Gender norms agency and innovation in wheat-based systems and livelihoods: synthesis report of six community case studies in Pakistan

Abstract

This report summarizes the Pakistan findings from a global qualitative comparative research initiative called GENNOVATE. It covers perspectives and experiences of 351 respondents (174 female and 177 male) of different ages from wheat-growing households across six wheat-growing villages from two provinces (Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Baluchistan) in Pakistan. The research reveals that restrictive gender norms are one of the largest barriers facing effective innovation and engagement by women in the agricultural sector. However, women and men from different socioeconomic backgrounds and age groups can be affected by gender norms differently. Moreover, gender norms and expectations can be contradictory and difficult for community members to navigate. The intra-household decision-making dynamics are complicated in joint-family settings. Men are generally the decision makers, but not all men feel they have a high degree of power and freedom. Elders and khans have the ultimate decision-making power. The general perception is that women do not make any decisions except on household-related chores. However, the findings reveal that women are involved in joint decisions regarding subsistence crops and some livestock products. This implies that there is a certain level of negotiation taking place within households before making decisions. This requires further investigation. Moreover, women gain status as they age. Gender norms and women’s decision-making positions are determined by factors such as age and marital status. Gender differences were observed about expectations of a “good wife” and “good female farmer” and “good husband” and “good male farmer.” The qualities of a “good wife” mainly relate to women’s reproductive and household roles as well as socio-culturally “correct’’ and acceptable behavior. Men are reported to have no role in household chores which is commonly known as women’s work. Men are considered the sole provider for the household. Women are widely considered to have little role in bringing the family out of poverty, despite women’s involvement in several income-generating activities. The gendered dimensions of factors shaping socioeconomic mobility and poverty trends were explored. In most cases women did not perceive that poverty in the community was reducing as quickly as men. Female-headed households (FHHs) are said to be among the worst off in their wellbeing status, which is mainly attributed to women’s restricted mobility to search for a decent job and other economic opportunities. Men and women in all villages agreed that financial position is one of the major enabling factors for agricultural innovations and decision-making, but this is not true for women. Women from financially well-off families are less mobile, do not work for pay and feel powerless. Consequently, new infrastructure developments and the opportunities that result from them benefit women and men differently. Women’s and men’s innovation preferences and opportunities are also different. Generally, men are said to have more opportunities to innovate than women because of their physical mobility, which facilitates access to information, knowledge, skills and financial resources, essential elements for learning about and adopting technology. For men, class impacts a farmer’s ability to innovate. Rich farmers with larger land holdings are mainly at the forefront of agricultural innovations. Poorer farmers showed a level of precaution before adopting new technologies and follow the experiences of earlier adopters before they are comfortable adopting for themselves. Similarly, the factors hindering innovation and technology adoption reflect the gendered norms and expectations of women and men. Women from all villages insisted that the availability of women-only vocational training centers is crucial for them to try to innovate. Women felt they would be allowed to go to these places if they existed. Otherwise, for women, there is no way they can go into public places and learn in the presence of men apart from their relatives. The overall dynamics around enabling and constraining factors for innovation prove that gender norms inform opportunity structures for men and women. If R4D programs continue to ignore gender norms in programming then men will benefit more than women from innovations and thus, gender inequality will increase. The findings have indicated the need for collaboration with diverse groups of stakeholders across social, economic and political sectors and with progressive opinion leaders to change women’s positions in society. Future R4D programs should consider the following points: Women and men are not homogenous; therefore, gendered norms affect men and women from different contexts, class, marital status, and age differently. This signifies the need for additional gender analysis to understand contextually-embedded practices that determine women’s and men’s positions and opportunities in society. Effort to transform the strict and deeply-engrained gender norms require intensive male engagement strategies, including Imams. There is a long way to go before women are free to move around, engage in income-earning activities and decide on issues that matter to themselves and their family without men feeling “less.” Female heads of households (widowed and divorced), mobile women and educated women who joined the professional work force are positive role models and should be promoted as such