). Furthermore, the female group members are more likely to participate in the informal type (65%) than formal ones (35%), and members of informal groups participate more actively (see table 6.4a, appendix 10).

Table 6.2: Membership in community groups by female respondents according to wealth category Wealth categories All female Membership Poor [n=17] Middle [n=41] Rich [n=1] respondents Status [n=59] 0% 31 (53%) YES 6 35% 25 61% 0 28 (47%) NO 11 65% 16 39% 1 100% 100% 59 (100%) Total 17 100% 41 100% 1 Source: Busijo Field Research 2011/Household Survey. Regardless of wealth status, 74% of the female group members indicated they joined to generate income or increase savings (see table 6.5a, appendix 10), which corresponds with Thomas (1988) observation that rural women in Kenya use groups as a household strategy to circumvent traditional constraints they face, namely access to productive resources like cash (Thomas, 1988, p. 415). Filling a community need was the second most common (67%) reason given by women in poor households, but the fourth most frequent reason (36%), after cooperating on farm activities (40%), for women in middle wealth households. These findings are interesting because table 6.2 also reveals that 65% of the female respondents in poor households are not participating in any community groups, and when asked why 100% cited lack of funds and/or food (see table 6.6a, appendix 10). In fact, low incomes are the main limiting factor for 89% of all women not in groups, followed by lack of time (36%) (see table 6.6a, appendix 10). According to a young widow, I couldn t make the contributions for the merry-go-round so I stepped aside so as not to create a conflict or strain the

70

relationship with the group members (Interview with R0169). A leader of a women s group stated that some of their members are prohibited from participating by their husbands who don t understand the group s activities and benefits and will not give them money for group fees (Group 1 Interview-270211). These findings are in accordance with the socio-economic characteristics of female farmers presented in chapter 5, and they also correlate with research by Mwaniki s (1986) and Cleaver (2005). The latter author noted regarding poor households in Tanzania: the less or non-poor have denser social networks than the very poor, whose activities are confined to the immediately local (Cleaver, 2005, p. 899). Some of the women also cited restrictions due to exclusivity where groups are formed on the basis of friendship and political affiliation (Focus Groups 1, 2, 3 & 4). Only a small percentage (33%) of the female respondents indicated joining groups to cooperate on farm activities and gain new skills (see table 6.5a, appendix 10). However, cooperative farming can provide women not only with access to human capital, but they can also share planting materials (i.e. seeds), and build-up their own capacity by working and learning with others.

6.3. Other sources of social capital

This section looks at sources of assistance for female farmers who are not in community groups. Results of the household survey, in concurrence with the literature, suggest that other sources of social capital, such as family and neighbors, have positive and negative aspects like organized groups (Beall, 2001) and their utilization is impacted by weak bonds (Bebbington et al., 2005; Cleaver, 2005). For example, 61% percent of female farmers not participating in community groups are reluctant to ask their neighbors for help, compared to 48% of women in community groups (see table 6.7a, appendix 10). This is in part due to jealousy and fear of judgment (Survey Respondents A0206; E0214; A0216; T0218). One female farmers said she only asks family and community members with whom she good relations (Survey Respondent T0218). In addition, the data suggests that women s ability, or perhaps the acceptability, to ask for help is constrained by cultural/gender norms that dictate women s expected roles and responsibilities.

It is not surprising, therefore, that female farmers who are not in community groups rely heavily on themselves to carry out farm work and domestic responsibilities, including caring for young children (see table 6.1). For example, 48% of women do shamba work alone. Some women in the FGDs said they receive help from their older or grown children, but rarely their husbands (Focus group 3). Elderly women indicated that they work alone because their husbands as well as some of their children are away or deceased (Focus Group 2). 71

Domestic chores are almost exclusively the domain of women. According to the results of the survey, 57% of the female respondents work alone, 21% receive help from their children, and only three female respondents (11%) indicated that they might work together with their husbands on activities in or around the home. For the women with young children, 67% rely on themselves and 14% seek help from friends and neighbors when they need to go to the shamba or the market. Interestingly, no women answered that they receive childcare help from their husbands. Like domestic chores, caring for children is primarily the responsibility of women and men appear to have a very small hands-on role in raising their children. For example, a young child began crying uncontrollably during the administration of a household survey with a male respondent. His wife had stepped out of the house, but rather than picking up the baby to try to calm him/her, he went out to look for his wife. Figure 6.1: Sources of farm and household assistance for female respondents not in community groups

Source: Busijo Field Research 2011/Household Survey. Thirty-five percent of the female respondents rely on themselves to access farm inputs. By this they mean that they use seeds or beans from the previous harvest for planting materials in the new one. They also turn to their neighbors, friends or relatives (27%) for planting materials but only two women responded that they might use extension services or go to an Agrovet shop for farm inputs. During financial difficulties, some female farmers (i.e. widows) struggle on their own, but in accordance with Bebbington et al. (2005), other women seek help from their husbands or close family members, and to a certain extent neighbors.

72

Figure 6.2: Sources of financial assistance and accessing farm inputs for female respondents not in community groups.

Source: Busijo Field Research 2011/Household Survey. Self-reliance among female farmers in Busijo sub-location is not isolated just to women who are poor or widowed. For example, a higher percentage of women in middle wealth households rely on themselves for shamba and domestic work than poor or rich households. Even within the middle category, the survey results indicate that 38% of women in maleheaded households, compared to 13% of female-headed and 6% of de facto female-headed households take care of domestic chores themselves (see figure 6.3). This is likely due to the fact that the female-headed households tend to rely more on their children for assistance and a few de facto female-headed households are able to hire laborers43. Yet, in general this data suggests that female farmers without membership in community groups potentially have weaker support networks than their counterparts who are active in community groups. Figure 6.3: Self-reliance of female respondents not in community groups by wealth level and type of household

Source: Busijo Field Research 2011/Household Survey.

43

Including the one rich household, so it is not captured in figure 6.3.

73

6.4. Conclusion
This chapter has revealed that fifty-three percent of the female farmers in the household survey are members in groups and their main reason for joining was to increase their income. Self-help groups that are identified as merry-go-rounds or which carry out a monthly rotation so members can access money, goods, livestock, shamba assistance, etc., are one of the most common in Busijo. Many are organized at the village level or through churches and the research found that women are more likely to participate in these informal groups than the formal ones. However, lack of money and the demands on women s time indirectly excludes them from participating in groups. Women s other sources of social capital are family, friends and neighbors but the research found that they are still highly reliant on themselves for their daily activities. Gender norms that dictate women s expected roles and responsibilities, along with jealousy and fear of judgment, seem to be restricting their access to and utilization of other social capital.

74

Chapter 7. Community groups and livelihood improvements

This chapter gets to the heart of the research. It critically examines the benefits of group membership and whether they can bring about livelihood improvements. The first section looks at what resources or other forms of capital that women have been able to access through group participation. It compares the benefits according to gender and wealth levels, and questions whether they are helping residents of Busijo meet their development goals. This segues ways into the second section which describes some issues that are limiting the effectiveness of groups as a source of social capital. The third section presents recommendations for improving community groups. The data sources utilized in this chapter include the household survey, FGDs, one-on-one interviews and interviews with the community groups.

7.1. Level of benefits and access to other capitals through group membership
Table 7.1 and figure 7.1a (see appendix 11) summarize the results of the household survey for group benefits experienced by female farmers in Busijo. The table provides a run down of the percentages for formal and informal groups, while the second visual aid looks for connections between the benefits experienced by the female respondents, group activities and the reasons they gave for originally joining community groups. The direct benefits experienced or received by the female farmers are primarily in the category of human capital (i.e. new skills; help on the farm and with house repairs), financial capital (i.e. access to microcredit/microloans) and natural capital (i.e. access to farm inputs). On the other hand, the indirect and/or potential benefits revolved around expanding social capital such as networking and improving participation in decision-making, which were experienced to a lesser extent, and enhancing ones human capital (i.e. empowerment). Access to credit/loans through group membership is considered both a direct and potential benefit because members may organize rotating credit/savings/loan schemes but very few groups received a loan or grant from a government program like the WEF, although the resources do exist. Table 7.1: Benefits of group membership experienced by female respondents in Busijo Total Formal groups Informal Groups [n=31] [n=11] [n=20] Type of benefit & rank 1. New skills 64% 65% 65% 2. Increased income 55% 50% 52% 2. Received help on the shamba 45% 55% 52% 3. Experienced empowerment 45% 45% 45% 4. Improved networking 55% 15% 29% 5. Accessed farm inputs & services 18% 30% 26% 5. Accessed credit or a loan 9% 35% 26% 6. Received help with your house (i.e. 18% 25% 22% 75

repairs) 7. Improved involvement in decisionmaking 18% Source: Busijo Field Research 2011/Household Survey.

10%

13%

Some interesting findings are also revealed when the benefits of group membership are analyzed according to gender (see table 7.1a, appendix 11) and wealth levels (see table 7.1a, appendix 11). These perspectives illuminate differences in social capital that are both positive and negative. In addition, they are important to understand so group access and benefits can be maximized. Agrawal (2000) and Westermann, Ashby and Pretty (2005) note that men are often engaged in more formal network that improve their access to financial assets and decision making (or power), while women depend more on informal networks that help them with their everyday activities and accessing household resources. The findings of this research both support and contradict this statement. As already noted in chapter six, section 6.2. both women and men in Busijo are participating in formal community groups, although men at a slightly higher rate. Furthermore, women and men are gaining new skills and experiencing increased income as two of the top benefits of group membership and at relatively similar levels. For example, 65% of the female respondents and 63% of the male respondents have learned new skills through trainings in improved farm techniques, homebased health care, positive living, business management and poultry management. These programs are taught by the line ministries and NGOs, like CABE, as described in the context chapter, sections 3.3.4 and 3.3.6. 7.1.1. Increased income In terms of economics, the female respondents reported experiencing increased income through group participation at only four percentage points less than the male respondents (52% for women compared to 56% for men). This can be attributed to group incomegenerating activities such as raising and selling citrus seedlings (Group 7); growing, processing and selling groundnuts (Group 2); and rearing livestock, which are carried out by mixed gender groups. Merry-go-rounds and table banking also appear to be important to women because they give them access to money that most do not have from their husbands, and they encourage women to save and manage their money carefully. Access and control over one s own money can also create empowerment. One member of a women s group was able to take the income she received and invest it in a business and then use the money to purchase materials to construct a new house (Group 5-150411 Interview). Other women reported being able to purchase livestock that in turn can generate more income and allow them to pay school fees and buy farm inputs (group interviews and focus groups). However, not all income-generating activities bring great benefit to the members. For example, a 76

women s group affiliated with a parish in Busijo digs (i.e. tills the soil with jembes) in other people s shambas for wage but most of the money goes to the church (Focus Group 3).

In terms of wealth levels, both women and men in middle households are experiencing increased income from group membership at higher levels than the poor by as much as 29

percentage points. This is a double hit for the poor because as already noted in chapter six, section 6.2, women in poor households are less likely to join or maintain membership in community groups generation because they lack money for fees and group activities. However, table 7.3a in appendix 11 reveals that if they had extra income the poor would use it repair or build new homes, followed by purchasing livestock, farm inputs and starting a small business. According to one poor female farmer, I would first purchase farm inputs since farming is our way of survival (Survey respondent J0144). Interestingly, more respondents in poor households reported learning new skills and improved networking from group participation than their counterparts in middle households. Perhaps because the base from which they were starting before joining a group was lower than the members who are better off. 7.1.2. Participation in public forums, improved networking and empowerment In concurrence with Agrawal (2000), Nega et al. (2009), and Westermann, Ashby and Pretty (2005), men are receiving significantly higher benefits than women in terms of experiencing empowerment, improved networking and involvement in local decision-making processes by as much as 28 percentage points. In general, membership in a group appeared to have no positive effect in improving the participation levels of Busijo women in the assistant chief s weekly barazas, as discussed in chapter 5, section 5.3.4. Sixty-one percent of female group members compared to 54% of women not in groups rarely attend these public forums on a regular basis (see table 7.2). Table 7.2: Attendance at assistant chief s weekly baraza in Busijo by female farmers according to the group membership status Group membership status In groups [n=31] Not in groups [n=28] I often attend the assistant chief's weekly barazas. Agree 8 26% 6 21% Partially agree 4 13% 7 25% Disagree 19 61% 15 54% Source: Busijo Field Research 2011/Household Survey. Women in formal community groups reported improved networking at 55% versus 15% for women in informal community groups (see table 7.1 above). This finding correlates with the fact that formal community groups are targeted for resources and they can access services and 77

support from Social Services. They are more likely to be known by or collaborating with NGOs or other organizations/institutions because they are registered with Social Services. A leader of Group 1 said that by forming a (formal) group they learned about CABE and now they are part of the network and they ve been taught about cultivation techniques and loans (Group 1-270211 Interview). However, taken as a whole, women are experiencing improved networking at 29% compared to 57% for men.

