Webinars on

Women’s Collective Action (WCA) in

Agricultural Markets

Webinar 2: Typology

August 30, 2011,12:00-14:00 (GMT)

Facilitated by

Three organisations with different perspectives, but a

common issue of interest

Collaboration to co-host

WCA webinars

WCA Webinars –a space where different organisations

can share their research and learning on WCA

WCA

Pathways

Programme

Researching

women’s

collective

action

project

Research on

member-based

organisations,

etc.

Webinar 3: Synthesis of

findings, WCA projectSep. 20

Webinar 2: Typology of collective

action

Webinar 1: Conceptual framework

Aug. 30

Webinars 4-6Starting in November

Theme 1: Tools for Analysing Collective Action

Themes and topics not yet identified

Suggestions welcome!

Road map for webinars

Objective for today’s webinar on the ‘Typology’:

•Establish a shared understanding of the strengths and limitations of the

characterisation used by Oxfam in Phase II of the WCA project

•Determine how the typology may be or applied

•Identify specific suggestions for further developing the typology on CA

Today !

Output: Summary

of feedback

Output: Summary

of feedbackSynthesis

paper

• Towards a typology on

WCA in agricultural

markets

• Lessons learned from a

typology on microfinance

organisations

• Comments and questions

to stimulate discussion

• Discussion in plenary

• Wrap up and next steps

Agenda for today

Sally Baden,

Oxfam

Anuj Jain,

Coady Institute

Mary, McVay,

Enterprise Dev. Kiosk

Ruth Vargas-Hill,

IFPRI

Design Finding

Different characteristics of CA groups

determine: • Who joins

• Functions

• Structure

• Interactions with others (inc market )

Characterising existing groups helps to: • Identify and compare gender-based patterns across

subsectors, countries

• (potentially) Guide practitioner thinking about pros and

cons of supporting different types of groups

Why a typology of WCA ?

LEGAL/POLICY

FRAMEWORK- Membership criteria

- Registration procedure

- Trading permit

PATTERNS OF

COLLECTIVE ACTION

Gender

relations

Social

capital

External

intervention

Membership

Gender

Composition

Functionality

Degree of

formality

Group

dynamics

& evolution

Governance

structure

CHARACTERISTICS OF

THE DIFFERENT SUB-

SECTORS-Barriers to women‟s entry

-Gender segregation in

various market segments

-Risks and opportunities

IMPROVED CAPACITY FOR WOMEN TO BECOME EFFECTIVE ACTORS IN THE MARKETNew spaces and roles for women

Capacity to negotiate more equitable terms of trade

Fewer barriers to women‟s participation in the sub-sector

Linking to the conceptual framework

Design FindingDimension Criteria

1. Characteristic

of the organisation

(function)

A. Specialised marketing (sub-sector-based)

B. Mixed marketing (working in several products/sub-sectors)

C. Mixed multi-purpose (marketing and other services)

D. Does not engage in markets directly, but facilitates market entry (e.g. finance, training, inputs)

2. Degree of

women's involvement

A. Passive members (mixed groups)

B. Active members (mixed groups)

C. Active members and hold positions of leadership (mixed groups)

D. Women-only group

3. Degree of formality

A. Formally registered, official name, well-defined rules and norms, explicit membership,

affiliated into an umbrella federation of similar organisations

B. Formally registered, etc., but not affiliated to higher tier federation

C. Semi-formal: non-registered, follows some agreed rules and norms, regular meetings and

activities, may have links with other organisations

D. Informal: non-registered, more ad hoc forms of collaboration, no formal partnerships/linkages

4. Degree of

external support

A. Mainly externally supported, highly dependent on one primary source of finance

B. Some level of ongoing external support (e.g. technical trainings, advice, funds)

C. Significant degree of autonomy despite past support

D. Group initiated by members and mainly reliant on internal resources

Characterisation for Phase II

research

Design FindingExample from Tanzania

Typology of CAStaple Export/

Traditional high value

Non-traditional

high value

Rice1 Maize2 Chickpea1 Allanblackia2 Local

chicken1

Vegetable2

1. Total number of CA groups 16 10 7 12 26 10

2. Characteristic of the organisation

Number of specialised groups 4 0 0 12 2 1

Number of multi-purpose groups 12 10 7 0 24 9

3. Degree of women’s involvement

Number of mixed groups 15 9 7 12 25 9

Number of women-only groups 1 1 0 0 1 1

4. Degree of formality

Number of formal groups 15 6 7 12 22 4

Number of informal groups 1 4 0 0 4 6

5. Degree of external support

Externally-supported 15 9 7 12 22 9

Self-driven 1 1 0 0 4 1

1Sub-sector in Shinyanga region,

2Sub-sector in Tanga region

DeIInisign Finding

Function:

• Specialised correlates with formal/ externally

supported

• Exports, esp HV non traditional exports :

specialised groups (e.g. tiger nuts, sesame, shea

butter, allanblackia, coffee). Mixed/ male

dominated; except shea butter?

• Women more present in multi-functional, service

and production oriented groups

• But many groups may co-exist

Initial findings

Design Finding

Degree of formality:

• Formal groups „the norm‟ across most sub-

sectors (not ground-nut/ millet and sorghum).

• Informal groups – mainly female participation

• Informal groups may support or be offshoots of

formal?

• Degree of external support:

• Some degree of support is the norm. Few

examples of self initiated groups?

