GENDER DIFFERENTIALS OF LIVELIHOOD DIVERSIFICATION STRATEGIES AND ITS EFFECTS ON POVERTY STATUS OF RURAL HOUSEHOLDS IN NIGER STATE, NIGERIA

ABSTRACT

The study on  the  gender differentials  of livelihood  diversification  strategies  and  its effects on poverty status of rural households was conducted in Niger State, Nigeria. Multi–stage sampling technique was used to select 138 male and 92 female rural households on which structured questionnaire complemented with interview schedule was employed to collect primary data. Data collected were analyzed using descriptive statistics (means, percentages and frequency counts) and inferential statistics (Logit and Tobit regression model) as well as Foster Greer and Thorbeck (FGT) model. The result of the analysis obtained showed that the male and female gender had mean age of 39 years and 35 years respectively. The male gender had a mean of 12 years in formal schooling, while the female gender had a mean of 6.5 years in formal schooling. The mean farm size of the male was 2.1 hectares and 1.4 hectares for the female. Majority (79.7%) of the male were married, while 94.6% of the female were married. Also, majority (70.3%) of the male and 88.0% of the female had contact with extension agents, 63.0% of the male and 56.5% of the female had access to credit, and 41.3% of the male and 89.1% of the female were members of cooperative societies. Livelihood diversification strategies of the rural household encompasses crop, livestock and non- farm enterprises. The male were mostly engaged in livelihood diversification strategies such as rice (89.1%) with a mean annual income of ₦534,768, Chicken (31.2%) with a mean annual income of ₦71,349 and self–employment (61.6%) with a mean monthly income of ₦49,027, while the female were engaged mostly on vegetables production (85.9%) with a mean annual income of ₦103,533, chicken rearing (75.0%) with a mean annual income of ₦85,993 and self–employment (77.2%) with a mean monthly income of ₦35,027. Based on the poverty lines computed, 47.8% of the males were found to be non – poor, 42.8% were poor and 9.4% were core–poor, while 59.8% of the female were found to be non–poor, 27.2% were poor and 13.0% were core–poor. Result of the Logit regression marginal effect estimate revealed that household size (0.0559), farm size (0.0211), livelihood diversification strategies (0.3997), income (0.2080), extension (0.0329), credit (0.1122) and cooperative (1.0892) had influence on poverty status of the male gender, while age (-0.0372), marital status (-0.4162), expenditure (-0.1150), farm size (0.1449), livelihood diversification strategies (1.4105), income (0.7590), extension contact (0.0523) and cooperative societies (0.4451) had influence on poverty status of the female gender. The livelihood diversification strategies adopted by the male and female gender had a significant effect on the likelihood of them being poor or not. Also, Tobit regression  estimate revealed that household size (0.0184), education (0.0061), farming experience (-0.0097), credit (0.1420), farm size (-0.0124), income (0.4850), expenditure (0.8790), extension contact (0.0351) and occupation (0.0747) had influence on livelihood diversification strategies of the males, while years of farming experience (-0.0083), credit (0.2880), expenditure (0.2080), cooperative societies (0.0079) and extension contact (0.0187) had influence on livelihood diversification strategies of the females. The major constraints to livelihood diversification strategies reported by the males were inadequate access to credit ( ̅= 4.22) and poor market information ( ̅= 4.12) ranked 1st and 2nd, while the females reported increase cost of production ( ̅= 4.34) and inadequate access to credit ( ̅= 3.91) ranked 1st and 2nd. In conclusion, the female gender had lower incidence of poverty (i.e people living below the poverty line) as compared to the male gender, although, the livelihood diversification strategies adopted by the male and female had a significant effect on their likelihood of being poor or not. It was therefore recommended that rural households, government and NGOs should partner through seminar and workshops to promote effective social networks and social investment policy that will enhance livelihood diversification decisions.

CHAPTER ONE

1.0      INTRODUCTION

1.1       Background of the Study

Agriculture  is  the  most  important  economic  sector  of  any Nation  saddled  with  the responsibility of meeting the food requirements of the rather fast growing global population (Andersen, 2010). Agriculture has impacted significantly in Nigeria in the past and still contributes over 40% of the Gross Domestic Product  (GDP) in 2012 (International  Federation  of  Library Association  (IFLA),  2012),  and  47.8% in  2017 (National Bureau of Statistics (NBS), 2017). Investing more in agricultural sector would enable a country to sufficiently feed its growing population, generate employment, earn foreign exchange and make raw materials available for industries. This sector has a multiplier effect on any nation‟s socio-economic and industrial fabric because of the multi-functional  nature  of  agriculture  (Ogen,  2007).  Over  the  years,  both  male  and female are known to engage in agricultural production.