Furthermore, 63% of men noted empowerment as a benefit of group membership whereas only 45% of women did. Research by Nega et al. (2009) on social capital and empowerment in Ethiopia found that low education levels of women and their limited access to credit reduces their ability to take control over improving their lives, which they use as an indicator of empowerment. According to findings from this research, women are accessing credit and loans through their groups at a higher level than men, while people in poor households are not accessing them at all. The dominant reason for women not taking formal loans provided by government programs or banks is fear of defaulting (see table 7.4a, appendix 11). 7.1.3. Access to shamba assistance, farm inputs and services Men are less likely than women to access farm inputs and receive help on the shamba. This is likely related to the fact that women provide most farm labor and as such, receiving help on the shamba through group membership is a higher priority for them than men. Indeed, chapter 6, section 6.2. noted that cooperating on farm activities in one of the reasons women join groups and this finding is also supported by literature (Mutugi, 2006; Thomas, 1988). Farm assistance is commonly achieved through a merry-go-round arrangement and it can be particularly important for older women who may be incapable of working in their shambas. One elderly female farmer in fact stated that she receives help from fellow group members for all farm activities (Survey Respondent R0201). Farm inputs are accessed by 30% of female farmers participating in informal groups and by 18% of women in formal groups. A female farmer from Group 6 stated, before (joining the group) I was not able to use fertilizer (Group 6-160411 Interview). Fertilizers and certified seeds are difficult for people in Busijo to purchase because of their low-income levels. Unfortunately, however, no men or women in poor households reported accessing farm inputs through participation in a group.

Furthermore, the household survey revealed women have low awareness of how to access agricultural extension services and group membership has not greatly improved the situation. According to table 7.3 only 39% of female respondents in community groups are aware that extension services are provided on demand, which is only 10% more than their counterparts 78

who are not in groups. This means that a significant number of female farmers are not utilizing the Ministry of Agriculture s core service or participating in farm trainings. As a result, women have limited capacity to carry out, let alone improve their main livelihood activity farming. This is compounded by the fact that female farmers are trying to deal with

many other constraints, such as poor soil fertility, fluctuating or low crop yields, and the difficulty of stretching their own labor over multiple tasks, such that women may utilize unproductive farming methods or supplement their meager output by hiring themselves out at very low wages (Berry, 1989, p. 51 and Fresco, 1982, 1986 cited in Berry, 1989, p. 51). Table 7.3: Awareness of female farmers about agricultural extension services Group membership status I am aware that extension Not in groups [n=28] services are provided on In groups [n=31] demand. Agree 12 39% 8 29% Partially agree 3 10% 1 4% Disagree 16 52% 19 68% Source: Busijo Field Research 2011/Household Survey.

7.2. Effectiveness of groups as social capital

From the previous two chapters we have seen that community groups are a common source of social capital in Busijo, which people use them in different ways to ease the burdens of their everyday lives. At the same time, groups are not accessed by all segments of the population and the benefits materialize for group members differently, according to gender and wealth level. This finding is supported by Thomas (1988) and Cleaver (2005) who agree that the impact of associations on its members varies according to the socio-economic attributes of

the household (Thomas, 1988, p. 403). Social capital can have negative consequences such as restricting personal freedoms, perpetuating existing inequalities or maintaining the status quo rather than providing solutions to real problems (Grischow, 2008; Beard and Cartmill, 2007; Bebbington et al., 2005; Cleaver, 2005; Portes, 1998 and others). Bebbington et al. (2005) cites the example of rotating savings and loans groups (i.e. merry-go-rounds or table banking) that provide funds for immediate needs but do not often help members move ahead or catalyze local development (pp. 1970). This type of group is one of the most popular among female farmers in Busijo.

This begs the question then, what are the factors that limit the effectiveness of community groups to improve livelihoods, or are we expecting too much of them? Schuurman (2003 cited in Cleaver, 2005, p. 894) warns against assuming that people can use network connections and participation in institutions to move out of disadvantaged positions. The

79

following paragraphs examine the effectiveness of groups as a source of social capital. This research finds that the challenges they face are a combination of internal and external factors. 7.2.1. Internal challenges Those falling in the first category include poor group leadership, such as a lack of transparency with and accountability to general group members and lack of group cohesion. Twenty-one percent of the female respondents who are not in community groups said that poor group leadership/mismanagement was a reason they had not joined (see table 6.6a in appendix 10). In addition, some focus group participants described leadership teams as not very effective , and said that there is dishonesty, a lack of respect and understanding between members, wrangling and back-stabbing. This latter problem can be related to group composition and social relations. As already noted in chapter 2, section 2.2.2, many studies have examined heterogeneity levels among groups of people because they not only influence the formation of social capital but also have positive or negative consequences for collective efforts.

From figure 7.1 we see that less than 20% of the female respondents in both formal and informal groups belong to groups comprised of members from the same family, education level, age group and political viewpoints. They are more likely to belong to women groups and those comprised of people from their own village or church. The latter types are most often informal, perhaps because it is easier to organize people where they are already dwelling or gathering on a regular basis. The literature suggests that social integration is easier to build in small areas (Beard and Cartmill 2007) and that conditions for collaboration improve with the presence of women (Westermann, Ashby and Pretty, 2005). At the same time, this research has shown that fear of judgment and jealousy restrict women from seeking help (see chapter 6, section 6.2.) and the majority (90%) of survey respondents strongly believe differences among people in Busijo create conflicts. Community members frequently expressed the existence of discrimination based on wealth/material status, political viewpoints and religion (see table 7.5a, appendix 11). While there is not space in this thesis to give full attention to these differences, it is important to note them because divisions within a community can prevent collaboration, restrict access to resources and services (i.e. other capitals according to the livelihood approach), and therefore hinder livelihood improvements (aka development).

80

Figure 7.1: Heterogeneity of community groups: Percentage of female respondents belonging to groups with the following membership characteristics

Source: Busijo Field Research 2011/Household Survey. 7.2.2. External challenges: limitations of institutions Local administration Groups in Busijo have not made headway in changing women s access to information and participation in public life in part because members are all of the relatively same education background. However, issues of information distribution within the sub-location and also limited capacity of the line ministries compound this problem. According to 52% the female respondents participating in community groups and 32% of non-group female respondents information in Busijo is not distributed fairly by the local administration (see table 7.4). For example, one female farmer said that the elder in her village will go to her co-wife s home (in the same boma), give the information and then leave without telling her household, and sometimes they exclude their boma all together (Interview E0133). Other respondents said they get information when a community activity is already over or that it is distributed along political lines and income levels. These examples support Grishow s (2008, p. 88) view it is erroneous to assume that traditional leaders in Africa are natural agents of development or promoters of social capital because they often use traditional institutions and associations [...] to increase their power over land, resources and people. While other venues for accessing information exist, such as funerals and churches, health centers, schools and the radio, one of the repercussions is that many women are unaware about important services. In fact, the Ministry of Agriculture believes this is why so many female farmers do not use extension services or know that they are provide on demand (Key informant interview 4).

81

Table 7.4: Female respondents perception of the fairness of information distribution in Busijo Group membership status In groups [n=31] Not in groups [n=28] I believe that information is distributed fairly. Agree 16 52% 10 36% Partially agree 8 26% 9 32% Disagree 7 23% 9 32% Source: Busijo Field Research 2011/Household Survey. From the perspective of the local leadership, they strive to involve people in activities and everything they do (Key Informant Interview 8), but they believe that community members can be resistant to receiving information and they are not always responsive to it and to sharing it (Key Informant Interviews 5 & 6). Furthermore, the chiefs stated that people who are more educated don t attend the barazas, they aren t sharing information or they don t want to help on the ground because they think it is a waste of their time. The chiefs said they are more often working with the people that are struggling more; the ones in the middle and poor wealth levels. They are the ones attending the meetings and trying to move ahead (Key Informant Interview 8).

Line ministries & their staff/programs Thomas (1988, pp. 417-418) noted that, A positive attitude towards women s associations on the part of the government of Kenya has created a favorable setting in which they may function. Indeed this setting still exists to extent that there is a structure by which groups

can formalize their association and receive support. However, inline with Thomas study, the level of support varies. A main reason for this is that the government departments at the district and division level suffer from staff and resource shortages44 to carry out their duties and provide services to the stakeholders, as well as promote and execute their programs that are intended to improve the livelihoods of the local communities. For example, one youth group in Busijo has been dormant for almost two years because their members disagreed on the group s main activities and objectives (Group 8 042011 Interview). When asked if they

had received any visits from Social Services to help resolve their issues, they answered no and they did not know that Social Services assisted with conflict resolution (Group 8 042011 Interview). In addition, approximately 2.5 million Ksh in the WEF went unused last year in part because the Department of Gender lacks the capacity to sensitize female farmers about this financial resource (Key Informant Interview 3). The Ministry of Agriculture is short three or four subject area specialists in their Funyula (division) office and they have only one extension officer covering an entire district (Key Informant Interview 4). These line
44

i.e. money, modern technology and transportation.

82

ministries operate out of small, basic offices often with no computers45 and limited power supply. Modern record keeping procedures are slowly being implemented but currently they are lacking, as I experienced first hand in trying to gather information about community groups registered in Samia district.

7.3. Community needs and recommendat ions for strengthening groups

During a public forum at the end of the fieldwork period, the residents of Busijo were asked to identify their community development priorities. Initially, the research participants had difficulty with this question and they consistently recited livelihood activities currently practiced in the area that they thought were appropriate for men and women. Cleaver (2005) notes that the poor are constrained by their everyday realities and avoiding destitution. As such, they are not able to look beyond meeting their basic needs. Yet, after probing from the workshop facilitators, the residents came up with three community issues (ranked) and some items they believe are necessary to improve them, which are displayed in text box 7.1a in appendix 11. They include: improved educational facilities and services; modern farming technologies and farming as a business; and a clean and adequate supply of domestic water. In addition, they desire improved transportation/ roads and health facilities, but due to time constraints and bad weather the community did not vet these two topics at the meeting.

Currently, only a couple of the community s development goals are being partly addressed by groups in Busijo. Limited resources and capacity, as discussed above, constrain their ability to do more. Group 1, for example, is supporting education and vulnerable children by running a primary school that is attended by many orphans (Group 1-270211 Interview). However, they are operating out of two rooms, one of which is a church, and they lack money to expand. Most groups can also be utilized as a venue to learn improved farming techniques, but they require outside assistance for trainings and to access extension officers, agro-dealers and markets. Although not mentioned as a development issue, some groups are also helping HIV/AIDS patients; sensitizing the community about the virus; and encouraging people to get tested and live positively. Given the magnitude of the problem, as noted in chapter 3, section 3.1., the groups are filling a community need that the government might not be able to address on its own.

Reflection on the previous discussion and the groups I met over the course of the fieldwork brings to mind particular groups that exhibit qualities that appear to make them more effective than others. For example, Groups 2 and 7 are both self-help groups with membership made
45

Only one government employee I met, at the Ministry of State, National Development and Vision 2030, had a computer.

83

up of men and women. Group 7 is part of the CABE Network and Group 2 is based near Funyula within close proximity to the local market and district-level government offices (see text box 7.2a, appendix 11). Both groups have strong and assertive leaders with at least one person who can read and write. Both of them have also received outside assistance in the form of trainings and loans/grants, which allowed them to build up their groups and gain exposure. Some of these characteristics also match up with recommendations made by the research participants about how to strengthen community groups, which are presented in text box 7.3a, in appendix 33. An important element that they also add is the need to improve internal group relations and operations. In addition, a female farmer recommended that women s groups be utilized to represent women and their interests at the local barazas.

