4. Access of rural women to productive resources in Bangladesh

(Anon., 1995). Despite their tremendouscontribution to food production and well-being forthe household, rural women are underestimatedand overlooked in development strategies.Various socio-cultural and structural barriersaffect their access to formal and non-formalinstitutions and extension services (Murshid andYasmeen, 2004).It is praiseworthy that the government ofBangladesh has adopted a national policy for theadvancement of women since 1997. Forimproving the socio-economic condition ofwomen, the efforts of different NGOs are alsovery significant. Various development agencieshave undertaken some initiatives andprogrammes focusing on education and skilldevelopment, credit, health and nutrition, politicalempowerment, gender awareness, human rightsand oppression. Some innovative steps like freeeducation for girls with special stipends,reservation of seats for women in localgovernment, special quota in services andamendment of laws have been promotingwomen’s empowerment as well as reducing thegender disparity. However, women’s propertyrights are highly constrained in Bangladesh, as itis governed by religious laws. Under the MuslimLaw, a daughter inherits one-half the share ofher brother, a wife receives only one-eighth ofthe deceased husband’s property while a mothergets one-sixth (ADB, 2001; Ramachandran,2006). Due to lack of land ownership, women aregetting inadequate attention by manydevelopment agencies. For example, theagricultural extension delivery services inBangladesh are still concentrated on malefarmers and consequently, fail to reach themajority of rural women with modern informationand technologies.Access to resources is one of the elements ofwomen’s empowerment and a base for theattainment of the Millennium Development Goals(MDGs). Many international conferences havebeen held to improve rural women’s equitableaccess to and control of land and property inrecent years. The United Nations has outlinedseven interdependent strategic priorities withregard to MDG-3 in altering discriminationagainst women. Two strategies are to ensurewomen’s property and inheritance rights and toeliminate gender inequality in economic sectors(World Bank, 2007). The 4th World Congress ofRural Women, held in South Africa in 2007,reiterated the need to provide full and equalaccess for rural women to productive resources,including the right to inheritance and ownershipof land and other property, credit/capital,appropriate technologies, markets andinformation. Considering this complex situation,the researcher attempted to examine some ofthe productive resources accessible to ruralwomen and explore enabling and limiting factors,with the intention of making them powerfulagents for change over time.THEORETICAL FOCUSAccess is the right or opportunity to use, manageor control a particular resource (Nichols et al.,1999). Resources may be economic (e.g. landand credit), political (e.g. participation in localgovernment and community decision-making)and social (e.g. education and training). Ingeneral, women and men require different levelsof access to resources based on theirproductive, reproductive and communitymanaging roles (Moser, 1993). Whendisadvantaged women have the ability to controltheir own environment by gaining greater accessto material and intellectual resources,Musokotwane et al. (2001) have called thisprocess ‘empowerment’.Many studies have already found that access toproductive resources for women enhancesknowledge on farm management and incomegeneration, develops bargaining and decisionmakingpower, improves children’s schoolingand health, increases self-confidence and socialnetworks and provides security in old age(IFPRI, 2000; Grace, 2005; Pitt et al., 2006).Poverty alleviation in rural areas is significantlyrelated to women’s increased access toproductive resources (Adereti, 2005). Thus,efforts to build social capital among rural womenare necessary for sustainable production andhousehold food security through provision offacilitating resources (Meludu et al., 1999; Flora,2001). All actors in development must providethem with support in this regard. At the sameInternational Journal of Ruralvol. 15 no. 1 April 2008Studies (IJRS)ISSN 1023–2001 www.ivcs.org.uk/IJRS Article 4 Page 2 of 8