The concept of gender is a central factor in household decision-making, which affects productivity, time allocation and investment in developing countries. Gender differential induced poverty and any poverty alleviation programme towards household welfare must thoroughly examine the link between gender relations and state of household‟s food security (Arora, 2015). Gender analysis is therefore an important factor in poverty and food security analysis. International Labour Organization (ILO) (1991) and Gender Equality in Rural Advisory Services (GFRAS) (2012) referred to Women as “a group operating under the conditions in which their reproductive activities are traded at the margin against their economic ventures”. This does not only limit the time at these women‟s disposal  but  also  restrict  them  to  activities  that  are  compatible with  their schedules. Consequently, most women work on small-scale farms for production with attendant low yields and income that can hardly meet their varying family obligations.

This therefore places limitation on their purchasing power and invariably their household food security level (Fawehinmi and Adeniyi, 2014).

The contribution of non-agricultural activities to household income in the developing world in general and Sub-Saharan Africa in particular is substantial. Local non-farming income contributes between 30 to 40 % of rural household income in the developing world (Haggblade et al., 2007). Various studies have shown that while most rural households are involved in agricultural activities such as livestock, crop, or fish production as their main source of livelihood, they also as a means of diversification engaged in other income generating activities to augment their main source of income (Abimbola and Oluwakemi, 2013). There is different perception of people about the concept of diversification.

Diversification has been defined by Kimenju and Tschirley (2008) as “the number of economic activities an economic unit is involved in and the dispersion of those activities‟ shares in the total economic activity of the unit”. The focus on livelihood is relevant, in particular with the discussion on rural poverty reduction. With prevalent poverty in most rural areas, rural development has been an important policy goal for many developing countries, and large-scale structural reform measures have been taken to this end (Hyewon, 2011). Off-farm and non-farm income economic activities has been viewed as potential diversification pathway among rural farming households.

The growing interest in research on rural off-farm and non-farm income in rural economies shows that rural people‟s livelihoods are derived from diverse sources and are not as overwhelmingly dependent on agriculture as previously assumed Gordon and Craig (2001). Non-farm local activities include all economic activities in rural areas except agriculture, livestock, fishing and hunting. It includes all off-farming activities, processing, marketing, manufacturing, wage and causal local employment in the rural villages (Agu, 2013).

Most rural populations in Africa have been suffering from poverty and environmental degradation. Maintenance of a diversified resource base is a prerequisite for adaptation to climate variability as diversified livelihood systems allow indigenous farming communities to draw on various sources of food and income. In doing so, they can diffuse the risks of vulnerability to climate change (Macchi et al., 2008).

Ellis (2000a) and Warren (2002), defined livelihood diversification as  a process by which rural households construct an increasingly diverse portfolio of activities and assets in order to survive and improve their standard of living. Therefore, an analysis of the diversification concept empirically, has been assessed from the asset, income or activity viewpoints. Asset measurement is deemed arduous and sometimes crudely estimated due to the poor development of asset market especially in most rural communities in Africa (Barrett and Reardon, 2000). Drawing from Minot et al. (2006), Ronning and Koveried (2006), the study defines livelihood diversification as “a situation where farming households rely on multiple income sources; both farm and Non-farm” activities. This has  helped  to  positively  engaged  rural  households  especially  during  the  off-season period.

According to Ellis (2000b), seasonality of farming resulting in labour idling during off- farming seasons have led farm households to engage in activities (particularly non-farm activities) to  use their full  labour potentials.  Moreover,  realization  of economies  of scope, diminishing returns to factors (land, capital, labour) use, response to liquidity constraints and availability of opportunities (infrastructural development, access to social amenities, increases in population etc.), have also backed farm household‟s pursuance of The Author further classifies reasons of livelihood diversification into pull (favourable conditions which draw farm households into diversification) and push factors (harsh conditions that force households into diversification). Livelihood and income diversification have been studied extensively over the years (Okali, 2006; Reardon et al., 2007; Adekoya, 2009; Akinwale, 2010). Despite the fact that rural areas are agrarian in nature, there is an increasing level of income and livelihood diversification especially to non-agricultural income generating activities (Oluwatayo, 2009).

Poverty is a problem affecting every nation of the world (Chen and Ravallion, 2010). The reduction of poverty is the most difficult challenge facing many countries in the developing world where on average, the majority of the population is considered poor. In Nigeria, the number of people below the poverty line has continued to increase (Lawal et al., 2011). Despite the various efforts of government to reduce the incidence of poverty through different poverty alleviation programmes and strategies and the quest to be one of the 20 largest economies by the year 2020, Nigeria continues to be one of the poorest countries in the world (Adepoju, 2012). Its incidence rose from 27.2% in1980 to 42.7% in 1992 and 69.0% in 2010 (NBS, 2012).

Nigeria has been ranked 153rd with human development index of 0.471 in 2013 UNDP Human Development Index despite moving a step up from the 2011 rating, portraying the country among the poorest countries in the world, majority of whom resides in the rural  areas  with  farming  as  their  primary occupation.  However,  with  the  enormous efforts which are being exerted on rural livelihood diversification by government and non-governmental  organizations  in  Nigeria,  the  result  on  the distribution  of income remains rarely checked (Santos, 2015).