7.4. Conclusion
This chapter examined the livelihood benefits that residents of Busijo are experiencing through group membership. It revealed that there are differences based on gender and wealth levels. Both women and men are accessing financial capital and gaining news skills, but income generation is significantly less for people within poor households. Women are more likely to access human capital through collective farming and natural capital in the form of farm inputs. However, men reported higher benefits in terms of experiencing empowerment, improved networks and participation in decision-making. Women s participation in groups and the extent to which they receive benefits are affected by the socio-economic and gender constraints they face, but these can also be perpetuated through groups. Finally, while some groups are providing benefits that extend to the community, the ability of groups to serve as more than a safety net requires internal enhancements and external assistance.

84

Chapter 8: Conclusion
Recognizing that social capital is a resource built through social interactions that women can utilize to access information, resources and services, the purpose of this research was to understand how female farmers are utilizing community groups to improve their livelihoods. Therefore, the main research question was:

To what extent do female smallholder farmers in Samia District, western Kenya have access to community groups as a form of social capital and how do they use them to improve their livelihoods?

I employed the livelihoods approach to frame the research and I proposed that a socialrelational perspective was a necessary enhancement in order to describe and understand the complex environment in which both women and community groups operate. With this theoretical framework and context, I also proposed that examining how women use community groups can illuminate the challenges they face, the gaps in resources and services these groups may be filling and some of the driving factors that keep rural African women marginalized. In turn, I also set out to prove or disprove Mwaniki s (1986) contention from twenty-five years ago that the potential for women s groups in Kenya to have a significant impact on rural development is stifled by internal and external problems facing the groups, and even more so by the subordination and discrimination of women. Finally, I hoped to reveal how groups can be improved not only to better serve the needs and goals of women and allow them to participate more fully in society, but also to complement community objectives for sustainable rural development.

The objective of this chapter is to discuss the main findings of the research to answer the main research question. Based on the results, some recommendations will be made for improving group effectiveness and for further research. This chapter will also reflect on the research methodology.

8.1. Findings
The findings of this research reveal that a few common factors influence access to self-help groups and the flow of benefits that are necessary to bring about improvements in local livelihoods. These will be discussed in terms of poverty status, constraints facing women, social relations, and conditions of community groups and their linkages with institutions. First, however, it is helpful to review some of the basic findings about the different types and activities of community groups that exist in Busijo and how female farmers use them. 85

8.1.1. Community groups and how female farmers use them Self-help groups in Busijo include formal and informal groups that have been initiated either by the community members themselves or with external assistance from NGOs like CABE, for example. Informal groups, where people come together through their village or church, are more common among women. According to the household survey, 53% of women participate in groups and most are from the middle wealth category. Regardless of wealth levels the top reason women join a community group is to increase their income and/or savings. In general, they are using them to address the daily challenges they face as food providers, caregivers and homemakers in an area with low socio-economic conditions. Thus, it is not surprising that the desire to raise income or increase savings is a main reason female farmers in Busijo join groups, and consequently, merry-go-rounds, table banking and IGAs are popular group activities. In addition to financial capital, women have also been able to access human capital to help with farming, physical capital (i.e. home goods), and natural capital (i.e. access to farm inputs). Welfare groups also exist, where the members help each other in times of need and also provide support to vulnerable people in their community. 8.1.2. Constraints to access and the materialization of benefits Socio-economic conditions and gendered constraints Poverty status is one of the main ways that access to groups and the materialization of social capital benefits is limited. The research found that not only are women from poor households less likely to participate in groups, they also have difficulties maintaining membership. The driving factor is the inability to pay membership fees. Income levels are low in Busijo and so there is a daily struggle to meet basic needs. Some women also cited not having enough food to offer to group members when it is their turn to host a meeting. These problems are compounded by the fact that women generally do not have an independent source of income and they lack control over productive assets and even food. In addition, demands on a woman s time might be so great that she cannot continue to participate in the group activities. Thus, some women are prohibited outright from joining groups because they do not have the resources, while others drop their membership over time. These findings complement research by Mwaniki (1986), Thomas (1988), Cleaver (2005) and Westermann, Ashby and Pretty (2005).

Benefits are also skewed according to income level. The survey results revealed that poor group members - both women and men are less likely to experience increased income through group activities. This is can be related to two factors: one, the poor have less money to contribute to rotational savings/credit/loan schemes and group IGAs. In turn, the loan

86

amount or profits they receive will be lower because distribution is usually based on the level of one s shares. Secondly, benefits cannot flow to a person if they are not attending meetings and group activities, but the poor often cannot spare the time as noted by Cleaver (2005) and Bebbington et al. (2005). Poor female farmers are doubly impacted because both economics and gender norms influence their workloads and how they spend their time. These findings are congruent with Westermann, Ashby and Pretty (2005). In addition, they support the argument that some associations can perpetuate inequalities (Grischow, 2008; Beard and Cartmill, 2007; Bebbington et al., 2005; Cleaver, 2005; Mansuri and Rao, 2004; Parpart, 2000; Portes, 1998). Unless assistance is offered to impoverished households, group membership fees will continue to reinforce income disparities because only the better off are able to participate in groups. Furthermore, rather than challenging uneven workloads and other gender constraints that limit women s participation, groups provide added stress on women by charging fines for tardiness and absenteeism.

Social relations Access to groups can also be restricted due to exclusivity and strained social relations, just as they can limit people from collaborating on community-wide efforts. Some female farmers in the research area reported that some groups are formed through friendships or personal ties, while others are open only to people of the same faith or political affiliation. Even while the latter qualification may not be an explicit barrier to entrance, the results of the survey revealed that people in Busijo are reluctant to associate with people with different backgrounds. Troubled group dynamics also turn people off from joining or cause members to leave. It does not take much explanation to understand that benefits will be limited or not materialize at all if people cannot work together. This is not just a problem for self-help groups but all sources of social capital. While many studies (Grootaert 2001; Woolcock 1998; Thompson 1988; etc.) have focused on heterogeneity within groups, this study found that fear of judgment, jealousy, lack of trust and the ability to reciprocate can prevent women from seeking help from neighbors in line with literature by Cleaver (2005). At the

household level, power structures and expectations placed on women by gender norms limits their support systems. This is most visible in male-headed households, according to the survey results, because married women tend to work alone in comparison to their counterparts in female-headed households.

Group conditions and linkages with institutions Group operations and capacity also impact the ability of groups to fulfill their objectives and bring about benefits for their members. In the first regard, executive committees are essential to keeping groups functioning smoothly and effectively. The group members I interviewed 87

valued leaders who are proactive; good communicators and listeners; committed to team work; and maintain transparency with the general members. As a result they are more likely to build well-organized and cohesive groups that can generate tangible benefits and withstand challenges. These can be many given the conditions that exist in Busijo and the daily struggles of the residents. In addition, groups themselves are challenged because most do not receive training in group dynamics; choosing viable projects; project management; financial management; and conflict resolution. Unfortunately, the line ministries have limited resources and capacity to provide these services. Furthermore, because groups have poor linkages with institutions and information distribution is reportedly biased at the local level, groups are not always aware of opportunities for trainings and other assistance. As a result, groups struggle to maintain their activities and therefore the benefits are limited; and on the other hand, financial mismanagement and conflicts can indirectly restrict access because they may cause some members to quit while new ones are reluctant to join. There is another negative consequence, and that is that groups are not able to improve women s representation in public life. In concurrence with Agrawal (2000), Nega et al. (2009), and Westermann, Ashby and Pretty (2005), women in Busijo are less likely than men to experience empowerment, improved networking and involvement in local decision-making processes.

In conclusion, this research has shown that community groups are a source of social capital that exists in Samia District, and specifically in Busijo. In many respects, group participation has positively impacted female members in Busijo by providing them with livelihood assets that serve their immediate needs. However, a variety of factors impact group access and participation levels, as well as materialization of benefits. It is not possible to say conclusively if gender constraints are more restricting than group challenges to the benefits women receive (or not), but we have seen that they do not accumulate livelihood benefits in the same way as men; just as the rich and the poor. It is safe to say, however, that groups cannot address women s strategic needs or local development goals without a combination of internal improvements and external support.

8.2. Reflection on the methodology

This research was conducted using mixed methods of data collection. The survey research methodology allowed me to gather quantitative data, which was a useful way to assess the socio-economic status of the research population and cross check some of the potential errors of the wealth ranking, namely that so many households were placed in the middle category. It was also used to collect information about people s participation in community groups and the existence of other sources of social capital. Two challenges arose, however. One was that many respondents had difficulty estimating their crop yields and fish harvests so this data 88

could not be used; secondly, the results of the survey brought up new issues, such as strong community divisions, that could not all be fully addressed during the fieldwork period. I employed phenomenological research and feminist standpoint analysis methodologies to obtain the perspective of both women and men through FGDs and interviews. People spoke quite freely, but because I was not familiar with the local language I was not always certain that everything was being translated to me and this made it challenging to ask appropriate follow-up questions. Finally, the social-relational perspective allowed me to be critical of the livelihoods approach and the concept of social capital. I paid more attention to the institutional context than I might have otherwise. For example, understanding how groups are linked (or) not with formal institutions (i.e. line ministries) allowed me to see why they may not be able to be effective sources of social capital; not just because their members have limited resources and capacity, but also because the groups are constrained as well.

8.3. Recommendations and follow-up studies

8.3.1. Policy recommendations Inline with the conclusions of this research, recommendations are offered to enhance community groups. While these are geared toward groups in Samia District, and specifically Busijo, it is believed that they can also be beneficial to other associations in rural Kenya facing similar problems. First is should be understood that groups are not a panacea for development. The strategic needs and long-term goals of individuals and the community are often overlooked because many of the groups are focused on meeting the daily needs of their members. At the same time, the benefits that people report they are receiving from group participation cannot be discredited even if they serve as a safety net. However, regardless of whether the objective is to enhance groups so they can better serve their members or to expand their scope for broader development activities, groups need better access to information, capacity-building and decision-making, and improved linkages with institutions and markets.

One recommendation is to make capacity-building workshops an application requirement for groups wishing to register with Social Services. Trainings can also be provided on a rotating basis so that leaders and group members can build up and refresh their skills. This would need to be complemented with increased resources and capacity at the line ministries, but they should take advantage of organizations like CABE and local citizens that have gone through community development programs who can transfer their knowledge and skills to groups. Another idea is to create a Community Based Organization, or utilize an existing one, that that can act as an umbrella for the local groups to represent their interests; help them access resources and services; and provide a venue for sharing information, knowledge and 89

skills rather than competing against each other. In addition, this would consolidate the groups so they can be more easily reached by the line ministries. At the same time, they need to be accountable to the groups (Mansuri and Rao, 2004). In this regard a recommendation is that each of the relevant line ministries and the local administration should appoint a representative to be on the LGSCD at least as ex officio members so that they attend the monthly meetings to know the groups in their area; assess the needs of the groups and the community; and how their programs can better serve them. In doing so the government can lift up the potential of community groups and propel forward rural development. 8.3.2. Recommendation for further research Given that this research was not able to adequately address other sources of social capital in Samia District, a future research agenda should include studying female farmers who are not accessing community groups. This is particularly important because the results of the current research revealed that these women are among the most poor in the community. To this end, the household survey is being adapted and employed in August-October 2011 to carry out a socio-economic baseline study at the district level. Furthermore, a more in-depth examination of community relations in Busijo would be beneficial to provide insight into issues that need to be addressed so social capital can be built on a broader level.

90

Acknowledgements
Traveling to Africa to conduct this research was a dream come true. I am thankful for the love and support of my husband and family that made my journey possible. Secondly, but no less important, I want to acknowledge and thank my thesis advisor, Dr. Nicky Pouw, and my local supervisor, Dr. Hannington Odame. They both were instrumental in the process that has culminated in this thesis. I am also grateful to Dr. Odame for opening up his home in Samia to me. His staff in Nairobi was also quick to help me along the way in various capacities. In Samia, I am forever indebted to my fabulous research assistant and translator, Edmond Ogombe, because without him, his amazing work ethic and local knowledge, I never would have been able to complete my fieldwork. Other people in Samia also helped me and made a lasting impression on my life. They include Sammy and Lucy and all of the Odames who welcomed me into their boma; Ann Jr. and Ann Sr.; Carol; Peter; Godfrey and his wife Elizabeth; Victorine; Hellen; Alice; Sakinah, and the members of the CABE Network. The employees at the line ministries, especially Madame Ochomo and Mr. Gori, were also extremely kind and helpful in providing me with information for my research. Last, but not least, I wish to thank the local administrative team who provided invaluable assistance over the course of my fieldwork, and to all the community members who shared with me their time, information, stories, and hospitality. Without them this thesis certainly would not exist.

