A study of women farmers' empowerment in malawi through competitive analyses
-
Upload
loveness-msofi -
Category
Education
-
view
502 -
download
7
Transcript of A study of women farmers' empowerment in malawi through competitive analyses
國立屏東科技大學熱帶農業暨國際合作系
Department of Tropical Agriculture and International Cooperation
National Pingtung University of Science and Technology
碩士學位論文
Master’s Thesis
透過比較分析以賦權馬拉威婦女農民之研究
A Study of Women Farmers’ Empowerment in Malawi through Competitive
Analyses
指導教授: 鍾惠雯 (Rebecca Chung, PhD)
研究生: (Loveness Msofi)
中華民國 2012 年 6 月 7 日
June 7, 2012
表格
編號
:M
06
摘要
學號: M9922019
論文題目: 透過比較分析以賦權馬拉威婦女農民之研究
總頁數:
學校名稱: 國立屏東科技大學系 (所) 別: 熱帶農業暨國際合作研究所
畢業時間及摘要別: 碩士
研究生姓名: 指導教授: 鍾惠雯
論文摘要內容:
馬拉維是其經濟嚴重依賴農業的最不發達國家之一。女農民作為生產者,工人和企業家在農業部門發揮至關重要的作用。然而,他們遇到很多挑戰,這限制了他們的潛力充分促進該部門的經濟重要性。由於這個原因,一些干預已發展到授權和支持女農民。本研究的主要目的是通過競爭性分析,以確定婦女農民權力和建議的最佳策略,以提高他們的競爭力。研究中使用的 SWOT 分析的優勢,劣勢,機會和威脅進行分析,來賦予婦女農民的戰略。該研究還分析了競爭力,確定基於波特的鑽石模型,採用層次分析法(AHP)的元素。研究中使用的意見領袖誰是熟悉婦女農民偏好數據。 45 受訪者包括 5 研究人員,10 個推廣工作者和 30 個農民選擇從 Rumphi 在馬拉維北部地區的區。結果顯示,受訪者有不同的優先級,以提高婦女農民的競爭力的重要因素。與會者認為,需求條件,戰略,結構和競爭,以及政府的作用是最重要的。與會者還認為,最重要的因素是市場的可用性,可用性和電源輸入和合同農業的一致性。結果還顯示,賦予婦女權力的農民最重要的替代戰略,形成生產營銷隊伍(光電倍增管),擴展可用性和培訓,以及建立婦女農民協會。總之,這些結果為女性農民有關的政策和方案發展提供了重要的見解。
I
它也可以建議有需要利益相關者之間的合作,賦予婦女權力的農民,使他 們 能 夠 在 農 業 部 門 的 競 爭 力 , 成 為 與 適 當 的 干 預 措 施 來 。
關鍵詞:馬拉維婦女農民,增強能力,提高競爭力,SWOT 分析,波特的鑽石模型,層次分析法(AHP)
II
English Abstract
Student ID: M9922019
Title of thesis: A Study of Women Farmers’ Empowerment in Malawi
through Competitive Analyses
Total pages:
Name of institute: Department of Tropical Agriculture and International
Cooperation, National Pingtung University of Science and
Technology
Graduation date: June 15, 2012 Degree Conferred: Masters
Name of student: Loveness Msofi Advisor: Rebecca Chung, PhD
The content of abstract in this thesis:
The contribution of Malawian women farmers to the agriculture sector
cannot be overemphasized. However, women farmers face many challenges
that limit their potential to contribute fully to the economic importance of the
sector. In response, a number of interventions have been developed which are
aimed at empowering and supporting women farmers. The main objective of
this study was to determine women farmers’ empowerment through
competitive analyses. This was done by identifying factors of competitiveness
and determining their importance in empowering women farmers. The study
used a SWOT analysis to come up with strengths, weaknesses, opportunities
and threats and to formulate strategies for empowering women farmers. A
Porter’s Diamond Model was used to identify factors of competitiveness.
Then, an Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method was employed to
determine the importance of the competitiveness factors. The study used
III
preference data from experts who are familiar with issues concerning women
farmers. A total of 45 respondents comprising of 5 researchers, 10 extension
IV
workers and 30 women farmers was selected for this study. The participants
perceived that demand conditions, government role and strategy, structure and
rivalry were the most important factors. Participants also perceived that the
most important sub-factors were availability of markets, availability and
consistency of supply inputs and contract farming. Results also revealed that
the most important alternative strategies for empowering women farmers were
establishment of women farmers associations, availability of extension and
training as well as formation of Production Marketing Teams (PMTs). In
conclusion, these results provide important insights for policy and program
developments relating to women farmers. Results revealed that respondents
had different priorities regarding the important factors and alternative
strategies. This shows that there is no single strategy that is superior in
empowering women farmers to enhance their competitiveness. Therefore, it
can be recommended that there is need to use multiple alternative strategies
for empowering women farmers. There is also need for collaboration among
the stakeholders, to come up with appropriate interventions for empowering
women farmers so that they can become competitive in the agricultural sector.
Keywords: Malawian women farmers, empowerment, competitiveness, SWOT
analysis, Porter’s Diamond Model, Analytic Hierarchy Process
(AHP)
V
Dedication
I dedicate this paper to family, my dad B.S. Msofi; my mum Esnart
Cecilia Msofi; my siblings Peter, Dominic, Raphael, Stuart, Bias, and
Dorothy for their love and support throughout the period of my study. Special
thanks to my lovely sister Bernadette who assisted me in collecting data for
this research. I also dedicate my work to my love Elton Eric Chikondi
Mgalamadzi for being there for me and encouraging me throughout my study
period. You all mean a lot to me and I love you all very much.
VI
Acknowledgements
First, I would like to thank God for giving me courage, wisdom and
patience to make this possible. I also thank NPUST Scholarship for giving me
the opportunity to study in Taiwan and to get my Masters degree. I really
appreciate the support and guidance from Barbara and all the Office of
International Affairs staff.
I would like to acknowledge the input and supervision of my Advisor
Dr. Rebecca Chung. You were very encouraging, you tirelessly helped me
throughout the writing of this paper and contributing positively to my career
and professional life, you will always be remembered for that. You made me
strong and I have learned a lot from you that will help me grow.
Similarly, I am thankful to each professor that taught me and helped me
gain knowledge, skills and experience. I have learned a lot from you all and I
appreciate the knowledge and manners you gave me. I also thank all the staff
of DTAIC and my classmates.
My sincere gratitude also goes to my bosses at work in Malawi, Ms
Frieda Kayuni and Mr. Mataka for their efforts to ensure that I came to
Taiwan to further my studies. I am grateful to the Ministry of Agriculture and
Food Security in Malawi especially to my workmates at Blantyre District
Agriculture Office for their support.
I am also indebted to my country mates I met here in Taiwan, Mwiza,
Glory and Chifundo, for being there for me and making my life easier. I love
you all. Friends and relatives so numerous to mention please receive my
heartfelt thanks.