time, raising social awareness of people aboutthe symptoms, causes and consequences ofoppressive economic, cultural, familial, religiousand legal practices is necessary for changingtraditional gender roles and mindsets (Acharya,2003).RESEARCH METHODOLOGYLocation of the studyThe study was conducted in three villages ofMymensingh District in Bangladesh. Thevillages, namely, Boyra, Sutiakhali andDaribhabakhali were selected purposelyconsidering the location of BangladeshAgricultural University, Bangladesh Institute ofNuclear Agriculture and Bangladesh FisheriesResearch Institute, good access to governmentand non-government services andcommunication facilities. It was assumed thatrural women had better access to variousresources because of the level of modernisationin these villages.Sampling designThe population for the study consisted of themarried women in farm households in thesethree villages. A representative sample of 159was drawn (53 from each village) based onarbitrary allocation (Cochran, 1977). Therespondents were selected from different farmhouseholds by random sampling.Data collection and analysisThe primary data were collected betweenJanuary and March 2007. In order to collectqualitative data, three group discussion sessionswere arranged separately in three villages; eachgroup contained 10 participants. During thesegroup sessions, several open-ended questionswere asked of the respondents in order to collectdeeper information about their accessibility toresources along with many hidden facts andfactors. Based on this information, the researchinstrument was prepared and a pre-test wasconducted with 18 respondents for its necessarymodification. Finally, interviews were made with159 rural women in a face-to-face setting usingthe pre-designed schedule. The respondentswere requested to provide information abouttheir socio-economic condition, accessibility ofresources and constraints to these resources.Four key informants (one male and one femalecommunity leader, one extension and one NGOpersonnel) were also interviewed to give theirexpert views in order to formulate strategies forrural women’s empowerment.Books, journals, reports and internet documentswere used as secondary sources of datasupporting or supplementing the empiricalfindings of the study. Data were analyzed usingthe Statistical Package for the Social Science(SPSS) and some descriptive statistics, such aspercentage, mean, standard deviation (SD),coefficient of variation (CV) and rank were usedto interpret the data.Measuring access to productive resourcesIn this study, access means the ability of a ruralwoman to get seven socio-economic resourcesand accrue benefits from them. The full meaningof these resources is illustrated below.• Access to land: power to use familyfarmland, ownership of land and controlover it.1. Access to capital:opportunity to get loans, micro-credit andbanking services from any formal orinformal institution.2. Access to extensionservices and training: Opportunities todevelop technical skills for productionthrough training and obtain informationabout development aspects from anyextension agency.• Access to technologies: availability ofcost-effective and appropriatetechnologies for production, post-harvestand household tasks. Thesetechnologies included improvedvarieties/breeds, artificial insemination,vaccines, weeders, threshers, sewingmachines and improved stoves.International Journal of Ruralvol. 15 no. 1 April 2008Studies (IJRS)ISSN 1023–2001 www.ivcs.org.uk/IJRS Article 4 Page 3 of 8

1. Access to production inputs:Availability of technological inputs suchas quality seeds, saplings, fertilizers,pesticides and water supply.2. Access to livestock rearing:opportunities to rear chickens, ducks,pigeons, cattle and goats for incomegeneration.• Access to rural institutions: Any cooperativesor associations within thelocality providing production inputs,financial supports, saving facilities andother opportunities through women’sactive participation.Access of a rural woman to productive resourceswas measured using the Likert Scale with aweight of 0 representing ‘no access’, 1 for ‘lowaccess’, 2 for ‘medium access’ and 3 for ‘highaccess’. Finally, a rank order was developedamong the seven resources based on meanscore obtained for each item.RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONProfile of rural womenAnalysis of the socio-economic condition of therespondents found that their mean age was 34years and the length of marriage was 18 yearson average. A poor level of formal schooling(mean: 3.0 years) was found among sampledrespondents, which is one of the major causes oftheir inferior status. The women had given birthto four children on average, perhaps inexpectation of boys for enjoying a better socialstatus and respect. Most women lived inhouseholds consisting of six persons. Theaverage area of family farm was 0.70 ha. Themembers of the farm household performed bothfarm and non-farm activities and earned anaverage of 65000.00 Taka (approximately954.00 US$) annually, which is not enough tomeet their basic needs.Extent of rural women’s access to resourcesData contained in Table 1 show that therespondents had better access to livestockrearing (mean: 1.92) and capital availability(mean: 1.42). However, their access to extensionservices and training, technologies, formal orinformal institutions, land and inputs forproduction was limited. In support of thequalitative data obtained through groupdiscussions, the extent of women’s access toseven productive resources and underlying factsare described here on the basis of rank order.Table 1: Extent of rural women’s accessibility to productive resources (n = 159)ResourcesExtent of access (%)Frequently Occasionally Rarely Not at allMean a(CV)RankorderLivestock rearing 24 45 28 3 1.92 (41) 1Capital 6 42 39 13 1.42 (56) 2Extensionservices andtraining15 19 22 44 1.04 (105) 3Rural institutions 6 18 44 32 0.99 (38) 4Technologies 11 18 25 46 0.93 (110) 5Land 8 11 33 48 0.79 (116) 6Production inputs 5 18 10 67 0.62 (156) 7International Journal of Ruralvol. 15 no. 1 April 2008Studies (IJRS)ISSN 1023–2001 www.ivcs.org.uk/IJRS Article 4 Page 4 of 8