91

References
Agrawal,B. 2000. Conceptualising environmental collective action: why gender matters. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 24, pp. 283-310. Ashley, C. and Carney, D., 1999. Sustainable livelihoods: Lessons from early experience. [pdf] London: DFID. Available at: <http://www.eldis.org/vfile/upload/1/document /0902/DOC7388.pdf> [Accessed on 10 December 2010]. Bandiera, O., Barankay, I. and Rasul, I. 2005. Cooperation in collective action. Economics of Transistion,13(13), pp. 473-498. Beall, J., 2001. Valuing social resources or capitalizing on them? Limits to pro-poor urban governance in nine cities of the south. International Planning Studies, 6(4), pp. 357-375. Beard, V.A. and Cartmill, R.S., 2007. Gender, collective action and participatory development in Indonesia. International Development Planning Review, 29(2), pp. 185-213. Bebbington, A. et al., 2005. Capacity, village governance, and the political economy of rural development in Indonesia. World Development, 34(11), pp. 1958-1976. Bebbington, A., 1999. Capitals and capabilities: a framework for analyzing peasant viability, rural livelihoods and poverty. World Development, 27(12), pp. 2021-2044. Berry, S., 1989. Social institutions and access to resources. Africa: Journal of the International African Institute, 59(1), pp. 41-55. Bratton, M., 2007. Formal versus informal institutions in Africa. Journal of Democracy, 18(3), pp. 96-110. Butler, L.M. and Mazur, R.E., 2007. Principles and processes for enhancing sustainable livelihoods: collaborative learning in Uganda. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 14(6), pp. 604-617. CARE, 2002. Household livelihood security assessments: a toolkit for practitioners. [pdf] Atlanta: CARE. Available at: <http://www.proventionconsortium.org/themes /default/pdfs/CRA/HLSA2002_meth.pdf> [Accessed on 11 December 2010]. Carney, D., 2002. Sustainable livelihoods approaches: progress and possibilities for change. [pdf] London: DFID. Available at: <http://www.eldis.org/vfile/upload/1/ document/0812/SLA_Progress.pdf> [Accessed 10 December 2010]. Centre for African Bio-Entrepreneurship (CABE), (n.d.). About CABE. [online] Available at: <http://cabeafrica.net/> [Accessed on 19 July 2011]. Chambers, R. and Conway, G., 1991. Sustainable rural livelihoods: practical concepts for the 21st century. IDS Discussion Paper 296. [pdf] Sussex: Institute of Development Studies. Available at: <http://www.ids.ac.uk/files/Dp296.pdf> [Accessed on 10 December 2010]. Cleaver, F., 2005. The inequality of social capital and the reproduction of chronic poverty. World Development, 33(6), pp. 893-906.

92

Collier, P., 1998. Social capital and poverty. Social Capital Initiative Working Paper No. 4. The World Bank Social Development Family Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development Network. [pdf] Washington, DC: The World Bank. Available at: <http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTSOCIALCAPITAL/Resources/Social-CapitalInitiative-Working-Paper-Series/SCI-WPS-04.pdf> [Accessed on 18 January 2011]. Cotton, A., 2007. The importance of educating girls and women: the fight against poverty in African rural communities. UN Chronicle, 4, pp. 49-51. Danida Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark, 2008. Gender equality in agriculture. [online] Available at: <http://www.danidadevforum.um.dk/NR/rdonlyres/ 4A5722E5-8FC34B26-9D0A-8322A76248F5/0/051_GEinagriculture.pdf> [Accessed on 6 February 2011]. Ellis, F., 2003. A Livelihoods Approach to Migration and Poverty Reduction. Overseas Development Group, pp. 1-22. Escobal, J. and Ponce, C., 2011. Access to public infrastructure, institutional thickness and pro-poor growth in rural Peru. Journal of International Development, 23, pp. 58-379. Federation of Women Lawyers, 2011. Gains for Kenyan women in the constitution. [online] Available at: <http://fidakenya.org/2010/10/gains-for-kenyan-women-in-the-constitution/> [Accessed on 8 August 2011]. Global Finance, 2011. Kenya Country Report. [online] Available at: <http://www.gfmag.com /gdp-data-country-reports/244-kenya-gdp-country-report.html#axzz1Rbiemu9h> [Accessed on 9 July 2011]. Government of Kenya (GoK), 2007. Kenya Vision 2030. [pdf] Nairobi: Government of the Republic of Kenya. Available at: <http://chet.org.za/manual/media/files/chet_hernana_docs /Kenya/National/Kenya%20Vision%202030_Popular%20version.pdf> [Accessed on 16 January 2011]. Grischow, J.D., 2008. Rural community , chiefs, and social capital: The case of Southern Ghana. Journal of Agrarian Change, 8(1), pp. 64-93. Grootaert, C., 2001. Does social capital help the poor? A Synthesis of findings from the Local Level Institutions Studies in Bolivia, Burkina Faso and Indonesia. Social Capital Initiative Working Paper No. 10. The World Bank Social Development Family Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development Network. [pdf] Washington, DC: The World Bank. Available at: <http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTRANETSOCIALDEVELOP MENT/882042-1111748261769/20502262/LLI-WPS-10.pdf> [Accessed on 20 January 2011]. Grootaert, C. and van Bastelaer, T., 2002. Understanding and measuring social capital: a multidisciplinary tool for practitioners. Report No. 24465. [pdf] Washington, DC: The World Bank. Available at: <http://go.worldbank.org/25W6VYI2O0> [Accessed on 20 January 2011]. Harriss, J., 2007. Bringing politics back into poverty analysis: why understanding social relations matters more for policy on chronic poverty than measurement. CPRC Working Paper 77. [pdf] Manchester: Chronic Poverty Research Centre. Available at: <http://www.chronicpoverty.org/uploads/publication_files/WP77_Harriss.pdf > Accessed December 2010].

93

Hausmann, R., Tyson, L. and Zahidi, S., 2010. The global gender gap report 2010. [pdf] Geneva: The World Economic Forum. Available at <https://members.weforum .org/pdf/ gendergap/report2010.pdf > [Accessed on 06 February 2011]. Hekman, S., 1997. Truth and method: Feminist standpoint theory revisited. Signs (Chicago Journals), 22(2), pp. 41-365. International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). (2010). Rural Poverty Report 2011. Rome: IFAD. International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), 2007. Republic of Kenya: Country strategic opportunities programme. Executive board document EB 2007/91/R.12. [pdf] Rome: IFAD. Available at: <http://www.ifad.org/gbdocs/eb/91 /e/EB-2007-91-R-12.pdf> [Accessed on 5 November 2010]. Institute of Development Studies (IDS), 2011. Livelihood strategies. [online] Available at Eldis Livelihoods Connect: <http://www.eldis.org/go/topics/dossiers/livelihoodsconnect/what-are-livelihoods-approaches> [Accessed on 1 December 2010 and 27 January 2011]. Jiggins, J., Samanta, R.K. and Olawoye, J.E., 1997. Improving women farmers' access to extension services. In Swanson, B., Bentz, R. and Sofranko, A., eds. 1997, Improving agricultural extension: a reference manual. chapter 9. [online] Rome: FAO. Available at: <http://www.fao.org/docrep/W5830E/w5830e0b.htm> [Accessed on 06 February 2011]. Kimani, M., April 2008. Women struggle to secure land rights: Hard fight for access and decision-making power. Africa Renewal. 22 (1), p. 10. [online] Available at: <http://www.un.org/ecosocdev/geninfo/afrec/vol22no1/221-women-struggle-to-secure-landrights.html> [Accessed on 8 January 2011]. Kenya Ministry of Agriculture, 2008. The Ministry at a Glance. [pdf] Nairobi: Office of the Permanent Secretary, Kenya Ministry of Agriculture, Available at: <http://www.kilimo.go.ke/kilimo_docs/pdf/moa_at_glance.pdf> [Accessed on 11 June 2011]. Kenya Ministry of Agriculture, 2010. Programs and Projects at a Glance. [pdf] Nairobi: Kenya Ministry of Agriculture, Available at: <http://www.kilimo.go.ke/programmes &Projects/ AT_A_GLANCE.pdf> [Accessed on 13 July 2011]. Kenya Ministry of Agriculture, 2011. Njaa Marufuku Kenya. [online] Available at: <http://www.kilimo.go.ke/index.php?option=com_content&view=section&layout=blog&id= 151& Itemid=148> [Accessed on 10 June 2011]. Kenya Ministry of Gender, Children and Social Development (Kenya Ministry of Gender), 2011a. Vision and Mission. [online] Available at: <http://www.gender.go.ke/index.php/ Gender-and-Social-Development/vision-mission.html> [Accessed on 13 July 2011]. Kenya Ministry of Gender, Children and Social Development (Kenya Ministry of Gender), 2011b. Community mobilization and development. [online] Available at: <http://www.gender. go.ke/index.php/Gender-and-Social-Development-Divisions/community-mobilizationdevelopment.html> [Accessed on 13 July 2011]. Kenya Ministry of State for Planning, National Development and Vision 2030 (Kenya Ministry of State). June 2009. Samia District Development Plan: 2008-2012. Nairobi: Office of the Prime Minister.

94

Kenya Ministry of State for Planning, National Development and Vision 2030 (Kenya Ministry of State), 2011. Rural planning directorate. [online] available at: <http://www.planning.go.ke/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=131&Itemid= 102> [Accessed on 13 July 2011]. Kenya National Bureau of Statistics (KNBS) and ICF Macro, 2010. Kenya demographic and health survey 2008-2009. [pdf] Calverton: KNBS and ICF Macro. Available at: <http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/FR229/FR229.pdf> [Accessed on 9 July 2011]. Kenya National Bureau of Statistics (KNBS), 2009. Kenya 2009 population and housing census highlights. [pdf] Nairobi: Kenya. Available at: <http://www.knbs.or.ke/Census %20Results/KNBS%20Brochure.pdf> [Accessed on 6 January 2011]. Leftwich, A. and Sen, K., 2011. Don t mourn; organize institutions and organizations in the politics and economics of growth and poverty-reduction. Journal of International Development, 23, pp. 319-337. Lester, S., 1999. An introduction to phenomenological research. [pdf] Stan Lester Developments. Available at: <http://www.sld.demon.co.uk/resmethy.pdf> [Accessed on 26 January 2011]. MacKenzie, F., 1986. Local initiatives and national policy: gender and agricultural change in Murang a District, Kenya. Canadian Journal of African Studies, 20(3), pp. 377-401. Manda, J. and Mvumi, B., 2010. Gender relations in household grain storage management and marketing: the case of Binga District, Zimbabwe. Agriculture and Human Values, 27, pp. 85-103. Mansuri, G and Rao, V., 2004. Community-based and driven development: a critical review. The World Bank Research Observer, 19(1), pp. 1-38. Mosse, D., 2010. A relational approach to durable poverty, inequality and power. Journal of Development Studies, 46(7), pp. 1156-1178. Mutugi, M.M., 2006. The self-help group ideal vehicle for gender education. In Creighton, C. and Yieke, F., eds. 2006. Gender inequalities in Kenya. Paris: UNESCO, pp. 81-88. Mwaniki, N, 1986. Against many odds: The dilemmas of Women s self-help groups in Mbeere, Kenya. Africa: Journal of International African Institute, 56(2), pp. 210-228. Ngau, P.M., 1987. Tensions in empowerment: the experience of the "harambee" (self-help) movement in Kenya. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 35(3), pp. 523-538. Odame, H., Okumu, O. and Pouw, N., November 2010. Baseline survey of socio-economic status of women in Samia District, Western Province, Kenya. [Concept note]. Nairobi: CABE. OECD Development Centre, 2009a. The social institutions variables. [online] Available at: <http://genderindex.org/content/social-institutions-variables> [Accessed on 7 July 2011]. OECD Development Centre, 2009b. Gender equality and social institutions in Kenya. [online and pdf] Available at: <http://genderindex.org/country/kenya> [Accessed on 7 July 2011]. O Laughlin, B., 1995. Myth of the African family in the world of development. In Bryceson, D.F., ed. 1995. Women wielding the hoe: lessons from rural Africa for feminist theory and development practice. Oxford: Berg Publishers, pp. 63-88. 95