Initial findings

Design Finding

Degree of women‟s participation:

• Low incidence of women only groups in Tanzania

compared to Ethiopia and esp. Mali?

• Women dominated groups in some sub-sectors

(shea butter, millet/sorghum, groundnuts, spices)

• Women dominated groups in some functions (e.g.

S&C, processing?)

Initial findings

Design Finding

• Function: some categories not covered;

multiple functions (as well as multi-sector)?

• Gender composition – a spectrum; women‟s

participation/ leadership conflated ?

• Missing: nature of relationship with market? – Informal trading networks

– Vertical alliance (PO)

– Horizontal collaboration

– Buyer driven/ company supported

– Hybrid/ cluster models

NB: How does this fit in conceptual frame?

Challenges

Design Finding

• Tension between complexity and usefulness

as tool? (esp. when multiple dimensions)

• Static nature of typology: does not capture

evolution of groups

Challenges

Design Finding:

• Phase II analysis: Completing gaps in data

where possible to finalise (inventories)

• Phase III research:

– Categories help with quant research (survey

design)?

– Use typology to focus our efforts on limited range of

categories/ cases

– Separate gender composition and women‟s

leadership - gender composition a primary

category of analysis

Ways forward: research

Design Finding:

Starting point is

„what types of organisation (or ways of

organising) work to engage women in

markets‟ and „how can practitioners support

them‟

Useful – but are we ready? Develop broad

categories and possible pros and cons?

Is a typology the best tool?

Ways forward: practitioner

guidance?

Anuj Jain

May 2011

Community Based

Microfinance Typology

Context Member

profile

Operating

Environ-

ment

Existing

Services

Program Interventions Approach/

Products

Delivery

Channel

Goals Impact Efficiency Sustainability

Program Design Framework

MFIs/ BanksMember owned

Institutions (MoIs)

Federation

4. VSNL groups3. SHGs/

Village Banks

2. Finance Association/

SACCOs

1. CU/ Finance Coop.

Community Based, Members Owned

Microfinance methodologies

Key difference

Formal Informal

VSLA/ Savings

Groups

Self Help

GroupsOnly savings V/s

External capital

Regulated/ registered

Credit

Unions and

large Coops.

SACCOs/

RuSACCOs/

FSAs

Finance +/ Multipurpose

Only FinancialRange of services

and products

Size of primary group

membership/

geographical cover

Scale of aggregation

More integrated in market system Less Integrated/ more decentralized

Influencing Factors - location, Livelihood opportunities, gender; governance and management capacity, range of finance products,

financial and institutional viability; linkages with formal sector; resources and goal of promoting org.

Financial / Support org

Institutional Approaches/

Banks/ MFIsOwnership

Federation/ II Tier and/ or III Tier organization

Microfinance approaches

• Mary McVay

Enterprise Development Kiosk

• Ruth Vargas-Hill

IFPRI

Commentators

Comments: Mary McVay

• Typologies in general are helpful for understanding and processing complex information – for laying a foundation for tools that practitioners can use to improve development outcomes.

• This typology is “true” – reflects reality. All these types exist. Useful for assessing the extent of different types indifferent sectors, regions, etc. But, are the defining factors of the different types what we want to measure, and why?

• What are the research questions? What are the hypotheses? This will help focus the framework and typology.

• Back to the beginning: The Framework is effective in today‟s format: as analytical tool and causal model .. i.e.– To help address the challenge: how is the group linking to the market?

Understanding of sub-sector (right) will provide this information

• Endorse: Program design framework – matching program to context, don‟t just study one element – the program, the CA

Comments: Mary McVay (cont.)

What are the research questions?• Measurement tool: how do we assess

effectiveness for women‟s equality and empowerment? Focus on women‟s benefits and power as determining factor of “type”. Assumption is that “characteristics” matter less or can vary according to context, all can work.

• Strategy option – which type or structure should we support in what context? What are best practices for each different type?

• What elements - across different types groups –support women‟s equality and empowerment?

Gender environment

• Individual: level of education, skill set

• Household: marital status, husband‟s location, roles, control over resources, norms

• Community/Culture: mobility, financial autonomy, roles

• Policy/rights

Sector Environment

• Gender identified crop?

• Responsibilities:

extent/type of women‟s

work

• Rights: to use land, to

determine crop strategy;

to access cash,

determine spending

• Gender roles along the

value chain: involvement,

power, exploitation

Comments: Mary McVay (cont.)

TypologyResearch questions

Comments: Mary McVay (cont.)

Comments: Ruth Vargas-Hill

• In its current form, the typology seems designed to categorise more than to draw comparisons and lend to hypotheses.

• Specifying the research question will help to guide the principles/dimensions that underpin the typology.

• Accounting for the relationship between markets and CA in one of these dimensions may be necessary to get an accurate picture of the dynamics of CA

• Find a balance between having a manageable number of categories of classification within the typology and having enough disaggregation so as to have some variation across the characteristics of each group.

Design Finding• What aspects of the typology of collective action in

agricultural markets resonate with you?

• What did you find surprising?

• What is missing?

• How can we build on this work on typology to:

– integrate research and practice?

– guide phase 3 of the research on WCA?

• Other comments?

Questions for discussion

• Main highlights of discussion

• Next steps

• Upcoming webinars:

– Synthesis of phase II findings, Sep. 20

– Webinars 4-6 starting in November (looking for

presenters!)

Summary and next steps

Finalise research design of

next phase

Summary of today’s webinar

discussion

Further develop typology

Complete Phase II

synthesis of findings paper