VII
Table of Contents
摘要...................................................................................................................I
English Abstract..............................................................................................III
Dedication.........................................................................................................V
Acknowledgements.........................................................................................VI
Table of Contents...........................................................................................VII
List of Figures...................................................................................................X
List of Tables...................................................................................................XI
List of Acronyms...........................................................................................XII
1. Introduction.................................................................................................1
1.1. Background Information.......................................................................1
1.1.1. Agriculture in Malawi....................................................................1
1.1.2. Women in Malawian Agriculture...................................................1
1.1.3. Women Empowerment in Malawi..................................................4
1.2. Research Objectives..............................................................................5
2. Literature Review........................................................................................7
2.1. Women Empowerment.........................................................................7
VIII
2.2. Competitiveness..................................................................................13
2.3. Methods for Measuring Competitiveness...........................................17
3. Methodology.............................................................................................26
3.1. The Research Framework...................................................................26
3.1.1. The SWOT Analysis Application.................................................28
3.1.2. Strategy Formulation for Malawian Women Farmers..................35
3.1.3. Porter’s Diamond Model Application..........................................37
3.1.4. Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) Method Application.............42
3.2. Questionnaire Design..........................................................................44
3.3. Sampling Plan.....................................................................................45
3.4. Statistical Analysis..............................................................................46
4. Results and Discussion..............................................................................48
4.1. Characteristics of Survey Respondents...............................................48
4.2. Results of Respondent’s Opinions on Elements of Competitiveness. 51
4.3. Results of AHP Model Analysis for the Competitiveness Elements..52
4.3.1. Results of Criteria Analysis..........................................................53
4.3.2. Factor Conditions.........................................................................55
4.3.3. Demand Conditions......................................................................58
4.3.4. Related and Supporting Industries................................................60
IX
4.3.5. Strategy, Structure and Rivalry....................................................61
4.3.6. Government Role..........................................................................63
4.3.7. Results of the overall analysis......................................................65
4.3.8. Results of the Analysis of Alternatives........................................67
5. Conclusions and Recommendations.........................................................71
5.1. Conclusions.........................................................................................71
5.2. Recommendations...............................................................................73
5.3. Future Research..................................................................................74
References.......................................................................................................75
Appendices......................................................................................................91
Appendix I. Data Analysis Outputs..............................................................91
Appendix II. Questionnaire for Researchers and Extension Workers.......101
Appendix III. Questionnaire for Farmers...................................................112
Bio-Sketch of the Author..............................................................................123
X
List of Figures
Figure 3-1. Research framework to determine the competitiveness of
Malawian women farmers...............................................................................27
Figure 3-2. Modified Diamond Model, adapted from Porter (1990)..............41
Figure 3-3. AHP hierarchical structure...........................................................44
Figure 4-1. Characteristics of researchers and extension workers..................48
Figure 4-2. Characteristics of farmers.............................................................49
Figure 4-3. Economic activities of women farmers........................................50
Figure 4-4. Summary of the expert’s priorities of the criteria with respect to
the goal............................................................................................................53
Figure 4-5. Summary of expert’s priorities of the factor conditions...............55
Figure 4-6. Summary of experts’ priorities of the demand conditions...........58
Figure 4-7. Summary of experts’ priorities of the related and supporting
industries.........................................................................................................60
Figure 4-8. Summary of expert priorities of strategy, structure and rivalry
factors..............................................................................................................61
Figure 4-9. Summary of experts’ priorities of the roles of the government....63
Figure 4-10. Summary of expert’s priorities of the alternatives.....................67
XI
List of Tables
Table 3-1. SWOT matrix for Malawian women farmers................................36
Table 3-2. Strategies formulated for Malawian women farmers.....................37
Table 3-3. Standard preference scoring system for AHP, (Saaty, 1990)........43
Table 3-4. Random Index Numbers (Saaty, 1990)..........................................47
Table 4-1. Summary of expert’s opinions on the elements of competitiveness
.........................................................................................................................51
Table 4-2. Summary of the expert’s priorities of the criteria with respect to the
goal..................................................................................................................53
Table 4-3. Summary of expert’s priorities of the factor conditions................56
Table 4-4. Summary of experts’ priorities of the demand conditions.............58
Table 4-5. Summary of experts’ priorities of related and supporting industries
.........................................................................................................................60
Table 4-6. Summary of experts’ priorities of strategy, structure and rivalry. .62
Table 4-7. Summary of experts’ priorities of the role of government.............64
Table 4-8. Overall analysis results of the first 5 priority sub-criteria.............66
Table 4-9. Summary of experts’ priorities of the alternatives.........................67
XII
List of Acronyms
AHP – Analytic Hierarchy Process
AIDS – Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome
ASTI – Agriculture Research and Technology Indicators
AWARD – African Women in Agriculture Research and Development
CSW – Commission on the Status of Women
EPA – Extension Planning Area
EU – European Union
FAO – Food and Agriculture Organisation
FISP – Farm Input Subsidy Programme
GAD – Gender and Development
GDP – Gross Domestic Product
GOM – Government of Malawi
HIV – Human Immuno-deficiency Virus
IFAD – International Fund for Agricultural Development
IFPRI – International Food Policy Research Institute
MDGs – Millennium Development Goals
MGDS – Malawi Growth and Development Strategy
XIII
MoAFS – Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security
XIV
NGO – Non-Governmental Organisation
NSO – National Statistical Office
OECD – Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development
PDM – Porters Diamond Model
PMTs – Production Marketing Teams
RCA – Revealed Comparative Advantage
UNDP – United Nations Development Programs
UNICEF – United Nations Children’s Fund
WID – Women in Development
XV
1. Introduction
This chapter gives an overview of the study on women farmers’
empowerment in Malawian agriculture sector. The background information
on agriculture in Malawi will be presented besides women farmers’
contribution to the agriculture sector. Challenges that women farmers face are
presented and a brief background of women empowerment in Malawi is
presented. Furthermore, the chapter presents objectives of this research.
1.1. Background Information
1.1.1. Agriculture in Malawi
Malawi is one of the countries in Southern Africa heavily dependent on
agriculture; in 2010 it contributed about 35 percent towards Gross Domestic
Product (GDP) (World Bank, 2010). The Agricultural sector in Malawi
employs about 85 percent of the population, and provides over 80 percent of
foreign exchange which was reported in the Malawi government 2010
Integrated Household Survey (National Statistical Office, GOM, 2010).
Above all, agriculture contributes significantly to national and household food
security (GOM, 2010). Most Malawians make their daily living from small-
scale agriculture, and the majority of Malawi’s population relies on
agriculture for their livelihoods (GOM, 2010). The agricultural sector
comprises of the estates and smallholder subsectors. The smallholder
agriculture subsector contributes over 30 percent towards the Gross Domestic
Product (GDP) (World Bank, 2010).
1.1.2. Women in Malawian Agriculture
It is estimated that 70 percent of the agricultural labour force in both
smallholder and estate agriculture is provided by women (World Bank, 1991).
This indicates the importance of women farmers in Malawi; however, it also
1
means that women are thus particularly affected by any constraints to
productivity arising in this sector. The majority of women are found in the
2
smallholder agriculture sector, which is characterized by low incomes due to
low productivity and unfavorable input/output prices ratios. However, both
gender categories (men and women) are actively involved in agriculture with
different activities depending on their gender roles and priorities (Hirschmann
and Vaughan, 1984). This is because agriculture is the main source of the
majority of the people’s livelihoods in terms of cash income, food security,
and source of employment. Research has revealed that women are more
involved in agriculture than men (Saito, Mekonnen and Spurling, 1994).
Empirical evidence also reveals that despite women’s large involvement in
agriculture as workers, farmers and agro-entrepreneurs, they have not
received much of the benefits that accrue from agriculture (FAO, 2010a). This
has fueled debates as to what should be done to improve the situation so that
women farmers can benefit. Government and the private sectors have
formulated interventions for women empowerment to improve their
conditions in the agricultural sector since their role is crucial to improvement
of people’s livelihoods, as well as for the economic growth of the country. As
a result, over the years, food security has improved because of an increase in
maize production, which is a staple food, and the country has experienced an
increase in agricultural exports. In all these improvements, the contribution of
women farmers cannot be overemphasized.
