High Food Prices
Feminization and Gender Differentiated Effects
by: Gustavo Anríquez Agricultural Development Economics Division
FAO
♂ ♀
Outline
• Feminization: Is it a growing phenomenon?
• Gender and poverty, a review of the available evidence.
• The gender differentiated effects of high food prices.
Feminization: Individuals
Feminization: Households
ALB05BFA03
BGD00
BGR01
BRA01
CHL03COL00 CRI01
ECU95
GHA98
GTM00
HND03
IDN00
IND99
KHM04
MDG01
MEX02
MWI04
NGA04
NIC01NPL03
PAK01
PAN03
PER02
PRY01
THA02
TZA00
UGA00
VNM01
510
1520
2530
% F
em
ale
He
aded
Hou
seh
olds
2000 4000 6000 800010000GDP per Capita (PPP)
Gender and Poverty: Why the Bias
• FHH are expected to be poorer because:– lower earnings for the “bread earner” and exclusion
from higher paying jobs.– higher dependency ratios for the household.– Women take lower paying jobs to accommodate to
the time constraints given by household duties.– Women sometimes face obstacles in the
accumulation of assets like land and education• Women overall could be poorer:
– lower participation in labor markets– lower earnings– different demographic composition of households
Hypothesis: FHH are over-represented among the poorest
Per- capita Welfare
FGT0Headcount
FGT1Poverty Gap FGT2
Male Equal Female Male Equal Female Male Equal Female
5% Poorest
NationalHH 15 5 13 15 4 14 14 7 12
Rural HH 11 8 14 14 7 12 16 8 9
Poorest Decile
NationalHH 16 4 13 15 3 15 14 5 14
Rural HH 12 7 14 13 7 13 14 8 11
Poorest Quintile
NationalHH 16 7 10 15 5 13 15 3 15
Rural HH 12 8 13 12 7 14 13 7 13
Hypothesis 2: Women are over-represented among the poorest.
Per Capita Welfare
FGT0Headcount
FGT1Poverty Gap FGT2
Male Equal Female Male Equal Female Male Equal Female
5% Poorest
NationalGender 7 16 10 3 24 6 2 26 5
RuralGender 1 22 10 1 26 6 0 29 4
Poorest Decile
NationalGender 8 18 7 7 17 9 4 22 7
RuralGender 4 19 10 1 23 9 1 27 5
Poorest Quintile
NationalGender 9 15 9 9 13 11 8 16 9
RuralGender 3 20 10 3 17 13 2 20 11
Poverty and Gender
• The evidence paints a nuanced picture. Neither FHH nor women are more likely to be poorer than MHH or males.
• Rural FHH appear to fare worse.• Since it is not always the case, the goal is
to understand when FHH and females are poorer and why.
• Poverty is not the “holy grail” of gender inequality indicators.
Gender and High Food Prices
• In the short-run the increase in the price of food item (i) can be shown to have an effect in welfare:
• ∆W = pi Qi – pi qi (Qi = production and qi = consumption)
• Net Seller / Net Buyer.
• At FAO we simulated a 10% increase in the price of the main food staples.
Welfare Effects of Price Changes
Urban
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
Bangla
desh
Pakist
an
Tajikis
tan
Albania
Vietnam
Guate
mala
Nicara
gua
Ghana
Mala
wi
% c
hang
e in
wel
fare
Welfare Effects of Price ChangesRural
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
Bangla
desh
Pakist
an
Tajikist
an
Alban
ia
Vietn
am
Gua
tem
ala
Nicara
gua
Gha
na
Mala
wi
Expendtiture quintiles
% c
hang
e in
wel
fare
Poorest 2 3 4 Richest
Welfare Effects of Price ChangesDifferences by Gender
-1.20
-1.00
-0.80
-0.60
-0.40
-0.20
0.00
0.20
0.40
Bangla
desh
Pakist
anNepa
l
Tajikis
tan
Vietnam
Guate
mala
Nicara
gua
Panam
a
Ghana
Mala
wi
Albania
% C
hang
e in
wel
fare
(F
HH
-MH
H)
Rural Urban National
Why are FHH more affected
• FHH are more negatively affected from rising food prices because of two main reasons:
1. From the consumption side FHH for equivalent income levels tend to consume more food.
2. From the production side: FHH face numerous obstacles to produce at similar levels than MHH.
Gender Bias in the Access to Ag. Land-2
0-1
5-1
0-5
0
Ghana
98
Mad
agas
car9
3
Mala
wi04
Bangla
desh
00
Indo
nesia
00
Nepal9
6
Pakist
an01
Vietna
m98
Albania
05
Bulgar
ia01
Ecuad
or95
Guate
mala
00
Nicara
gua0
1
Panam
a03
% Land Owned by FHH - Prevalence of FHH% Landowning households that are FHH - Prevalence of FHH% Household renting-in land that are FHH -Prevalence of FHH
Conclusions
• Production constraints faced by FHH not only increase current welfare costs of spiking food prices; but also hinder the ability of FHH of participating in the benefits of any supply response from the agricultural sector.
• We need to better understand the link between gender and poverty, why conventional wisdom doesn’t always hold.
• The heterogeneous distribution of the gender imbalance both at the individual and household level call for care when making generalizations, be it descriptive or policy advice.
Top Related