aMean values of items ranging from 0 to 3, where 0 indicates no access and 3 indicates high access ofresources.Figures in the parentheses indicate CV = (SD / Mean) × 100.i) Access to livestock rearing: almost all therespondents (97%) had the opportunity to reardomestic birds and animals. Feeding animalsand poultry birds, cleaning their sheds, healthcare and other related activities wereperformed by women. They also had a majorrole in decision making for rearing andmarketing of birds, animals and their products.Since women had no access to market, sellingand purchasing activities remained undermen’s control and hence, women weredeprived of getting real benefits from livestock.The respondents, however, felt that rearingcattle, goats and birds increased householdincome and their consumption of nutritiousfood andii) Access to capital: The respondents (87%)received a limited amount of credit from NGOs(mainly from BRAC, Grameen Bank and ASA),co-operatives, money lenders and relatives,with a high rate of interest. The women werealmost always excluded from loans fromcommercial banks because of lack of landownership. The respondents reported that theiraccess to institutional loans was furtherrestricted by their lack of education,confinement to household activities, lack offamiliarity with loan providers and restrictionson their mobility. Interestingly, a highproportion of women’s loans was controlled bymale members of the household (Goetz andGupta, 1996). In some cases, women were noteven allowed to invest the loan in incomegenerating activities (Husain and Mallik, 1998).iii) Access to extension services and training:almost half respondents (44%) had noopportunity to receive services from differentextension agencies like the Department ofAgricultural Extension (DAE) and theDepartment of Livestock Services (DLS). Theyreported that having access to such servicesfor women largely depended on theirhusbands, since extension services are mostlydirected towards male farmers and femaleextension agents are very limited in numbers.As a result, they lack modern avenues ofknowledge and information, new technologiesand opportunities for training to increase theirfarm productivity and income.iv) Access to rural institutions: 68% ofrespondents were involved in co-operatives orinformal associations, which createdopportunities for savings, taking loans,discussions and participation of women insocial events like agricultural fairs.v) Access to technologies: Table 1 shows thatnearly half respondents (46%) had no accessto modern technologies. They used traditionaltools and practices for production andhousehold purposes. Due to lack of capital, itwas difficult for women to hire or buy or adopttechnologies like threshers, sewing machinesand artificial insemination. Moreover, theylimited their labour time in economic activitiesdue to heavy commitment to domestic chores.They stated that technologies had not yet beendesigned for women’s tasks and had littleimpact on the welfare of rural women.vi) Access to land: about half of the women(48%) were deprived of access to land, whichled to serious constraints on getting credit andincreasing their productive capacity. Therespondents could only use land in and aroundtheir homesteads for gardening. Lack ofeducation and training, fewer opportunities foremployment, cultural taboos, male resistanceand financial constraints were the obstaclesstopping the respondents from inheriting, usingand securing land. Moreover, they were notwell equipped to deal with tenants, sale ofproduce or reach the land located at a distantplace.vii) Access to production inputs: unexpectedly,only 33% of respondents had little access toimportant inputs (e.g. seed and saplings) forInternational Journal of Ruralvol. 15 no. 1 April 2008Studies (IJRS)ISSN 1023–2001 www.ivcs.org.uk/IJRS Article 4 Page 5 of 8

production purposes. Since they had no land, itwas not easy to gain access to inputs likefertilizers and pesticides.Views of key informantsThe key informants selected for the studyprovided a wealth of information about theirroles and limitations, current socio-economicatmosphere, social stigmatization and servicesavailable to women’s welfare in the locality.They made the following suggestions forimproving women’s access to productiveresources as well as their status in the ruralcommunity:• Enhancing rural women’s incomegenerating activities by providingliteracy, technical information andskills, inputs and credit (in kind orcash) for agricultural and nonagriculturalproduction.• Transferring cost-effective and suitabletechnologies for women throughextension agencies.• Establishing formal and non-formalinstitutions for technical assistanceand capacity building for women.• Ensuring women’s participation in ruraldevelopment schemes and communitydecision-making.• Ensuring women’s rights to land andproperty by the government includinglocal authorities.• Implementing awareness raisingprogrammes on different aspects ofgender at the village level.CONCLUSIONSFrom the findings, discussions andsuggestions mentioned earlier, it is crucial fordevelopment actors to address the issue ofrural women in a comprehensive and holisticmanner. In particular, allocation of resourcesrelated to the practical and strategic interestsof rural women should be integrated into ruraldevelopment policies and programmes.Education, training and capacity building arenecessary pre-requisites for empowering ruralwomen in the study area. Donors, NGOs andwomen’s organizations, in addition togovernment organisations, should comeforward to take this initiative for sustained ruraldevelopment.REFERENCESAcharya, M. (2003) Efforts at Promotion of Women inNepal. Kathmandu: Tanka Prasad AcharyaFoundation.ADB (2001) Women in Bangladesh: The Country BriefingPaper. Manila: Asian Development Bank.Adereti, F.O. (2005) Rural Women’s Access to and ControlOver Productive Resources: Implications forPoverty Alleviation Among Osun-State RuralWomen, Nigeria. Journal of Human Ecology, 18(3): 225-230.Ahmad, F. (2001) Gender Division of Labour: BangladeshContext. Steps Towards Development, 6 (1): 7-26.Anon. (1995) Environmental Education Training Module inAgriculture. Graduate Training Institute,Bangladesh Agricultural University and Foodand Agriculture Organisation.Baden, S. (1997) Gender Inequality and Poverty: Trends,Linkages, Analysis and Policy Implications.BRIDGE (development - gender), Institute ofDevelopment Studies, University of Sussex, UK.Balk, D. (1997) Change Comes Slowly for Women in RuralBangladesh. Asia-Pacific Population & Policy,41: 4.Cochran, W.G. (1977) Sampling Techniques (3 rd edn.).New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Flora, C.B. (2001) Access and Control of Resources:Lessons from the SANREM-CRSP. Agricultureand Human Value, 18 (1): 41-48.Goetz, A.M. and Gupta, R.S. (1996) Who Takes theCredit? Gender, Power and Control over LoanInternational Journal of Ruralvol. 15 no. 1 April 2008Studies (IJRS)ISSN 1023–2001 www.ivcs.org.uk/IJRS Article 4 Page 6 of 8