Women farmers produce most of the food consumed in the domestic
and international markets. They produce a variety of crops mostly for
subsistence, which are indigenous varieties of maize, pulses, sorghum, millet,
groundnuts, cassava and vegetables. Women tend to sell surpluses of these
subsistence crops to cater for other livelihood needs of the households. On the
other hand, men concentrate on commercial cash crops that are mostly hybrid
varieties of maize, tobacco, cotton and some varieties of groundnuts high in
oil content (Cromwell and Winpenny, 1993). While literature often states that
cash and export crops are male crops while subsistence crops are cultivated by
women, the lines of distinction are often blurred (Doss, 2001).
3
Despite the general situation about women’s involvement in
subsistence agriculture, they are also actively involved in the commercial
agricultural production as helpers. Research indicates that under both
subsistence and cash crop farming systems, women work more hours
compared to men (Engberg, Sabry and Beckerson, 1988; Government of
Malawi (GOM)/United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), 1987). In
general, women farmers are involved in activities categorised as productive,
reproductive and community activities. As part of productive activities, they
engage in farm and off- farm activities such as crops and livestock production
and small businesses, however, their opportunities for earning income in off-
farm activities are constrained by lack of time. The reproductive activities
include child bearing and rearing, household keeping activities (cooking,
washing, cleaning, etc) (World Bank, 1991 and Davison, 1992). The
community roles of women involve attending community ceremonies and
functions including developmental activities of the community (Brydon and
Chart, 1989).
Despite efforts to improve the conditions of women in agriculture,
women farmers face a number of challenges that limit their potential to
exploit the opportunities in the agricultural sector (Tiessen, 2008). A great
deal of research has documented the challenges that women face which
include small land holding sizes and lack of land rights (World Bank, 1991;
Segal, 1986 and Kenedy and Peters, 1992). They lack access to cash income
for purchase of household consumption requirements and critical inputs (Due
and Gladwin, 1991 and Hirschmann and Vaughan, 1984). Extension services
are currently male biased in personnel and consequently in coverage, with
women farmers often suffering from exclusion (Doss, 2001; Due, Magayane,
and Temu, 1997; (GOM)/UNICEF, 1987 and Mkandawire, 1989). Women
farmers are less likely than men to use modern inputs such as improved seeds,
fertilizers, pest control measures and mechanical tools (Due and Gladwin,
1991; (GOM)/UNICEF, 1987 and Spring, 1988). They also use less credit and
4
often do not control the credit they obtain (World Bank, 1991; Burgess, 1991
and Hirschmann and Vaughan, 1984). Finally, women have less education,
which makes it more difficult to gain access to and use some of the other
resources, such as land, credit and fertilizer (World Bank, 1991 and GOM,
1994).
The obstacles that confront women farmers mean that their productivity
is lower than their male counterparts are. Solid empirical evidence shows that
if women farmers used the same level of resources as men on the land they
farm, they would obtain the same yield levels (Gilbert, Sakala, and Benson,
2002; Quisumbing, 1996 and FAO, 2010b). Therefore, it is necessary to
evaluate the competitiveness of women farmers in the agricultural sector.
1.1.3. Women Empowerment in Malawi
Due to the women farmer’s substantial contribution to Malawian
agriculture, efforts have been made to empower them through implementation
of policies, programs and projects. The private sectors and Non-Governmental
Organisations (NGOs) have also implemented various interventions aimed at
empowering and supporting women farmers. Interventions like promoting
women and girls education; promoting income-generating activities among
women; promoting use of labor and time saving technologies; promoting the
growing of high-value agricultural crops; promoting value addition to
agricultural products among others. The government through the Ministry of
Agriculture and Food Security in the Department of Agricultural Extension
Services promotes gender mainstreaming across all the agricultural
development programs to enhance women farmer’s contribution to the
economic importance of agriculture in the country. The government
incorporates gender issues at policy level by formulating and implementing
policies that are sensitive to gender issues. In most of the policy documents
that are adopted and implemented by the government, for example the Malawi
Growth and Development Strategy (MGDS), the Millennium Development
5
Goals (MDG) of the United Nations, there is a provision to address gender
issues.
Similarly, along with the gender approaches to development, there has
been a shift in the approaches to development in the agriculture sector. The
government, through the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security has also
adopted these approaches. The current empowerment approach Gender and
Development (GAD) (Moser, 1993) is more concerned about gender and
gender relations in the agricultural sector looking at how gender relations
affects planning and implementation of agricultural development
programmes. It emphasizes the inclusion of men and other gender categories
in the planning and implementation of agricultural programmes since all have
an impact on the gender relations that exist in the household. This is done
with the aim of improving women’s access to benefits that are realized from
agriculture.
1.2. Research Objectives
Considering the importance of agriculture sector and the crucial roles of
women farmers in Malawian agriculture, it is fundamental to attach the
importance of women farmers to the growth of the sector, improvement of
people’s livelihoods and economic growth of the country. However, the
challenges that women farmers face limit their potential to contribute
effectively towards the sector. Despite the challenges women face and the
existing gender inequalities in the agriculture sector, women farmers remain
the important players in the sector.
Studies on women farmers in Malawi have focused much on gender
roles in the agriculture sector (Engberg, Sabry and Beckerson, 1988;
(GOM)/UNICEF, 1987). Gender division of labour and challenges that
women farmers face (Tiessen, 2008; World Bank, 1991; Segal, 1986; Kenedy
and Peters, 1992; Doss, 2001; Due, Magayane and Temu, 1997 and
Mkandawire, 1989). However, there is no information regarding studies on
6
competitiveness analyses on women farmers in Malawi. Therefore, the aim of
this study is to conduct competitive analyses on Malawian women farmers’
empowerment by determining the importance of different competitive factors
in empowering women farmers. The study also seeks to evaluate the
importance of different alternatives to empower and support women farmers.
The main objective of this study was to determine women farmer’s
empowerment in Malawi through analysis of their competitiveness in the
agriculture sector. The specific objectives of this research were:
1. To identify and analyse the importance of competitiveness elements that
enhance the competitive advantage of Malawian women farmers.
2. To evaluate important alternatives and strategies for empowering women
farmers in Malawian agricultural sector.
3. To come up with recommendations for empowering and supporting
women farmers so that they can achieve competitive advantage.
7
8
2. Literature Review
This chapter aims to review literature on women empowerment and
competitiveness. Emphasis is put on general understanding and review of
studies on the terms. There are four sections in this chapter. The first section
presents the general understanding of women empowerment and a review of
literature. The second section describes competitiveness in terms of
definitions as presented in literature. The third section is a review of studies
on competitiveness. Lastly, this chapter presents methods for measuring
competitiveness.
2.1. Women Empowerment
Women empowerment is a process whereby women become able to
organize themselves to increase their own self-reliance, to assert their
independent right to make choices and to control resources that will assist in
challenging and eliminating their own subordination (Keller and Mbwewe,
1991). Empowerment of different groups of women has been the subject of
many studies. Since the mid 1980s, the term has been particularly attractive to
third world feminist scholars and practitioners. For example, (Afshar, 1998),
who were concerned with integrating poor women in development projects in
such a way that this would bring greater self-reliance, and enable them to
challenge their highly disadvantaged positions in the society and family,
gaining control over lives. The World Food Summit Plan of Action (1996)
recognizes the importance of the empowerment of women to the achievement
of food security and the need to remove the constraints hindering them.