Oluoko-Odingo, A., 2009. Determinants of poverty: lessons from Kenya. GeoJournal, 74, pp. 311-331. Parpart, J.L., 2000. The participatory empowerment approach to gender and development in Africa: panacea or illusion? Occasional Paper. Cophenhagen: Centre of African Studies, University of Copenhagen, pp. 1-16. Peterman, A., Behrman, J. and Quisumbing, A., 2010. A review of empirical evidence on gender differences in nonland agricultural inputs, technology, and services in developing countries. IFPRI Discussion Paper 00975. [pdf] Washington, DC: IFPRI. Available at: <http://www.ifpri.org/ publication/review-empirical-evidence-gender-differences> [Accessed on 12 November 2010]. Place, et al., 2006. Agricultural enterprise and land management in the highlands of Kenya. Chapter 8. In Pender, Place, and Ehui, eds. 2006. Strategies for Sustainable Land Management in the East African Highlands. Washington, DC: World Bank and International Food Policy Research Institute, pp. 191-215. Portes, A., 1998. Social capital: its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annual Review Sociology, 24, 1-24. Ramirez-Sanchez, S., 2007. A social relational approach to the conservation and management of fisheries: the rural communities of the Loreto Bay National Marine Park, BCS, Mexico. Ph.D. Simon Fraser University. Robertson, C., 1996. Grassroots in Kenya: women, genital mutilation, and collective action, 1920 1990. Signs (Chicago Journals), 21(3), pp. 615-642. Safilios-Rothschild, C., 1994. Agricultural policies & women producers. In Adepoju, A. and Oppong, C., eds. 1994. Gender, work & population. London: James Currey Ltd., pp. 35-54. Scoones, I., 2009. Livelihoods perspectives and rural development. Journal of Peasant Studies, 36(1), pp. 171-196. Sen, A., 1981. Poverty and famines: an essay on entitlement and deprivation. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Stamp, P., 1991. Burying Otieno: the politics of gender and ethnicity in Kenya. Signs (Chicago Journals), 16(4), pp. 808-845. Sumner, A. and Tribe, M., 2009. International Development Studies: theories and methods in research and practice. London: Sage. The World Bank Group, 2011a. Kenya: country brief. [online] (Updated April 2011) Available at: <http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/ AFRICAEXT/KENYAEXTN/0,,menuPK:356520~pagePK:141132~piPK:141107~theSitePK :356509,00.html> [Accessed on 17 January 2011]. The World Bank Group, 2011b. World development indicators. [online]. Available at: <http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.ENR.PRIM.FM.ZS> [Accessed 8 August 2011]. The World Bank, FAO and IFAD, 2009. Gender in agriculture sourcebook. [pdf] Washington, D.C.: World Bank, FAO and IFAD. Available at: <http://worldbank.org/ genderinag> [Accessed 5 November 2010 and 7 February 2011].

96

Thomas, B., 1988. Household strategies for adaptation and change: Participation in Kenyan rural women s associations. Africa: Journal of the International African Institute, 58(4), pp. 401-422. Thomas-Slayter, B., 1994. Structural change, power politics, and community organizations in Africa: challenging the patterns, puzzles and paradoxes. World Development, 22(10), pp. 1479-1490. Udvardy, M.L., 1998. Theorizing past and present women s organizations in Kenya. World Development, 26(9), pp. 1749-1761. UK Department for International Development (DFID). 1999. Sustainable livelihoods guidance sheets. [pdf] London: DFID. Available at: <http://www.eldis.org/vfile/upload/1/ document/0901/section2.pdf> [Accessed on 27 January 2011]. UNAIDS, 2010. UNAIDS report on the global Aids epidemic 2010. [pdf] Geneva: UNAIDS. Available at: <http://www.unaids.org/globalreport/Global_report.htm>[Accessed on 27 July 2011]. UNESCO, 2011. Better life, better future: UNESCO global partnership for girls and women s education. [pdf] Paris: UNESCO. Available at: <http://www.unesco.org/new/ fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/ED/pdf/BetterLife_ENG.pdf > [Accessed on 27 July 2011]. Valdivia, C. and Gilles, J., 2001. Gender and resource management: households and groups, strategies and transitions. Agriculture and Human Values, 18, pp. 5-9. Westerman O., Ashby, J. and Pretty, J., 2005. Gender and social capital: the importance of gender differences for the maturity and effectiveness of natural resources management groups. World Development, 33(11), pp. 1783-1799. Whitehead, A., 1994. Wives & mothers: female farmers in Africa. In Adepoju, A. and Oppong, C., eds. 1994. Gender, work & population. London: James Currey Ltd., pp. 35-54. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., 2011. Amartya Sen. [online] (Updated August 2011) Available at: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amartya_Sen> [Accessed on 27 January 2011]. Woolcock, M., 1998. Social capital and economic development: toward a theoretical synthesis and policy framework. Theory and Society, 27(2), pp. 151-20 Woolcock, M. and Narayan, D., 2000. Social capital: implications for development theory, research and policy. The World Bank Research Observer, 15(2), pp. 225-249.

97

Appendix 1. Maps of research area

Figure 3.1a: Map of Kenya with position of Samia District

Samia District

Source: Samia District Development Plan: 2008-201246.

46

Kenya Ministry of State, 2009, p. 2

98

Figure 3.2a: Map of Samia District

Research location: Busijo sub-location

Source: Adapted from the Samia District Development Plan: 2008-201247.

47

Kenya Ministry of State, 2009, p. 4

99

Appendix 2. Operationalization Chart

Table 4.1a: Operationalization Chart
Main Concepts Female farmers Dimensions Economic Variables Income Land or livestock Education level/literacy; etc. Access to resources & services (particularly farm-related) Social status Household type Gender Identity Personal perception Societal perception To what extent is their status and access related to gender and their household type? Indicators/Questions What is their household wealth level/ranking?

Social

Women's empowerment & agency (or lack of) How does this influence how women interact with/in society? Status of female farmers and women in general Rights available to women (i.e. land/property ownership & command over their own labor) Level and quality of services available to female farmers (i.e. extension services)

Roles

Food provider (i.e. grow & process food for family consumption) Subsistence farmer (i.e. provide unpaid farm labor) Child care Home care

How does this impact division of labor between men & women? How does this impact women's workload?

100

Health & wellbeing of family Paid farm labor Community level (i.e. care of the sick and elderly by providing food or some basic care. Relations (power) Household level Village level How does this impact the decision-making power that women have? Are women able to participate in village councils; if not how are they represented? How does this impact women's access to resources/assets and technology? Different types of community organizations

Social Capital

Formal groups

Informal associations/networks

Level of group membership and/or participation; type of membership & heterogeneity Purpose and/or activities of the organizations Level of group membership and/or participation; type of membership & heterogeneity Purpose and/or activities of the organizations Level of group membership and/or participation; type of membership, age of group; leadership & management; group dynamics & heterogeneity (gender & age groups, marital status, income level & livelihood types)? Purpose and/or activities of the organizations Level of trust and willingness to help one another To what extent do these groups help fill gaps in public services and labor? Benefits to members

Characteristics of the most utilized/most prominent groups

101

Uses of these groups by the female famers

How often or when they use them Reasons for joining the group(s) The activities they participate in

Livelihood improvements (i.e. increased income; access to other forms of capital; etc.)

Institutional influence

Enabling Inhibiting

Are any of the community organizations set up or supported by village/district level government? Are the groups recognized by village/district level government? Are the groups (members) able to participate in decision-making processes?

Institutional Structures & Processes

Formal

Village council structure Rules, regulations & practices Public services (i.e. agricultural extension) & infrastructure Clans & Kinship groups Traditional laws & practices Socio-cultural norms (i.e. gender roles and relations) How does gender play out in these institutions? How do they impact (positive & negative) female farmers?

Informal

Source: J.P. Nagtalon, 2011/Fieldwork Proposal.

102

Appendix 3. Data reference tables

Table 4.2a: Key informant interviews Number Reference in Details thesis Key Informant Employees of Ministry of Gender, Children & Social 1 Interview 1 Services Key Informant Employee of Ministry of Planning, National Development & 2 Interview 2 Vision 2030 Key Informant Employees of Ministry of Gender, Children & Social 3 Interview 3 Services Key Informant Divisional Agricultural Officer, Ministry of Agriculture 4 Interview 4 Key Informant Female community leader & representative for local Muslim 5 Interview 5 women Key Informant Female community leader & member of the Locational 6 Interview 6 Gender & Social Development Committee Key Informant Village elder & representative for the local Muslim 7 Interview 7 community Key Informant Area chiefs Bwiri location chief & his assistant chiefs, 8 Interview 8 including assistant chief for Busijo sub-location Key Informant District Agricultural Engineering and Monitoring and 9 Interview 9 Evaluation Officer, Ministry of Agriculture Source: Busijo Field Research 2011.

Table 4.3a: Community meetings Number Reference in Details thesis Community Meeting with village elders and opinion leaders for community 1 Meeting 1 mapping & wealth ranking exercise; included question & answer period Community Public meeting/workshop with community members regarding 2 Meeting 2 preliminary findings with focus on prioritizing development challenges and goals Source: Busijo Field Research 2011.

Table 4.4a: Focus Group Discussions Number Reference in Details thesis Focus Group Discussions with up to 12 women from Cluster 1 (Bumayenga, 1 1 Mumbaka, Mukhondo, Mugonga, Rudacho and Sibinga A) in Busijo sub-location who were not in formal community groups. Focus Group Discussions with up to 12 women and men from Cluster 1 in 2 2 Busijo sub-location who were not in formal community groups. Focus Group Discussions with up to 12 women from Cluster 2 (Sibinga B, 3 3 Buyukha A, Buyukha B, Mangula and Busijo) in Busijo sublocation who were not in formal community groups. Focus Group Discussions with up to 12 women and men from Cluster 2 4 4 (Sibinga B, Buyukha A, Buyukha B, Mangula and Busijo) in Busijo sub-location who were not in formal community groups. 103

Focus Group Discussions with up to 12 women from Cluster 1 and Cluster 2 5 who were members in formal community groups Focus Group Discussions with up to 12 women and men from Cluster 1 and 6 6 Cluster 2 who were members in formal community groups Source: Busijo Field Research 2011. 5

Table 4.5a: One-on-one interviews Number Reference in Details thesis Female, 22 yrs old; informal group membership; married; 2 children Male; 62 yrs. old; formal & informal group 2 membership; married; 13 children/grandchildren/ nephews Interview Female; 38 yrs. old; formal group membership; 3 E0154 married; 9 children & 2 grandchildren Interview Male; 30 yrs. old; formal & informal group 4 M0160 membership; married; 3 children; boda-boda driver Interview Female; 32 yrs. old; no group membership; 5 R0169 widowed; 7 children & stepchildren Interview Female; 35 yrs. old; informal group membership; 6 B0180 widowed; 7 children; owns a chemist shop Interview Female; 40 yrs. old; formal group membership; 7 J0224 married; 4-5 children Interview Female; 36 yrs. old; formal group membership; 8 F0238 married but husband absent; 4 children Interview Female; 55 yrs. old; no group membership; married 9 L0215 but husband absent; 4 children Interview Male; 40 yrs. old; formal group membership; 10 B0228 married; 7 children Interview Female; 22 yrs. old; informal group membership; 11 E0133 married; 2-3 children Source: Busijo Field Research 2011. 1 Interview P0137 Interview P015

Wealth ranking Middle Middle

Middle Middle Middle Middle Poor Middle Rich Middle Middle

Table 4.6a: Interviews with formal community groups Number Reference in Details thesis Group 1Women s group in CABE network; runs a primary school & 1 270211 supports orphans & widows/widowers Group 2Producer & marketing self-help group from Odiado (northern 2 040311 Samia); grows and processes groundnuts Group 3Youth group from northern Samia; focuses on welfare issues, i.e. 3 050311 orphans, widows/widowers, people living with HIV/Aids, & providing assistance with funerals Group 4Farming self-help group in CABE network; focuses on farming 4 140411 and providing welfare support to each other through merry-goround Group 5Meeting with Women s group in CABE network; rears local 5 150411 poultry & makes baskets Group 6Meeting with Women s group in CABE network; does collective 6 160411 farming; rears local poultry & helps with welfare issues 104

Producer & marketing self-help group in CABE network; grows & sells citrus seedlings; provides HIV/Aids sensitization Youth self-help group in Busijo sub-location; focuses on growing 8 seedlings & afforestation; not part of the CABE network. Currently at a standstill due to internal conflict. Source: Busijo Field Research 2011.