Use in Rural Credit Programs in Bangladesh.World Development, 24 (1): 45-63.Grace, J. (2005) Who Owns the Farm? Rural Women’sAccess to Land and Livestock. Kabul:Afghanistan Research and Evaluation Unit(AREU).Husain, A.M.M. and Mallick, D. (1998) Conclusion andPolicy Implications, pp. 173-183, in: A.M.M.Husain (ed.) Poverty Alleviation andEmpowerment. Research and EvaluationDivision, BRAC Centre, Dhaka.IFPRI (2000) Resource Allocation and Empowerment ofWomen in Rural Bangladesh. International FoodPolicy Research Institute, Washington, DC.Meludu, N.T.; Ifie, P.A.; Akinbile, L.A. and Adekoya, E.A.(1999) The Role of Women in Sustainable FoodSecurity in Nigeria: A Case of Udu LocalGovernment Area of Delta State. Journal ofSustainable Agriculture, 15 (1): 87 - 97.Moser, C. (1993) Gender Planning and Development:Theory, Practice and Training. New York:Routledge.Murshid, S. and Yasmeen, A. (2004) Women of the Coast.Gender status paper, Program DevelopmentOffice for Integrated Coastal Zone ManagementPlan, Dhaka.Musokotwane, R., R.M. Siwale, and B. Nkhata (2001)Gender Awareness and Sensitization in BasicEducation. Paris: People’s Action ForumUNESCO Basic Education Division.Nichols, S.; Crowley, E. and Komjathy, K. (1999) Women’sAccess to Land: Surveyors can Make aDifference. Survey Quarterly, 20: 16-19.Pitt, M.M.; Khandker, S.R. and Cartwright, J. (2006)Empowering Women with Micro Finance:Evidence from Bangladesh. EconomicDevelopment and Cultural Change, 54 (4): 791–831.PRB (2005) Women of Our World. Population ReferenceBureau, Washington, DC. Available athttp://www.prb.org/pdf05/WomenOfOurWorld2005.pdf (searched date: 12 August 2007).Ramachandran, N. (2006) Women and Food Security inSouth Asia: Current Issues and EmergingConcerns. Research Paper No. 2006/131,UNICEF, New Delhi.Tamale, S. (2004) Gender Trauma in Africa: EnhancingWomen’s Links to Resources. Journal of AfricanLaw, 48 (1): 50-61.Valdivia, C. and Gilles, J. (2001) Gender and ResourceManagement: Households and Groups,Strategies and Transitions. Agriculture andHuman Value, 18 (1): 5-9.World Bank (2007) Global Monitoring Report 2007:Millennium Development Goals - Confronting theChallenges of Gender Equality and FragileStates. Washington, DC: The International Bankfor Reconstruction and Development/The WorldBank.International Journal of Ruralvol. 15 no. 1 April 2008Studies (IJRS)ISSN 1023–2001 www.ivcs.org.uk/IJRS Article 4 Page 7 of 8

International Journal of Ruralvol. 15 no. 1 April 2008Studies (IJRS)ISSN 1023–2001 www.ivcs.org.uk/IJRS Article 1 Page 8 of 8