Rural Income Generation and Diversification - A Case Study ... - Doria

of diversification from agriculture through increasing demand in the local and regional economy.
Keeping livestock served many purposes. The survey revealed that households were able to
raise cash by selling livestock products, especially milk, eggs and draught power. The average
value of animals (amongst households keeping livestock) was higher than that of other
assets 59 , except in the Mambwe district where agro-ecological conditions only suited poultry
and goat rearing.
If having cattle significantly increases income, why do so few households keep them? Loss
to disease is one explanation, and the substantial investment and capital needs required for
re-stocking is another. The average annual net income of a household in the lowest income
tercile was ZMK 684,432 (the value of household’s own consumption not included), which
would suffice to purchase an ox or a cow, and two or three goats, if the whole income was
spent on livestock. Because of the household’s other needs and limited access to credits, financial
constraints prevented them from rearing livestock and expanding their stock.
Vulnerability and participation variables were included in many of the analyses in order to
catch the effects of the differences between them and the physically quantifiable and measurable
household characteristics. There were significant relations in many cases: for example,
vulnerability correlated negatively and active participation positively with the amount of
cultivated land. Participation, used here as a proxy indicator of social capital, seemed to have
a connection with household income-earning capacities and patterns, as also indicated in
Scoones (1998), Ellis (2000) and Davis (2003). Although most of the households spent a
substantial number of days engaged in working parties and similar village activities, collective
economic action such as joint storing, transporting and marketing efforts were practically
non-existent.
Although the present study did not specifically address the differences between male- and
female-headed households, some observations are worth noting. The proportion of femaleheaded
households was higher in the lowest income group and in the smaller farms. In many
respects, they were worse-off than the male-headed households: their total income was
lower; they cultivated less land, had less valuable assets, and used fewer inputs. Moreover,
the female heads were older, and had less education and smaller households than the male
heads. Due to a shortage of labour and other productive assets they were often unable to utilise
the potential opportunities: for example, 44 per cent of the male-headed households, but
only 12 per cent of those with a female head had cotton-growing contracts.
59 Other assets means items such as bicycles, radios and ox-drawn implements.
121