Group 7200411 Group 8 200411

Table 4.7a: Informal conversations Number Reference in thesis Details Informal Conversation with my research assistant during 1 Conversation 1 observation of a female farmer Informal (Group) Casual conversation with the Locational Social 2 Conversation 2 Development Committee for Bwiri location during one of their group meetings. Source: Busijo Field Research 2011.

105

Appendix 4. Sample questions for focus groups and interviews

1. Sample questions from key informant interviews with line ministries Ministry of Planning and National Development 1) What is the vision for the district under the new constitution? 2) What re the main challenges for the district? 3) What are the main programs? 4) How does the development office interface with community groups? 5) What are the investment opportunities identified under the county plan? Ministry of Agriculture, District Extension Services 1) What services are provided to farmers in Samia District? 2) How are they provided to men and women? 3) What are the linkages at the village, household or individual level? Or, does the extension services only work with farm groups? 4) If they work with the farm groups, including women s groups, what are the main activities, services and/or trainings? 5) And if women don t belong to a group, how do they reach or access these services? 6) How many extension officers are assigned to the district? 7) What is the status of farm programs in Samia? Ministry of Gender and Social Development, Community Development Officer ( Social Services ) 1) How many registered groups are in Samia? 2) What is the definition for formal groups and the criteria that the Social Services office goes by? 3) What services does this office provide or what is its purpose? 4) What are the trends in group formation, such as the type of groups and their level of activity? 5) How is this office connected with the national level?

106

2. Focus group discussions questions For community members not in formal groups 1) What are the top three livelihood activities in the community that women participate in? a. Do any of you sell your produce, fish or livestock at the local markets and if so, where? b. Which are the most important or profitable? c. Approximately how much time per day to they spend on farming activities? d. Do they receive assistance with their farming activities? 2) What are the main challenges facing women in the community? 3) Challenges facing young women? 4) How are people addressing these issues? For example, in the last three years has the community organized itself to address a need or problem? If yes, around what issue(s)? Were the initiatives successful? Was outside help required and if so, in what form (i.e. money or capacity building) did the assistance take? 5) What do you feel are the best assets of the Busijo sub-location? 6) Have you ever been a member in a formal, registered community group? Do you participate in any informal groups? What other forms of social capital exist in the community? For example, if you need help caring for a young child or an ill person or you need assistance in your shamba, who do you turn to? 7) What are the main reasons for not joining a group? 8) How are activities of community groups or other development programs reaching residents in this sub-location? 9) How would you describe the quality and effectiveness of the leadership in this sublocation?

10) How do you receive information and voice concerns or problems in the community? 11) What is lacking in the Busijo sub-location?

For community members in formal groups 12) Please tell us the name and type of community group you are a member of and how long you have been a member? What are the main activities of the groups? 13) What are the main reasons for joining the groups? 14) What are the main challenges in this sub-location (or a particular village) that the groups are trying to address?

107

15) How do you feel the community groups complement, replace or compete with public services and development activities provided by government agencies? 16) What benefits do you derive from being in a group? 17) How are the activities of the community groups or other development programs reaching residents in this sub-location 18) What do you feel are the best assets of the Busijo sub-location? 19) How would you describe the quality and effectiveness or strengths of these groups in terms of: a. Group participation, such as meetings and group activities b. Group leadership c. Group cohesion d. Diversity of group membership e. Relationship with local government and the broader community 20) How would you describe the quality and effectiveness of assistance from: a. Agriculture extension services b. Social services c. Infrastructure providers d. Health services e. Financial services f. Capacity building for groups

21) What is lacking in the sub-location? 22) How would you strengthen the groups that you participate in?

3. Questions from structured, one-on-one interviews Sample questions from structure one-on-one interviews with community members 1) Please describe for us a typical day. What do you do from the time you wake up to when you go to bed? 2) Does anyone control your time? 3) Do you receive assistance with any of these activities? 4) You indicated that both you and your husband handle the farming activities. How are these divided? In addition, we have learned that many women do not have control

108

the sale of the produce, even though they provide most of the labor. Why do you think this is? 5) What do you feel are the main agricultural challenges in Busijo sub-location? 6) Please explain how the group you are in has helped you and your household? 7) You indicated that you believe people are only interested in their own welfare, but that people are also willing to help and collaborate when asked. Can you provide an example of how people in this village work together? 8) You indicated that people are paid to collaborate on work in the community, such as maintaining roads? Do you think people would help out if they weren t paid? 9) Most people we surveyed in Busijo sub-location feel accepted in the community and respected by the opposite sex. However, they expressed that some differences exist between men and women that may cause conflicts. What do you think are the main differences between men and women in this society? 10) Groups are encouraged as a forum for development in communities but in some cases the benefits to members are limited or people are reluctant to join groups. How do you feel groups in this sub-location can be improved? 11) How is this village discriminated against for development projects? 12) How do you think decision-making processes and the dissemination of information should be changed to be more inclusive (and women more comfortable to attend)? 13) What do you think are three top development priorities for women in Busijo sublocation, and similarly, for men?

4. Questions from interview with Muslim leader/village elder 1) How would you characterize the Muslim community in this sub-location? What are the key characteristics? 2) What are the main livelihood activities for Muslims? 3) What are the key challenges for the Muslim community in Busijo sub-location? 4) Do you agree with the comment that Muslims and Christians hate each other? If yes, why and how do you think this problem can be addressed? 5) How are the two groups working together successfully? 6) Do you think the Muslim community participates in groups as much as the Christian population? Do they form their own groups and under what circumstances do Muslim people come together? 7) There have also been comments from Muslim respondents that Muslim men are idlers and like to relax, and also that Muslim women are seen as servants. Can you respond to these comments?

109

8) How would you describe your interactions with people in Busijo sub-location? Do you feel respected and trusted by both men and women, Muslims and Christians? 9) What do you think are the top 3 development priorities for men in Busijo sublocation? 10) Similarly, what do you think are the top 3 development priorities for women in Busijo sub-location? 5. Questions from interview with female community leaders 1) What was the impetus or reasons that led you to take up community development? 2) What are the main activities or responsibilities associated with this role? 3) Did you experience any challenges or difficulties upon entering this role or do you still face challenges as a woman leader? 4) How would you describe your interactions with men and women in the community? Do you feel respected? 5) Are men, such as your husband, village elders and chiefs supportive of your role in the community? 6) It is said that men are the greatest barrier to women s development. Do you agree, and if yes, how do you see this playing out in households or within the community? How do you think this issue should be addressed so development can proceed for both women and men? 7) Related to the previous question, women here work very hard and long hours, more than men, but they do not seem to question this imbalance. Why do you think this is? 8) What do you believe are the best ways to empower women, and similarly, men and youth? 9) From the household survey we have learned that most people, both men and women, do not attend the weekly barazas, few have taken loans and they fear them, and many people are not aware of the community resources available to them, such as agriculture extension services, Women s Enterprise Fund, Youth Enterprise Fund, etc. How do you recommend this issue be addressed? 10) What other challenges do you believe people are facing in Busijo sub-location? 11) What do you feel are the three main development priorities for Busijo sub-location?

6. Sample questions from interviews with leaders and general members of community groups 1) When and how was the group formed? 2) Number and gender of members? 3) What are the group s main activities and projects?

110

4) Who are the leaders? How are they elected and for how long? What are the qualifications for the group s leaders? 5) Is there a membership fee or a required number of community work hours? 6) How often does the general group, as well as the leadership committee, meet? 7) What benefits do you derive from being a member of this group? 8) Can you tell us about the people involved in your group? How do people become members? Why do you think people join? Do other people in the community or village get involved? 9) How would you characterize the quality of the following: a. Participation in group meetings b. Group activities c. Decision-making d. Diversity of people in the group, such as by age, gender, wealth 10) How are future activities planned? 11) How would you characterize your group s relationship with village leaders and district level government offices? Do you feel that you receive adequate support and information from these partners? 12) Has the group received outside support, such as advice, training, or funding? 13) Do you think any people within the community feel excluded from this group? Who are they and does the group have any efforts to incorporate them? (For example, if someone wants to join the group but they cannot afford the membership dues or contributions for group activities, to you offer any assistance?) 14) What do you think are the strengths and weaknesses of this group? 15) What would you do to make this group more effective? 16) What are the future priorities/goals for the group?

111

Appendix 5. Wealth ranking criteria

The following criteria and attributes were created by village elders and opinion leaders for the wealth ranking exercise. The poor 1) Dependent 2) Unable to take his/her child to school 3) Tattered clothes 4) House built by well-wishers 5) Transportation problems The middle 1) Semi-permanent house 2) Can hire a tractor or ox-plow for cultivation 3) Can access medication 4) Can manage local transportation The rich 1) Have a permanent and decent house (i.e. made with bricks and an iron sheet roof) 2) Can take their children to school anywhere 3) Sufficient food (i.e. 3 meals per day) 4) Possess commercial assets 5) Own a business with steady income

112

Appendix 6. Household questionnaire

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

Appendix 7. Sampling table for focus groups

Table 4.8a: Focus group samples Focus Group Category Set 1 Non-group membership Poor (25%) Middle (74%) Rich (1%) Total 2. Mixed women & men, Cluster 1 Poor (13%) Middle (83%) Rich (1%) Total 3. Women only, Cluster 2 Poor (69%) Middle (30%) Rich (1%) Total 4. Mixed women & men, Cluster 2 Poor (44%) Middle (53%) Rich (2%) Total Set 2 Formal group membership Poor (29%) Middle (69%) Rich (2%) Total 6. Mixed women & men, Cluster 1 & 2 Poor (29%) Middle (69%) Rich (2%) Total Source: Busijo Field Research 2011. 3 8 1 12 3 8 1 12 3 8 1 12 2 9 1 12 8 3 1 12 5 6 1 12 Wealth Ranking Number of Participants

1. Women only, Cluster 1

5. Women only, Cluster 1 & 2

123

Appendix 8. Chapter 5 data tables

Table 5.1a: Chi-square test for respondent sex vs. education level
Education Level Primary school incomplete or none at all Respondent sex Male Female Total Pearson Chi-square test Value 8 46 54 df At least primary school completed 14 12 26 Total 22 58 80 Asymp Sig. (2-sided) 13.410 1 .000

Source: Busijo Field Research 2011/Household Survey/SPSS data output. Table 5.2a: Mode of transportation for all survey respondents by wealth level Poor [n=23] Middle [n=57] Rich [n=1] Transportation Transportation Transportation mode mode mode Motorbike or Walking 14 61% Walking 22 39% car, hired 1 100% Bicycle 5 22% Bicycle 8 14% Bicycle 0 0% Walking or Walking or bicycle 4 17% Motorbike, hired 8 14% bicycle 0 0% Walking or Motorbike, Motorbike, owned 0 0% bicycle 7 12% owned 0 0% Walking or hired Motorbike, Motorbike, hired 0 0% motorbike/car 6 11% hired 0 0% Walking, bicycle Walking or Walking or hired or hired or owned hired motorbike/car 0 0% motorbike/car 3 5% motorbike/car 0 0% Bicycle or Bicycle or motorbike, motorbike, hired 0 0% Motorbike, owned 2 4% hired 0 0% Bicycle or Bicycle or motorbike, motorbike, owned 0 0% Car, owned 1 2% owned 0 0% Source: Busijo Field Research 2011/Household Survey.

124

Table 5.3a: Comparison of mode of transportation for female and male respondents Female [n=59] Male [n=22] Mode of transportation Walking Bicycle Walking or bicycle Motorbike, owned by husband Motorbike, hired Walking or hired motorbike/car Bicycle or motorbike, hired 35 3 2 1 7 8 0 59% 5% 3% 2% 12% 14% 0% 1 10 5 1 1 2 1 5% 45% 23% 5% 5% 9% 5% 5% 0% 0%

Bicycle or motorbike, owned 0 0% 1 Motorbike or car, hired 2 3% 0 Car, owned 1 2% 0 Source: Busijo Field Research 2011/Household Survey.