Commitment one of the World Food Summit Plan of Action reads:
“We will ensure an enabling political, social, and economic environment
designed to create the best conditions for the eradication of poverty and for
9
durable peace, based on full and equal participation of women and men,
which is most conducive to achieving sustainable food security for all.”
10
In her analysis of gender planning, Moser (1993) identified five
different approaches to policymaking vis-à-vis women. These were welfare,
equity, antipoverty, efficiency and empowerment approaches. The welfare
approach was the most dominant during the 1950s and 1960s. It places
emphasis on women’s roles as caregivers and sees them as passive
beneficiaries of development. The main method of implementation was
through “top-down” handouts of free goods and services or through training
in those skills deemed appropriate for non-working homemakers and mothers.
In other words, this approach does not challenge women’s traditional roles as
wives and mothers responsible for the welfare of the family. In turn, the
equity, antipoverty and efficiency approaches were developed in the mid
1970s and onwards. While the first focused on women’s need to gain equity
with men in the development process by means of top-down legislation and
other measures, the antipoverty and efficiency approaches aimed at ensuring
that poor women increase their “productivity” and participation in the
economy.
All four approaches were based on Women in Development (WID)
premises that women have been “marginalized” and need to be “integrated” in
to development. From this perspective, women were considered a valuable
“resource” of development and are entirely in terms of their delivery capacity
and ability to extend their working day, rather than as development agents
capable of bringing about social change. All four approaches fail to recognize
the complex interaction between women’s role as producers, reproducers and
community organizers and ignore the fact that women are already
participating in the productive sector in considerable numbers. By contrast,
the empowerment approach derives from Gender and Development (GAD)
ideas. Rathgeber (quoted in Braidotti, 1994) summarized this position as
follows:
11
“The gender and development trend analyze the nature of women’s
contribution inside and outside the household. It sees women as agents of
change rather than as passive recipients of development assistance. It also
questions the underlying assumptions of current social, economic and
political structures and leads not only to the design of interventions and
affirmative action strategies which will ensure that women are better
integrated in to on-going development efforts but also to a fundamental
reexamination of social structures and institutions.”
Thus, the empowerment approach places considerable attention on
women’s triple roles as producers, reproducers and community organizers,
and stresses the importance of bottom-up mobilization as a means to confront
oppression. Although empowerment approach is the most desirable in terms
of equality, it is by no means the most widely practiced.
Concern over women’s subordination in law is not new. Beginning
from the nineteenth century and to the twentieth century, the world has
witnessed innumerable women’s movements seeking to pressure governments
and societies to recognize not only women’s civil rights but also that woman
should enjoy equal working conditions and wages. However, it was not until
feminist movements gained recognition in the seventies and the United
Nations women’s decade achieved significant advances, that it became
possible to conduct a series of studies on rural women. These studies show
clearly and conclusively that women’s contribution to the development
process is much greater than previously assumed, and that women suffer from
problems stemming from traditional gender-based division of labor, which
sees them exclusively taken up with their reproductive role as mothers and
homemakers.
Boserup’s book, Women’s Role in Economic Development (1970) was
critical for the emergence of women as a consistency of development
(Kabeer, 1995). The declaration of the first development decade (1961-70)
12
did not refer to women, but the international development strategy for the
second decade (1970s) encouraged “the full integration of women in the total
development effort.” Empowering women for development should have high
returns in terms of increased output, greater equity and social progress
(Kabeer, 1995). Policies to improve women’s employment and educational
opportunities, political participation and physical and mental well-being have
been given high international profile since 1975.
The “status of women” as well as the factors that confer the status
varies considerably across regions. A woman’s status is often described in
terms of her income, employment, education, health, and fertility as well as
the roles she plays within a family, the community and society. It also
involves society’s perception of these roles and the value it places them. The
status of women implies a comparison with the status of men and is therefore
a significant reflection of the level of social justice in the society (UNDP,
1995). Women’s low status and lack of decision-making power are some of
the reasons why sub-Saharan African countries have the highest rates if
illiteracy among women. As female children of illiterate women are unlikely
to have basic primary school education, the impact of poor education is
passed on to the daughter generations. Thus, there is a big challenge to break
the vicious cycle of poor education and poverty by gender-oriented literacy
campaign (Kabira, Gachukia and Matiiangi, 1997).
The improvement of women’s education opportunities can empower
them and bring positive impact on the achievement of food security. There is
a gap between women and men literacy rate (FAO, 2011). Improving
women’s education can improve their abilities and thus can play a vital role in
the development program. The 1996 World Food Summit acknowledged both
women’s fundamental contributions to food security and the importance of
enabling women to have equal access to educational opportunities. It is
insufficient to increase women’s education opportunities, however, without at
the same time ensuring that women can benefit equally from these
13
opportunities. Educational opportunities and empowerment of women go
hand in hand, education contributes to the empowerment of women and the
empowerment of women makes it possible for women to benefit from
educational opportunities.
Human capital is a major factor in determining opportunities available
to individuals in society and is closely linked to the productive capacity of
households and their economic and social well-being. The level of human
capital available in a household (usually measured as the education of the
household head or average age of working-age adults in the household) is
strongly correlated with measures such as agricultural productivity, household
income, and nutritional outcomes – all of which ultimately affect household
welfare and economic growth at national level (World Bank, 2007a). The
education gender gap in levels of enrollment and attainment remains wide in
Southern Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, however, progress has been made to
narrow this gap. A survey by the Agricultural Science and Technology
Indicators (ASTI) and the African Women in Agricultural Research and
Development (AWARD) in 2008 in 15 sub-Saharan African countries found
out that the pool of female professional staff increased by 50 percent between
2000/01 and 2007/08. The survey also found out that the share of women in
total professional staff increased from 18 – 24 percent over the period
(Beintema, 2006; Beintema and Di Marcantonio, 2009).
Provision of agricultural extension services to women farmers helps to
empower them with technical knowledge required for their enterprises.
Extension services encompass the wide range of services provided by experts
in the areas of agriculture, agribusiness, health and others and are designed to
improve productivity and the overall well-being of the rural populations. The
provision of agricultural extension services can lead to significant yield
increases, yet extension provision in developing countries remains low for
both men and women, and women tend to make less use of extension services
(Meinzen-Dick et al., 2010). According to a 1988-89 FAO survey of
14
extension organizations covering 97 countries with sex-disaggregated data,
only 5 percent of all extension resources were directed towards women.
Moreover, only 15 percent of the extension personnel were female (FAO,
1993). Extension service agents tend to approach male farmers more often
than female because of the general misconception that women do not farm
and that extension advice will eventually trickle down from the male
household head to all other household members. Women farmers are less
likely to access resources and may therefore be bypassed by extension service
providers (Meinzen-Dick et al., 2010). Time constraints and cultural
reservations may also hinder women from participating in extension activities
(Meinzen-Dick et al., 2010). In response, several new and participatory
extension approaches have been developed and tested in an effort to move
away from the top-down model of extension service delivery to more farmer-
driven services. These approaches can target women effectively and increase
their participation and uptake of innovations (Davis et al., 2009)
Financial services such as savings, credit and insurance provide
opportunities for improving agricultural output, food security and economic
vitality at the household, community and national levels. A report by FAO
indicated that improving women’s direct access to financial resources is one
way of empowering women economically and it leads to higher investments
in human capital in the form of children’s health, nutrition and education
(FAO, 2011). Evidence shows that credit markets are not gender-neutral.