1.2       Statement of the Research Problem

Across Sub-Saharan Africa, a range of empirical studies have found that female farmers have lower yields than male farmers. A number of reports have documented this pattern and sought to explain it (Sofa, 2011; World Bank, 2012). In overall, these studies suggest constraints in every step of the livelihood diversification. First, women are likely to have less land to cultivate than men, and when they do, tenure security may be weaker. Second, their access to improved technology, information, and agricultural extension tends to be more limited compared to men. In growing crops, women are more prone to be constrained in their access to inputs such as fertilizer, agro-chemical, labour and other inputs. Management of plots may reveal constraints as well – ranging from low level of education to trying to juggle into dual roles as farm managers and household managers (Oseni et al., 2013).

Unless Africans invest heavily in gender equality, it will neither sustain its growth nor meet  its  development  goals  (African  Development  Bank  (ADB),  2013).  Gender disparities in agriculture also affects African agricultural transformation. Africa is still lagging behind in terms of production and  yield  per hectare which has continue to decline (Dillion and Barrett, 2014; FAO, 2015). Unequal access to farming resources leads to decrease in female livelihood. Increasing output of livelihood through enhanced gender participation and livelihood diversification is the key to achieving poverty reduction within the study area. It therefore implies that to attain this goal, attention should be focused on dealing with issues bordering on gender bias, such as ensuring equal right and access in the poverty reduction strategies of rural households, with a view to redressing the gender livelihood strategies gap (Alobo, 2015).

There have been neglect by researchers in examining livelihood diversification strategies along gender differentials especially in the study area which has constituted a dearth in knowledge that needs to be filled. It is based on the aforementioned, that this study was conceived to analyze gender differentials on livelihood diversification strategies and its effects on poverty reduction among rural household in Niger State, Nigeria. Thus, this study attempts to provide answer for the following research questions:

i.      What are the socio-economic characteristics of rural households in the study area?

ii.      What  are the  major livelihood  diversification  strategies  adopted by the  rural household along the gender differentials in the study area?

iii.     What is the poverty status of the rural households along gender differentials?

iv.      What are the effects of livelihood diversification strategies on rural households‟ poverty status along gender differentials in the study area?

v.      What are the factors influencing the livelihood diversification strategies of the rural households along gender differentials in the study area?

vi.      What are the constraints that hinders livelihood diversification strategies by the rural households along gender differentials in the study area?

1.3       Aim and Objectives of the Study

The aim of this study is to analyze the gender differentials of livelihood diversification strategies and its effects on poverty status of rural households in Niger State, Nigeria. The specific objectives were to:

i.      describe the socio-economic characteristics of the rural households along gender differentials in the study area;

ii.      identify  the  major  livelihood  diversification  strategies  adopted  by  the  rural households along gender differentials;

iii.     estimate the poverty status of the rural households along gender differentials;

iv.      evaluate the effect of livelihood diversification strategies on poverty status of rural households along gender differentials;

v.      determine the factors influencing the livelihood diversification strategies of the rural households along gender differentials, and

vi.      identify the constraints that hinders livelihood diversification strategies by the rural households along gender differentials in the study area.

1.4       Hypotheses of the Study

The following null hypotheses were tested in this study:

HO1: There is no  significant  relationship between  selected socio-economic characteristics of the respondents (age, marital status, household size, education, experience and farm size) and their poverty status along the gender differentials in the study area.

HO2:  There is no significant difference in poverty status of the respondents along gender differentials in the study area.

1.5       Justification of the Study

Food  insecurity  is  not  a  new  phenomenon  throughout  the  world.  It  is  constantly spreading day by day like wildfire and it is not only peculiar to farmers, but also non- farmers. This study focuses on livelihood diversification strategies along gender differential and its effects on poverty reduction in the study area. The study will draw the attention of selected Local Government Areas of Niger State to gender inequality issues as a medium to enhancing livelihood diversification strategies and its effects on poverty reduction.

The study will serve as a source of information on livelihood related diversification strategies, with the view to provide empirical justification for equal agro-input support to both genders. The study will provide relevant data and information required for policy makers  for  redressing  gender  lop-sidedness  in  livelihood  diversification  strategies support in the country and in particular in the study area. The research will further serve as an eye opener to government on strategies that can be deployed to combat challenges and factors hindering gender equality, livelihood diversification strategies and its effects on poverty reduction. This study will assist policy makers to formulate policies and evolve programmes that will help in poverty reduction and gender equality.

It  will  also  stimulate  research  institutes  into  further  research  into  area  of  poverty reduction in the study area and the nation at large. The result of this study would serve as a frame of reference to be consulted by research institutions, governmental and non- governmental agencies in improving livelihood diversification and poverty reduction strategies. Agricultural cooperative societies will find this study helpful in checkmating their policies so as to enhance poverty reduction through livelihood diversification strategies. The result of this study will ultimately contribute to nation‟s building through poverty reduction.

₦8,000.00 – DOWNLOAD FULL PROJECT DOWNLOAD FULL PROJECT Added to cart

---

---

---

---

Related Project Topics :