Table 5.4a: Chi-square test for respondent sex vs. transportation

Walking vs. transport Walking Respondent sex Male Female Total Pearson Chi-square test 8 45 53 Value 11.283 df 1 Bicycle, motorbike or car 14 14 28 Total 22 59 81 Asymp Sig. (2-sided) .001

Source: Busijo Field Research 2011/Household Survey/SPSS Data Output. Table 5.5a: Mode of transportation for female respondents according to household type Household type Male-headed [n=28] 17 1 1 1 4 4 0 60.7% 3.6% 3.6% 3.6% 14.3% 14.3% 0% Femaleheaded [n=24] 15 62.5% 1 2 1 3 1 1 4.2% 8% 4.2% 12.5% 4.2% 4.2% De facto femaleheaded [n=7] 3 42.9% 1 1 0 1 1 0 14.3% 14.3% 0% 14.3% 14.3% 0% All households [n=59] 35 (59%) 3 (5%) 4 (7%) 2 (3%) 8 (14%) 6 (10%) 1 (2%)

Mode of transportation Walking Bicycle Motorbike, hired Walking or bicycle Walking or motorbike/car hired Motorbike/car hired Car owned

Source: Busijo Field Research 2011/Household Survey.

125

Table 5.6a: Main crops grown in Busijo sub-location by female farmers according to household type Household type Male-headed48 [n=27] Female-headed [n=24] De facto Female-headed [n=7] 7 7 6 7 6 1 0 7 1 3 2 2 1 100% 100% 85.7% 100% 85.7% 14.3% 0% 100% 14.3% 42.9% 28.6% 28.6% 14.3% All households [n=58] 45 (77.6%) 46 (79.3%) 54 (93.1%) 13 (22.4%) 34 (58.6%) 4 (6.9%) 2 (3.5%) 41 (70.7%) 23 (39.7%) 15 (25.9%) 16 (27.6%) 5 (8.6%) 5 (8.6%)

Main crops Cassava 21 77.8% 17 70.8% Sorghum 19 70.4% 20 83.3% 100% Maize 27 21 87.5% Sweet potatoes 4 14.8% 2 8.3% 51.9% Beans 14 14 58.3% Oranges 3 11.1% 0 0% Indigenous vegetables 0 0% 2 8.3% Livestock Local poultry 20 74.1% 14 58.3% Cattle 11 40.7% 11 45.8% Pigs 7 25.9% 5 20.8% Goats 6 22.2% 8 33.3% 0% Sheep 0 3 12.5% 7.4% Ducks or geese 2 2 8.3% Source: Busijo Field Research 2011/Household Survey.

Table 5.7a: Land ownership/access for female survey respondents by household type Household Type Count (%) De facto 49 Male-headed Female-headed All households female-headed Owner/access via: [n=27] [n=24] [n=58] [n=7] Husband Husband + rented Other male in the family Family owned Female-household head (i.e. inherited) Female-household head + rented Rented 22 (81%) 0 (0 %) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 5 (19%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (4%) 2 (8%) 15 (63%) 1 (4%) 5 (21%) 2 (28.5%) 2 (28.5%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (43%) 7 (100%) 24 (41.4%) 2 (3.4%) 1 (1.7%) 2 (3.4%) 15 (25.9%) 1 (1.7%) 13 (22.4%) 58 (100%)

Total 27 (100%) 24 (100%) Source: Busijo Field Research 2011/Household Survey.

48 49

One female respondent is missing because the household she belongs to does not farm. One female respondent is missing because the household she belongs to does not farm.

126

Table 5.8a: Chi-square test for respondent sex vs. shamba size
Size of shamba less than/greater than 1 acre Less than or equal to 1 acre Respondent sex Male Female Total Pearson Chi-square test Value 9 46 55 df Greater than 1 acre 13 13 26 Total 22 59 81 Asymp Sig. (2-sided) .001

10.096

Busijo Field Research 2011/Household Survey/SPSS Data Output. Table 5.9a: Chi-square test for respondent sex vs. attendance level at assistant chief s weekly baraza
I attend the assistant chief's weekly baraza? Attend (at least sometimes) Respondent sex Male Female Total Pearson Chi-square test Value 10.011 18 25 43 df 1 Rarely, if ever attend 4 34 38 Total 22 59 81 Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) 0.002

Source: Busijo Field Research 2011/Household Survey/SPSS Data Output.

127

Appendix 9. Daily schedules for Busijo farmers

Figure 5.1a: Daily schedules for eight female farmers and two male farmers in Busijo sub-location

Source: Busijo Field Research 2011/Interviews.

128

Appendix 10. Chapter 6 data tables, text boxes and figures

Table 6.1a: Types of community groups in Samia District Self-help groups broad category of groups that are created to improve the socio-economic status of its group members. Types of self-help groups Welfare Description Groups that undertake welfare activities, such as raising money to help a member pay for a funeral or school fees. Savings & Credit Groups that undertake activities to improve access to savings and credit facilities. Income-generating Groups that undertake activities together that generate income for the members, such as raising livestock. The members decide whether to share the income or save it. Sports & Recreation Groups for entertainment and the preservation of cultural heritage, i.e. song and dance. Producer & Marketing Groups that produce and market one or more commodities, such as oranges or peanut butter. CBOs Community Based Organizations that are made up of smaller community groups and undertake broad community development projects. Sub categories/group types The following can be any one of the above types of groups but they have distinct membership/leadership requirements. Youth Members and leadership committee must be made up of people between the ages of 18 35. Women s 80% of the membership and the entire leadership committee must be female. Men can be members, but they cannot hold a leadership position. Church* Members come from the same church/parish. Include dorcas which is a church movement like merry-go-rounds * Members come from the same village. Village* Include groups that save money for Christmas-time and organize merry-gorounds Source: Busijo Field Research 2011/Key Informant Interview 1 and Focus Group Discussions.

* These two types of groups were not included on the Social Services list of formal group types. They
were common in Busijo sub-location but were primarily informal (i.e. not registered with Social Services).

129

Text box 6.1a: Registration process for community groups Groups wishing to go through the registration process must first have a valid reason why they want to be registered with Social Services. Then, they are required to have a constitution that, at a minimum, spells out their group s objective; their leadership team; their main activities; and how they will operate. In addition, each group needs to provide minutes, signed by each member, recording when the group was formed. They bring their Constitution and minutes to the Division Gender and Social Development Officer/Community Development Officer for review. He/she informs them if their Constitution needs revision. Once everything is in order, the group is required to fill out a registration form that includes: the group s name; location/sub-location; physical address; composition (i.e. number of males and females); if the group has any members with disabilities; the names, position and phone number of the leadership committee members; the names of a couple regular members; the group s main activities; future planned activities; their existing/planned sources of funding and if they have received any grants or donations. Finally, the group needs an endorsement from a local chief. Once the registration application is approved by the District Social Development Officer in Busia, a fee of 1000 Ksh is assessed; each year thereafter the active groups pay 200 Ksh to renew their registration. The group is issued a certificate, which has the certificate number and seal; the group s registration number; and the issue date of the certificate. The certificate/registration number is recorded in the Division Gender and Social Development Office/Community Development Office s log book so that they can track how many groups register in Samia District. Source: Busijo Field Research 2011/Key Informant Interview 1.

130

Table 6.2a: Types activities carried out by community groups Activity Examples Welfare Cooperative farming Assisting members with funerals; paying school fees; repairing or building houses and organizing harambees for these purposes Helping each other in the shamba or operating a communal plot; beekeeping, rearing local poultry or goats and sharing the products amongst each other Rearing and selling livestock; growing and selling crops/ horticulture products; making and selling baskets Each month or at each meeting the group rotates the person who receives money/credit, home goods or help in the shamba and who hosts the group meeting Banking money together in a group account and providing microloans to each other Accessing loans/credit as a group from government or NGO programs or private lending institutions Praying for each other or participating in activities that help members achieve a personal goal but which is not directly related to improving their/household s welfare, such as saving money for Christmas-time Sharing knowledge and skills; participating in trainings on farm techniques, community health, proposal writing, financial management, etc. Sports games/training; dancing for politicians/dignitaries; youth/ children s programs for music/choir, dance, and art

Income-generating Merry-go-round

Table banking Credit and loans Spiritual/personal enrichment

Capacity/knowledge building Sports, recreation & performance Community outreach

Supporting orphans, widows/widowers, elderly and ill; mobilizing and sensitizing community members about positive living, HIV/Aids and proper hygiene; providing chairs and tents for rent/in-kind for funerals and community events; advocating peace; building community cohesion Source: Busijo Field Research 2011/Key Informant Interview 1; Focus Group Discussions; Household Survey; Group interviews.

131

Table 6.3a: Membership in community groups by female respondents according to household type Household Type All female Male-headed Female-headed De facto femaleMembership respondents [n=28] [n=24] headed [n=7] Status [n=59] YES 12 43% 14 58% NO 16 57% 10 42% Total 28 100% 24 100% Source: Busijo Field Research 2011/Household Survey. 5 2 7 71% 29% 100% 31 (53%) 28 (47%) 59 (100%)

Table 6.4a: Group participation level of female respondents Category of group Formal Informal Participation level [n=11, 35%] [n=20, 65%] 0% 0% Not active 0 0 36.4% 5% Somewhat active 4 1 36.4% 45% Active 4 9 0% 15% Very active 0 3 27.2% 35% Leader 3 7 100% 100% 11 20 Total Source: Busijo Field Research 2011/Household Survey.

Total 0 (0%) 5 (16%) 13 (42%) 3 (10%) 10 (32%) 31 (100%)

132

Table 6.5a: Reasons for joining a group according to wealth ranking 50 for female respondents51 Household Type Poor households [n=6] 5 (83%) 1 (17%) 4 (67%) 2 (33%) Middle households [n=25] 18 (72%) 16 (64%) 9 (36%) 10 (40%) Total [n=31] 23 (74%) 17 (55%) 13 (42%) 12 (39%)

Reasons Generate income/ increase savings Spiritual/personal enrichment52 Fill a community need Cooperate on farm activities Access credit/loan/cash transfers

2 (33%)

5 (20%)

7 (23%)

Acquire skills 2 (33%) 1 (4%) 3 (10%) Source: Busijo Field Research 2011/Household Survey.

Table 6.6a: Female respondents reasons for NOT joining a community group according to wealth ranking 53 Wealth Level Count (%) Poor Middle Rich [n=1] All Households Reasons [n=11] [n=16] [n=28] Lack of funds/food 11 (100%) 13 (81%) 1 (100%) 25 (89%) Lack of time 5 (45%) 4 (25%) 1 (100%) 10 (36%) Poor group leadership/management 3 (27%) 3 (19%) 0 (0%) 6 (21%) Not interested 4 (36%) 5 (31%) 0 (0%) 9 (32%) Not physically able to participate 1 (9%) 4 (25%) 1 (100%) 6 (21%) Group is exclusive 1 (9%) 2 (12.5%) 0 (0%) 3 (11%) New to the area 1 (9%) 1 (6%) 0 (0%) 2 (7%) Source: Busijo Field Research 2011/Household Survey.

50

Only poor and middle income households are listed because the single household in the rich category was not in any community group. 51 Note: Percentages exceed 100% because each respondent was asked to give at least three reasons for joining a community group. 52 In this research, spiritual/personal enrichment encompasses the fulfillment or satisfaction that can be experienced through praying with fellow parishioners, training in a sport for fitness, planning and saving for a holiday celebration like Christmas, and giving to others. 53 Note: Percentages exceed 100% because each respondent was asked to give at least three reasons for not joining a community group.