Legal barriers and cultural norms sometimes bar women from holding bank
accounts or entering into financial contracts in their own right. Women
generally have less control over the type of fixed assets that are usually
necessary as collateral for loans. Institutional discrimination by private and
public lending institutions often either ration women out of the market or
grant women loans that are smaller than those granted to men for similar
activities (Fletschner, 2009 and World Bank, FAO and IFAD, 2009). In
Nigeria for example, 14 percent of males compared to only 5 percent of
females obtained formal credit while in Kenya the percentages were 14
15
percent males and 4 percent females respectively (Saito, Mekonnen and
Spurling, 1994).
2.2. Competitiveness
It is important to be clear about what exactly the term
“competitiveness" means as there is much debate on this subject. Banse et al.
(1999) pointed out that “no single measure or definition of competitiveness
has gained the universal acceptance of either economists or management
theorists.” There has been a profusion of definitions applied to different
organizational and spatial entities like firms, sectors, industries, regions, and
states, and to proxies such as the balance of payments, market shares, costs,
and job creation. Most authors use the term to refer to an advantage of firms
or industries vis-à-vis their competitors in domestic or international markets.
Some authors have extended the meaning to entire economies (World
Economic Forum, 1995; Markusen, 1992 and Porter, 1990). Competitiveness
is equivalent to strong performance of economies relative to other countries,
where strong performance can mean economic growth, success in exports and
increased wellbeing. It is clear that economy-wide conditions such as
generally high levels of education, productivity, natural resource endowment
and business-friendly economic policies, can have significant impacts on the
competitiveness of specific firms and industries (Cockburn et al., 1998). The
definition of competitiveness in a more general outlook is referred to as the
ability of providing products and services with a satisfactory profit in an
international competitive environment (Reve and Mathiensen, 1994). This
study focuses on this definition to evaluate the competitiveness of women
farmers in Malawi.
Scientific discussion and efforts for giving an initial definition for
“competitiveness” flourished in the 1980s in many countries. This discussion
was a result of the booming technological evolution, the rapid globalization of
markets and trading and the total economical activity. Since 1990s and the
early 21st century the constitutional nature of competition radically
16
transformed (Tapscott, 2001), thus demanding new fundamental principles on
the scientific research of the term.
In academic studies, economic competitiveness has been defined in
several ways. The most systematic work in this connection has been done by
Trabold, who distinguishes between four important aspects of competitiveness
(Trabold, 1995).
1. Ability to sell (export ability)
2. Ability to attract foreign investment and labour force (location)
3. Ability to adjust to changing environmental conditions
4. Ability to earn (to cover the current expenses and investment needs
with income and to show profit).
Considering competitiveness specifically for agricultural sector, various
approaches have been applied following a number of different methodologies
for quantitative considerations. Gorton et al. (2001) estimated Poland’s
agricultural competitiveness based on the Domestic Resource Cost Model
(DRC) (Pearson and Meyer, 1974). This model measures domestic production
effectiveness in agricultural sector in terms of international prices. Gorton et
al. (2006) also followed this method for estimating Hungary’s agricultural
sector competitiveness. Lee et al. (2003) also used the same method but in
combination with Net Private Profitability (NPP) method in order to estimate
aquaculture sector competitiveness between Taiwan, Japan and China. Banse
et al. (1999) computed the DRC ratios for various crops (wheat, barley,
maize, rapeseed and sunflower) and livestock (beef, pork and milk) sectors in
Hungary during 1990-96. Gorton, Davidova, and Ratinger (2000) again
calculated the DRC for the main Bulgarian and Czech agricultural
commodities during 1994-96 and adjusted it using EU15 output and input
prices, in order to assess the commodities competitiveness with regard to the
world and to the EU15. Also using the DRC ratio and farm-level data,
17
(Gorton et al., 2001) investigated how competitive Polish agriculture was
between 1996 and 1998.
Ahearn, Culver, and Schoney (1990) compared the competitiveness of
wheat production in the United States and Canada by calculating costs of
production in 1986-87. In the same way, (Bureau and Butault, 1992)
calculated the costs of production for the EU countries in 1984 to assess their
competitiveness in the soft wheat, sugar beet, hog and milk sectors. Again,
Bureau, Butault, and Hoque (1992) investigated the competitiveness in wheat
production of EU countries and the United States in 1984-86, by calculating
costs of production as an average over the period. Similarly, (Thorne, 2005)
measured the competitiveness of cereal production in Denmark, Germany,
France, Ireland, Italy and the United Kingdom during 1996-2000 by
calculating various cost indicators: total costs as a percentage of the value of
total output (including area payments); margin over costs per 100 kilograms
of output volume; and margin over costs per hectare of cereal production.
In order to assess the competitiveness of Canada’s agri-food industry in
1986, (van Duren et al., 1991) used three profit measures. He calculated the
profits by the ratio of value added to sales; value added to workers; or value
added to plants. These three indicators were then aggregated to compare the
competitiveness of Canada, the EU and the United States, according to their
ranking with each indicator. Viaene and Gellynck (1998) also evaluated the
competitiveness of the pig meat processing sector in Belgium during 1987-93
by looking at several profitability measures: the net sales margin (i.e. the net
profit relative to the level of sales); the business assets turnover (i.e. sales
divided by business assets); the ratio of net profits on own funds; and the
financial leverage. To evaluate the competitiveness of the Czech dairy
industry, (Bavorova, 2003) computed a yearly profitability measure as a
percentage of total profit in total costs.
18
Alvarano, Morina and Bol (2008) conducted another research to
investigate the communities that border the Parismina River of Costa Rica.
The main purpose of this study was to identify the structural weaknesses that
are present in enterprises of the region and the impact of these weaknesses on
the competitiveness factors identified by Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD). The results indicated that factors
such as the organizational structure and the development of linkages across
the value chain severely affected business competitiveness in the region. In
addition, the ability to make decisions strengthened negotiation and marketing
position.
Mulder et al. (2004) investigated the competitiveness of agriculture and
the agro-food sector in the Mercosur countries and in the EU during 1991-99.
They calculated Real Exchange Rate (RER) and Relative Real Exchange
Rates (RRER). They showed that Mercosur countries (with the exception of
Paraguay for which it was stable) experienced until 1998 a decrease in
competitiveness (i.e. an increase in the exchange rate). In 1999, the
devaluation of the Brazilian currency increased competitiveness. Regarding
the EU countries, despite a convergence within the Euro countries since 1997,
figures revealed a group of countries with low competitiveness: Ireland, Italy,
Portugal and Spain.
Applying Balassa and Vollrath indices, competitiveness can be
measured. Several studies have applied these indices and have been widely
accepted. For instance, the competitiveness of Hungarian agro-food products
vis-à-vis the European Union (EU) was measured using these indices (the
original Balassa index, relative trade advantage, relative export advantage,
and natural logarithm of the relative export advantage) in the period 1992 to
1998 (Fertő and Hubbard, 2003).
Banterle and Carraresi (2007) assessed the competitiveness of the
prepared swine meat sector in the EU during 2000-03. Calculation of the
19
Export Market Size (EMS) revealed that during 2000-03, Italy had the highest
export share of the sector followed by Germany. As for comparative
advantage measures, Denmark had the highest Revealed Comparative
Advantage (RCA) score, followed by Italy, while low Revealed Import
Advantage (RMA) scores were found in Finland, Italy and Spain. Wijnands et
al. (2008) also assessed the competitiveness of the EU15 food industry vis-à-
vis Australia, Brazil, Canada, and the United States for the period 1996-2004.
Using trade data for individual countries, the authors calculated the growth of
RCA and the growth of EMS in the world market for the EU15 and the other
four countries. They found that the EU15 had very low competitiveness
compared to Brazil in terms of both measures, but higher competitiveness in
terms of share growth in the world market (although lower in terms of RCA
growth).
Concerning the effect of gender, competitiveness has also been studied
to compare the technical efficiency in terms of productivity between male and
female farmers. Quisumbing (1996) explained that, in general, studies
investigating male-female differences in technical efficiency show no
difference. This was also the case for the study by (Chavas, Petrie and Roth,
2005) for Gambian farmers in 1993. In contrast, (Timothy and Adeoti, 2006),
found that for cassava growers in Nigeria in 2004 female farmers showed
superior technical efficiency than male farmers, but lower allocate efficiency.
The authors attributed the differentials to different access to inputs. Mathijs
and Vranken (2001) reported that the share of women in the household had a
positive impact on the technical efficiency of Hungarian crop farms in 1997.
2.3. Methods for Measuring Competitiveness
Researchers study competitiveness either from the perspectives of a
nation or an individual firm. As a result, studies of competitiveness are found
across multiple disciplines including economics performance measurement,
strategic management, operations management as well as policy research.
Over the past decades, the literature on this subject mainly centred on
20
questions of measuring competitiveness using various indicators and
identifying sources of competitive advantage or so-called competitiveness
drivers. Attempts to answer these questions have produced extensive research,
especially in the strategic management and operations management fields of
study.
In strategic management, the approach assesses competitiveness
according to financial performance, and identifies competitiveness drivers as
competitive conditions of markets and resources of firms. To explain why
firms achieve different profit rates, the literature provides two important but
contrasting theories: the Industrial Organization (IO) and the Resource-Based
View (RBV) of the firm (Hoskisson et al., 1999). The IO theory explains why
firms operating in some industries are more profitable than others. It asserts
that firm profitability is a function of the industrial environment or market
conditions, since the nature of an industry directs behaviours of firms
(Hoskisson et al., 1999).
Resource Based View (RBV) theorists believe the firm’s resources are
the most important factors affecting profitability (Barney, 2001; Wernerfelt,
1984). The term “resources” refers to bundles of tangible and intangible assets
as well as skills, which are valuable, rare, imperfectly imitable and not
substitutable (Barney, Wright, and Ketchen, 2001). According to Barney
(1991), resources refer to “all assets, capabilities, organizational processes,
firm attributes, information, knowledge, etc controlled by a firm, that enable a
firm to develop and implement strategies that improve its efficiency and
effectiveness.” Thus By developing and exploiting firm resources, managers
can change the “rules of the game”– competitive conditions, and establish a
competitive advantage that addresses customer values (Stoelhorst and van
Raaij, 2004).
Market share is an indicator of competitiveness that measures the
percentage of a world commodity market held by an exporter. Shifts in market
21
share reflect changing competitiveness across countries. Market share can be
defined as:
MS ia = XS i
a / XS aw (1)
where (XS) denotes exports, subscript (a) refers to a commodity, (i) denote
home country and (w) refers to world.
The disadvantage of this measure is that simple comparisons of market share
may not describe an ability to compete because market share may be a result
of export subsidies. An example is Saudi Arabia where large subsidies and not
resource advantage increased its market share in wheat production (Vollrath,
1989). Swann and Taghavi (1992) pointed out that market shares alone give
no indication of how competitiveness will change with price, product
redesign, change in price or design of substitute, or the exchange rate. The use
of other measures helps to explain more about competitiveness (Vollrath,
1989).
Revealed Comparative Advantage (RCA) measures a country’s exports
of a commodity relative to its total exports and to the corresponding export
performance of a set of countries (competitors) (Vargas, 2006). The basic
logic behind RCA is to evaluate comparative advantage on the basis of a
country’s specialization in exports relative to some reference group (Batra and
Khan, 2005). Revealed Comparative Advantage (RCA) was first formulated
by Balassa (1965) and modified by Vollrath (1991) in order to avoid double
counting between pairs of countries. RCA is sometimes called the Balassa
index. Vollrath’s modified version is called the Relative export advantage
(RXA) measure, as it is based on exports. This calculates the ratio of a
country’s export share of a commodity in the international market to the
country’s export share of all other commodities.Vollrath (1991) on the other
hand, offered mainly three alternative ways of measurement of a country’s
RCA to calculate international competitiveness. These indices offer the
advantage that can be resorted into statistics of agricultural trade. These
22
equations measure the competitiveness and the export/import performance
through post-trade data, which allows distinguishing commodities that
possess competitiveness (Ayala-Garay et al., 2009). An index of export share
ratios reflects the extent of trade specialization. Aggregation and policy
effects may distort any measure of revealed comparative advantage (RCA)
and selection of a particular level of aggregation may obscure the pattern of
comparative advantage. Letting (i) denote country and (j) commodity:
RCAj = (Xij / Xiw) / (Xwj / Xw) (2)
where Xij is exports by country i of commodity j, Xiw is total exports of
country I (summed over j), Xwj is the total world trade in commodity j
(summed over i), and XW is total world trade (summed over i and j). This
measure gauges a country’s world export share of a commodity with its total
export share of total world exports. If country i’s share of world exports of
commodity j is greater than that country i’s share of world exports of all
goods, RCA > 1, suggesting a country has revealed a comparative advantage
in the production of that commodity.
Vollrath (1989) used RCA to show that from 1982 to 1986 the US had
a 53% share of world soybean exports compared to an 11% share of all
exports, making the relative export share of the US in soybeans almost 5,
suggesting that US was 5 times better at exporting soybeans than at exporting
all agricultural products. The US, Australia, and Canada showed relative
export advantages for wheat, and Pakistan and Thailand had higher relative
export advantages than the US in rice. Vollrath (1991) offers three alternative
specifications of revealed comparative advantage. The first is Relative Trade
Advantage (RTA), which is the difference between the Balassa relative export
advantage (RXA), and relative import advantage (RMA).
RXA = (Xij/Xit) / (Xnj/Xnt) (3)
where (n) is a set of countries and its counterpart relative import advantage
23
RMA = (Mij/Mit) / (Mnj/Mnt) (4)
Where (m) represents imports
RTA = RXA – RMA (5)
Vollrath’s second measure is the logarithm of the relative export advantage
(lnRXA) and his third measure is Revealed Competitiveness (RC).
RC = lnRXA – lnRMA (6)
Domestic Resource Cost (DRC) analysis and, more generally, cost-
benefit analysis constitutes an area of economic literature with many lessons
for the analysis of competitiveness (Balassa and Associates, 1982; and Siggel
and Cockburn, 1995). As its name implies, this predominantly empirical
branch is devoted to measuring the costs and benefits of specific projects and,
more generally, the so-called comparative advantage (essentially
competitiveness measured in the absence of price distortions) of firms and
industries. Costs and benefits are generally measured at social or shadow
prices thus eliminating the effects of price distortions. The domestic resource
costs (DRC) ratio compares the opportunity costs of domestic production with
the value added it generates (Gorton et al., 2001). It was originally proposed
for measuring the gain from expanding profitable projects or the cost of
maintaining unprofitable activities through trade protection (Masters and
Winter- Nelson, 1995). According to Masters and Winter-Nelson (1995)
because the DRC ratio is based on the cost of non-tradable inputs, it
understates the competitiveness of activities that use mainly such domestic
factors in comparison to those that rely more on tradable inputs. To overcome
this shortcoming, Masters and Winter-Nelson (1995) proposed the Social
Cost-Benefit (SCB) ratio. Using the same data as for the DRC ratio but in a
different relationship, the SCB ratio is defined as the ratio of the sum of
domestic (non-tradable) and tradable input cost to the price of the good
considered.