133

Table 6.7a: Collaboration & community relations: comparison of female group members and non-group members Respondents in groups Respondents NOT in groups [n=31] [n=21] Likelihood of helping a neighbor with a funeral Very likely 23 74% 15 54% Likely 5 16% 8 29% Somewhat likely 0 0% 1 4% Not likely 3 10% 4 14% Crop disease People handle it alone 19 61% 23 82% Local government/political leaders 3 10% 2 7% Local government/political leaders or religious leaders 0 0% 1 4% Ministry of Ag/Extension officers 9 29% 2 7% Honesty Agree 7 23% 7 25% Partially agree 13 42% 9 32% Disagree 11 35% 12 43% People are interested in their own welfare Agree 24 77% 24 86% Partially agree 2 6% 2 7% Disagree 5 16% 2 7% Reluctant to ask for help Agree 15 48% 17 16% Partially agree 6 19% 5 81% Disagree 10 32% 6 21% People are willing to help you Agree 18 58% 13 46% Partially agree 10 32% 7 25% Disagree 5 16% 8 29% People collaborate Agree 17 55% 13 46% Partially agree 8 26% 3 11% Disagree 5 16% 12 43% Don t know/missing 1 3% 0 0% Source: Busijo Field Research 2011/Household Survey.

134

Appendix 11. Chapter 7 data tables, text boxes and figures

Figure 7.1a: Connections between female farmers reasons for joining community groups, the activities carried out and benefits received

Source: Busijo Field Research 2011/Focus Groups, Household Survey, Group and One-onone Interviews. Legend: = tangible connection; = potential connection H = human capital; F = financial capital; S = social capital; N = natural capital

135

Table 7.1a: Benefits of group membership experienced by female and male respondents Women Men Type of benefit [n=31] [n=16] New skills 65% 63% Increased income 52% 56% Received help on the shamba 52% 38% Experienced empowerment 45% 63% Improved networking 29% 57% Accessed farm inputs & services 26% 25% Accessed credit or a loan 26% 13% Received help with your house (i.e. repairs) 22% 25% Improved involvement in decisionmaking 13% 31% Source: Busijo Field Research 2011/Household Survey. Table 7.2a: Benefits of group membership experienced by female and male respondents, by wealth ranking 54 Female respondents Male respondents Poor households [n=6] 4 (67%) 2 (33%) Middle households [n=25] 16 (64%) 14 (56%) Poor households [n=3] 2 (67%) 1 (33%) 2 (67%) 2 (67%) 2 (67%) 0 (0%) Middle households [n=13] 8 (62%) 8 (62%) 4 (31%) 8 (62%) 7 (54%) 4 (31%)

Type of benefit New skills Increased income Received help 3 (50%) 13 (52%) on the shamba Experienced 2 (33%) 12 (48%) empowerment Improved 2 (33%) 7 (28%) networking Accessed farm 0 (0%) 8 (32%) inputs & services Accessed credit 0 (0%) 8 (32%) or a loan Received help 1 (17%) 6 (24%) with your house (i.e. repairs) Improved 1 (17%) 3 (12%) involvement in decision-making Source: Busijo Field Research 2011/Household Survey.

0 (0%) 1 (33%)

2 (15%) 3 (23%)

1 (33%)

4 (31%)

54

The single rich household in the survey sample is not a member in any community group.

136

Table 7.3a: Main ways female respondents would use extra income, by wealth ranking Poor [n=17] Middle [n=41] Rich [n=1] Count/% Count/% Count/% Repair or build a 4 24% Start a small 13 32% School fees 1 100% new house business Farm inputs Purchase livestock Start a small business School fees Purchase home goods Total 3 3 3 18% School fees 18% Farm inputs 18% Repair or build a new house 12% Purchase livestock 12% Purchase home goods 100% Purchase land Open a bank account Buy clothes for the family Meds for the children Total Source: Busijo Field Research 2011/Household Survey. 9 6 5 22% Total 15% 12% 1 100%

2 2

3 1

7% 2%

17

1 1

2% 2%

2%

1 41 2% 100%

137

Table 7.4a: Accessing formal loans and credit: comparison of female group members and non-group members 31 53% Respondents not in groups Respondents in groups Accessed a loan? YES 5 16% NO 26 84% Reason for NOT taking a loan Lack of collateral Fear of defaulting Not aware of loan/credit schemes Lack financial management skills Reason for NOT taking a loan 2 6% Lack of collateral 13 42% Fear of defaulting 3 10% Not aware of loan/credit schemes 2 6% Lack financial management skills Not aware of loan/credit schemes & lack financial management skills Fear & lack of collateral Fear & lack of financial management skills Too young; lack ID N/A Accessed a loan?

28 47%

YES 1 4% NO 27 96%

1 4% 14 50% 5 18% 3 11%

Not aware of loan/credit schemes & lack financial management skills 0 0% Fear & lack of collateral 1 3% Fear & lack of financial management skills 1 3% Lack collateral & financial management skills 1 3% Don't need it 2 6% Fear & don't need it 1 3% N/A 5 16% Source: Busijo Field Research 2011/Household Survey.

1 1 1 1 1

4% 4% 4% 4% 4%

Table 7.5a: Community perception on socio-economic/cultural/political differences in Busijo sub-location Female respondents Male respondents [n=59] [n=22] Differences exist based on education level Not at all 2 3% 4 18% Partly 6 10% 3 14% Very much 51 86% 15 68% Differences exist based on wealth level Not at all 2 3% 2 9% Partly 2 3% 3 14% Very much 55 93% 17 77% Differences exist based on land holdings Not at all 4 7% 2 9% Partly 12 20% 3 14% Very much 43 73% 17 77% Differences exist based on social status Not at all 1 2% 4 18% Partly 12 20% 5 23% Very much 46 78% 13 59% Differences exist based on 138

gender Not at all 10 17% Partly 26 44% Very much 23 39% Differences exist based on age Not at all 9 15% Partly 20 34% Very much 29 49% Differences exist based on political party affiliations Not at all 2 3% Partly 4 7% Very much 53 90% Differences exist based on ethnic background Not at all 15 25% Partly 14 24% Very much 30 51% Source: Busijo Field Research 2011/Household Survey.

4 15 3

18% 68% 14%

5 7 10

23% 32% 45%

1 3 18

5% 14% 82%

10 4 8

45% 18% 36%

Text box 7.1a: Community development priorities for Busijo sub-location 1. Education o Improved educational facilities o Advocacy for education/promote girl-child education o Instill value of education & improve involvement of parents o Promote technical training & adult literacy o Improve school governance o Raising funds/pooling resources to assist vulnerable children 2. Farming/irrigation o Implement modern ways of farming/modern technologies o Agro-dealers access o Form farming groups/collectives & farmer exchange program o Access agricultural extension officers o Farm machinery o Attitude change (i.e. willingness to try new techniques) o Improve markets o Farming as business 3. Clean water (domestic consumption) o Water treatment plant o Promote shallow wells & roof catchment (i.e. water harvesting) o Water storage (i.e. tanks) o Improve & expand water ponds o Improve general hygiene o Improve use of water treatment chemicals Source: Busijo Field Research 2011/Community Meeting 2*.

139

Text box 7.2a: Case study on Group 2 in northern Samia District Group 2 is a producer and marketing self-help groups whose main activity is growing and processing groundnuts. It was created in 2004, when 72 farmers from three sub-locations, Odiado, Budalanga and Kabodgo, came together as a common interest group through the Kenya Agricultural Productivity Program (KAPP). In this sense, Group 2 was prompted , meaning it was formed with external influence. Prior to 2004, the members were growing groundnuts individually and they were struggling to make a living. By forming a group they were able to combine their efforts (and harvests) and become eligible for development assistance. Through the KAPP, a program of the Ministry of Agriculture, they received certified planting materials and training on farming techniques and management, land preparation, and machine operation. After a three-year process of mandatory training, mobilization and sensitization, they developed a proposal for value chain addition (i.e. processing the nuts into peanut butter). They officially registered with Social Services in 2006 with 60 members (13 men and 47 women). Then, in 2007, they received 1.6 millions Ksh which allowed them to purchase machines to process their groundnuts.

Today, Group 2 has their own shop off a busy paved road near Funyula town. Each member grows groundnuts and they combine their harvests in order to collectively process and market them. Their main product is peanut butter, but they also sell groundnut flour and roasted groundnuts. These goods are sold at the local market or community events; people can also purchase them from Group 2 s shop. The current group comprises 25 active members (10 men and 15 women) who are owners with shares in the cooperative. As an owner/member, each person is required to contribute both membership fees (shares) and work hours. After paying a 200 Ksh registration fee, each member contributes what he or she can on a monthly basis. They benefit from contributing as much as possible because this builds up their shares and therefore they receive more from the group s profits. In addition, each member works one day per week in the shop. All the members come together once a month for a group meeting. An executive committee that consists of a chairperson, secretary, treasurer and vicepositions leads them. The leaders serve three-year terms.

According to the members, they believe that their strong and firm leadership team and the good networks that they are building are two of the group s main strengths. They also identified the unity among group members; transparency between the leaders and general members; that they have a steady supply of groundnuts; and that they are committed and trained farmers. These qualities contribute Group 2 s success and the accumulation of benefits that the member s receive from participating in the group. (Continued)

140

These characteristics also set Group 2 apart from some of the community groups in Bwiri location/Busijo sub-location. While the exposure that they have achieved can be attributed to their strategic location near a busy town centre and district government offices, including the Ministry of Agriculture, they also have an assertive and capable executive committee. I had an opportunity to witness this on two occasions. The first was during the International Women s Day celebration in Funyula and the second was at my final community forum in Busijo. In both cases, I observed that Group 2 is well organized and they have a go-getter attitude. They seize the chance to market their products and they engage with the community. In addition, they are encouraging people farmers to form Common Interest Groups, to intensify their farming, improve their techniques and include value chain addition.

The members of Group 2 in Odiado sub-location perceive the group as having made remarkable improvements in their lives. One member said they have decent clothes (decent appearance), they are healthy and their children are in school. Another member said that because they can produce large quantities of peanut butter and receive their share of the profits in lump sum, they are able to make personal investments, such as paying school fees. They use the peanut butter at home as a source of nutrition for their family.

Another benefit they cited was exposure. They are linked with and interact with other people, government officers and development agencies. While they have not received another grant since the KAPP, they reported frequent visits from the district agricultural extension officers and the morning of my second visit they had met with the Provincial Director of Social Services to discuss how they can access groundnuts from other growers so they can expand their production. The group leaders are also trying to expand the marketing of their peanut butter to other areas of Western Kenya.

Group 2 faces challenges too, but they are approaching them proactively. The group wants to expand to a larger building and increase their production of peanut butter. The current building they occupy serves as a store, office and production site but it is too small. In order to expand production they need to increase the supply of groundnuts. They propose to achieve this by intensifying the cultivation of the crop by group members and also by sourcing from farmers outside the group. Group 2 has planting materials at the shop so they are encouraging farmers to plant groundnuts and then offering to purchase the harvest from them. In turn, the increased production of peanut butter will improve their revenue so they can save enough money to realize their goals of expansion (i.e. buy a plot and build a larger store). Source: Busijo Field Research 2011/Group Interview 2-040311.

141

Text box 7.3a. Recommendations for strengthening community groups according to research participants. Uphold transparency and accountability; Be respectful of each other s opinions and honest with each other; Stay focused with a strong vision and common mission/goal; Improve group cohesion; Abide by the group s Constitution; Organize and operate more than one income-generating activity Strive to resolve conflict rather than breaking up; Carry out regular inspection of group s financial records, which should be done by the regular members or purposes of due diligence and internal controls; Empower individuals to participate freely and actively in group work; Increase resources through microfinance and grants (i.e. external financial assistance); Groups need access to markets for their produce; specifically value addition for cassava; Access to sound advice and trainings to increase their knowledge and build capacity in group dynamics; financial management; managing group activities and projects, such as identifying what are feasible and viable projects; priority-setting and other specific topics, such as farming as a business, soil fertility and management; markets and marketing; Utilizing existing women s groups or establishing a consortium of women s groups that would promote the needs of women and also allow them to participate more actively in the community. Such a group could take up and deliberate on important issues in their village or sub-location; come up with questions, potential solutions and then present them at the weekly barazas (Interview R0169). In addition, they would transmit and distribute information so that women who are fearful of speaking in front of men or are restricted from doing so can still have a voice and also be informed.

Source: Busijo Field Research 2011/Interview respondents M0160; R0169; L0215; B0228; F0238 & B0180; Group Interviews and Focus Group Discussions.

142

Appendix 12. Photos

Photo 4.1a: Busijo sub-location community mapping exercise

Source: J.P. Nagtalon, 2011. Photo 5.1a: Traditional mud

Source: J.P. Nagtalon, 2011.

143