24
When it comes to the concept of competitiveness or competitive
advantage, existing work must be introduced from the basis of the theory and
research concerning competitive advantage completed by (Porter, 1990). In
his book of “The Competitive Advantage of Nations,” he addresses the
question “Why do nations succeed in particular industries, and what are the
implications for firms and for the national economies?” Porter stresses the
important role played by a nation’s economic environment, institutions and
policies.”
Porter (1990) was one of the first to underline the importance of firms’
strategy and structure in developing their competitiveness. The author
proposed the so-called “diamond model” according to which nations succeed
in industries for which the national diamond is the most favourable. The four
corners of the diamond are: 1) factor conditions; 2) demand conditions; 3)
presence of related and supporting industries; and 4) firm strategy, structure
and rivalry. In addition to the four factors, there is an interaction of other two
external factors: 5) government role and 6) chance. In this framework,
performance indicators such as cost superiority, profitability, productivity,
and efficiency reveal competitiveness.
Among management theories, Porter’s (1990) framework and the
resource-based view (RBV) have been recognized as the most influential
perspectives to explain competitive advantage and why some firms succeed
where others fail (Powell, 2001). Those scholars who believe that competitive
advantage is associated with firms’ specific resources (Foss, 1997; Wernefelt,
1984) have supported the RBV theory. Supporters of this theory claim that the
management of firms’ specific resources is the main determinant of
differential performances between companies (Barney, 2001). They argue that
those companies capable of developing rare and non-substitutable resources
and capabilities such as technical knowledge, managerial ability, and
organizational capabilities (routines and interactions); will achieve
25
competitive advantage over competing firms (Barney, 1991; Wernerfelt,
1984).
SWOT analysis is a planning tool that aims at identifying the strengths
and weaknesses of an organization and the opportunities and threats in the
environment. The SWOT analysis is a qualitative method for the strategic
planning. It is able to help enterprises evaluate their competitiveness
qualitatively and can be used as a foundation for the development of
strategies. The strengths and weaknesses are the internal factors while the
threats and opportunities are the external factors. It is commonly accepted that
the strengths and weaknesses demonstrate the organizations internal
characteristics and are controllable whereas, an organization’s opportunities
and threats are determined by external factors on which it has no direct
control but can react to its own advantage. The method allows organizations
to understand and plan using their strengths to exploit opportunities to
recognize and repair or avoid weaknesses and to defend against or sidestep
any known threats (Weihrich, Cannice, and Koontz, 2008).
Due to its above-mentioned capabilities in strategic management,
SWOT analysis has been widely utilized in various business settings to make
effective decisions. However, it possesses a major drawback; the lack of the
identification of the importance ranking for the SWOT factors/criteria.
Therefore, researchers developed models which incorporate Analytic
Hierarchy Process (AHP) in SWOT and named their approaches ‘‘SWOT-
AHP method (or analysis)’’ which can determine the priorities for the SWOT
factors (Kurttila, et al., 2000).
The method has been used in several cases to evaluate the
competitiveness of different sectors for example, The SWOT analysis was
used to develop the systematic competitiveness of fresh tomato industry of
Zacatecas (Mexico) protected agriculture (Padilla-Bernal, et al., 2010).
Alcantara et al. (2009) used a SWOT method to evaluate the drivers of
26
competitiveness by identifying the strengths and weaknesses of the Brazilian
agri-systems to take advantage of possible opportunity of increasing export to
EU in the face of scenarios of trade agreements. Rochman et al. (2011)
examined nanotechnology development strategy to increase competitiveness
of national agro-industries by using quantitative SWOT-AHP analysis.
Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a multi-objective or multicriteria
measurement that helps to address the complicated decision problem,
identifying decision making factors, measuring the importance of the factors,
and synthesizing all the decision making factors (Saaty, 2008). AHP reflects a
simple fact that the nature of decision-making requires a series of logical
considerations of different factors involved in a certain decision-making
situation. Many times, decision-making factors are difficult to quantify or
prioritise, as they are intangible, subjective, and non-quantifiable. One of the
advantages of AHP is that the method can convert intangible factors into
numerical values, and systematically evaluate weights of selected factors in
pairs through a series of comparisons (Saaty, 2008). Therefore, the
cornerstone of AHP is the logic of pair-wise comparison. The pair-wise
comparisons allow for the production of the relative importance value, which
is called weight, and the importance value is computed using the Eigenvalue
method.
The AHP is an intuitively easy method for formulating and analysing
decisions. The process was developed to solve a specific class of problems
that involve the prioritization of potential alternative solutions. A Consistency
Ratio is calculated to check the consistency of judgments. Inconsistency is
likely to occur when decision-makers make careless errors or exaggerated
judgments during the process of pair-wise comparison. A consistency ratio of
0.1 is considered the acceptable upper limit.
The outcome of the AHP is an optimum choice among alternative
decisions. The model utilizes quantitative as well as qualitative factors in its
27
analysis. Tavana (2004) has pointed out that AHP is preferred to multiple
regressions for qualitative criteria because these criteria do not allow for an
easy derivation of measurable attributes, however, operationally, the multiple
attribute utility approach does better than AHP. AHP has several advantages,
including over-specification of judgment, built-in consistency tests, use of
appropriate measurement scales and applicability in elicitation of utility
functions. Due to these advantages, there has been a successful application of
the AHP to a variety of problem areas, including allocation of resources,
conflict resolution, forecasting, input output analysis, planning, choice of
behaviour and sustainable development planning (Quaddus and Siddique,
2001).
AHP has also been used to measure competitiveness in different
studies. For example, AHP was one of the analytical methods used to evaluate
tourism competitiveness on selection of tourism destination. The other
methods include Multiple Criteria Decision Evaluation Model, Data
Envelopment Analysis (DEA), Consumer Demand Model, and Regression
Model (Chang, 1997; Shen and Tsai, 2001; Shen and Hsieh, 2002). Sirikai
(2006) analyzed the competitiveness of automotive components industry in
Thailand by evaluating trade-offs among the varying degrees of importance of
competitiveness indicators and the different effects of competitiveness
drivers. Another study by (Li and Tian, 2012) was conducted using AHP to
evaluate the performance of specialized cooperative organizations of farmers
in Sichuan, China.
28
29
3. Methodology
The primary purpose of this study was to analyse women farmers’
empowerment in Malawi through competitive analyses. To accomplish this
purpose, the research adopted a SWOT analysis to identify women farmers’
strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats as well as to formulate
strategies. These were linked to the Porter’s Diamond Model to identify
factors of competitiveness and alternatives for women empowerment. Porter’s
Diamond Model was adopted and modified so that as it is a commonly used
measure of competitiveness, it may also apply to the situation of women
farmers. Then, an Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method was used to
determine the importance of the factors and alternative strategies in
empowering women farmers. The first section of this chapter presents the
research framework where models and methods are identified. The second
section describes the questionnaire design. The sampling method is presented
in the third section. Section 4 presents the description of statistical analysis
for the study.
3.1. The Research Framework
Figure 3.1 illustrate the research framework for this study. It shows the
procedure that was followed to conduct this research to meet the objectives.
30
Figure 3.1. Research Framework for Determining the Competitiveness of
Malawian Women Farmers.
31
3.1.1. The SWOT Analysis Application
A SWOT analysis was done to come up with strengths, weaknesses,
opportunities and threats for women farmers in Malawi. In this study, the
SWOT analysis provides a clear picture of the position of Malawian women
farmers in the agriculture sector, which determines their competitiveness. The
strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats are explained in details in this
section. Table 3.1 shows the SWOT matrix for women farmers in Malawi.
Strengths
1. Women are equipped with local and indigenous knowledge. Malawian
women are the custodians of local and indigenous knowledge. By
having such knowledge, new technologies would just build on the
existing knowledge. FAO (2005) reported that local knowledge serves
as a critical livelihood asset for poor rural women for securing food,
shelter and medicines.
2. Women are hard working. A survey by FAO in 2010 found out that in
sub-Saharan Africa, women grow as much as 90 percent of the regions
food (FAO, 2010). The working day of women is at least 50 percent
longer than that of men. Many women in developing countries
including Malawi work an average of 12-16 hours in a day (Sinn and
Wahyuni, 1996). Women’s triple roles often translate to working long
hours and this manifests their hardworking spirit as they ensure that
they fulfill all their roles. With proper planning and equity in
distribution of roles this hardworking and long hours working can be
productive without compromising their health.
3. Women farmers have the ability to produce efficiently. Just like male
farmers, women can produce efficiently given the right production
conditions. Substantial and growing evidence demonstrate that women
farmers can produce on par with or better than men can (Quisumbing,
1996). With similar access to resources and inputs as men, women
32
stand to achieve equal or higher yields than men. If women farmers
were given the same access to resources (such as finance), women’s
agricultural yields could increase by 20 to 30 percent; national
agricultural production could rise by 2.5 percent to 4 percent; and the
number of malnourished people could be reduced by 12 to 17 percent
(FAO, 2011).
4. Women farmers often diversify their enterprises. In most cases, they are
involved in a number of agricultural enterprises including crops,
livestock, off-farm activities and small and medium enterprises. Their
ability to intercrop the staple food crop with other legumes and
vegetables on the very small piece of land gives them an advantage in
terms of engaging in different economic activities both on and off the
farm. As a result, they are able to cope with changes in the market since
they can supply different products.
5. Women farmers are market sensitive and are aware of the changes
taking place the market hence they are able to respond to these changes
by diversifying their enterprises.
Weaknesses
1. Time constraints - Women perform multiple roles as agricultural
producers, workers, mothers, and caregivers (Razavi and Miller, 1998).
Women face far greater time constraints than men. They may spend
less time on farm work but work longer total hours on productive and
household work and paid and unpaid work, due to gender-based
division of labour in childcare and household responsibilities.
2. Small land holding sizes - In most parts of sub-Saharan Africa
including Malawi where customary property regimes prevail,
community leaders tend to favor males over females in the allocation of
land, both in terms of quantity and quality. Malawi is a densely
populated country with an average land holding size of less than a
33
hectare. However, men continue to dominate over them in terms of land
holding. Small land holding sizes is common in Malawi especially
among women (FAO, 2010).
3. Poor access to markets - One of the major challenges that farmers in
Malawi face is poor access to markets for their agricultural produce.
Due to poor market infrastructure farmers tend to travel long distances
to urban areas in search for viable markets. Due to lower economic
status than men, women tend to face challenges to travel to such
markets. Furthermore, traveling to such distant markets compromises
their reproductive roles. This trend results into women being forced to
use local markets trading with intermediate buyers who reap them off
by buying at poor prices. The situation for Malawian women farmers is
even worse considering the disproportionate obstacles in accessing and
competing in markets. These include women’s relative lack of mobility,
capacity and technical skills in relation to men (World Bank, FAO and
IFAD, 2009).
4. Illiteracy levels among women in Malawi are over 60 percent (GOM,
2010), which poses a challenge for them to ably indulge in market-
oriented farming. Until recently, the boy child was the most favored in
terms of education as the belief was women would rely on their
husbands once they are married. Hence, illiteracy level is higher among
women than men. This trend has had an impact on record keeping and
access to information that is important to agribusiness. Furthermore,
high illiteracy levels affect technology adoption, which impacts heavily
on enhancement on agriculture production (World Bank, 2007).
5. Less access to financial and credit facilities - Women compared to men
have less access to financial and credit facilities in most developing
countries including Malawi (FAO, 2010). Women have less access to
formal financial services because of high transaction costs, limited
education and mobility, social and cultural barriers, the nature of their
34
businesses, and collateral requirements, such as land title, they can’t
meet. Women’s roles as primary caregivers and health risks associated
with childbearing also lead to intermittency in employment, which
makes them risky clients for banks.
6. Less access to agricultural extension services - On average, women
have less access to agricultural extension services compared to men.
Some of the reasons for this bias are: women's daily workloads do not
usually allow them to be absent from home for residential training.
Second, these services have been predominantly staffed by and they
tended to direct their services to male farmers or heads of households,
excluding female-headed households and women members of male-
headed households (World Bank, 2000). Women farmers have less
contact with extension services than men do, especially where male-
female contact is culturally restricted. Male agents often provide
extension to men farmers on the wrong assumption that the message
will trickle down to women. In fact, agricultural knowledge is
transferred inefficiently or not at all from husband to wife. In addition,
the message tends to ignore the unique workload, responsibilities, and
constraints facing women farmers.
7. Poor access to and control over production resources - Generally,
Malawian women farmers have poor access to and control over
production resources. Women produce most of the food that is
consumed locally and are responsible for household food security in
many rural areas. More equitable access to land, fertilizers, water for
irrigation, seeds, technology, tools, livestock and extension services
would make agriculture a more efficient means of promoting shared
economic growth, reducing poverty and improving food security and
rural livelihoods. They often have weak property and contractual rights
to land, water and other natural resources. Even where legislation is in
35
place, lack of legal knowledge and weak implementation often limits
the ability of women to exercise their rights (Koopman, 1993).
36
Opportunities
1. Existing government support - the government of Malawi makes an
effort to support women farmers through the formulation of policies
under various government policy strategies like the Malawi Growth and
Development Strategy (MGDS), the Millennium Development Goals
(MGD) of the United Nations to address issues of gender. Government
support has been evident through setting a ministry (Ministry of
Gender, Child Development and Community Development)
specifically looking at gender issues. Furthermore, gender focal points
have been put in government institutions besides allocation of funds
meant for reducing gender inequalities. With such support, the
initiatives that aim at ensuring equity and equality can be achieved. The
government also implements projects and programs that are aimed at
empowering and supporting women farmers to enhance their
contribution in the agriculture sector. Some of these programs include:
provision of input subsidies that benefit disadvantaged farmers
including women (for example the Farm Input Subsidy Program
(FISP); provision of micro-loans; linking women farmers to markets
and negotiating product prices with international buyers on behalf of
farmers; investing in education for girls; and protecting women’s
property rights. To ensure incorporation of gender as a crosscutting
issue in all the agricultural development programs, the government
promotes a gender mainstreaming approach.
2. Gender awareness campaigns - Gender issues cut across virtually all
aspects of agriculture. In recent years, greater attention has been
devoted to gender at both national and international levels and since the
recognition of the contribution of women in agriculture, there have
been gender awareness campaigns at both levels. With more donor
support which emphasis upholding of human rights especially those of
37
the marginalized, the country embarked on sensitization campaigns
which have opened up people’s minds to ably challenge practices that
abuse women. These campaigns are continuing which simplifies the
efforts in ensuring that women are empowered and participate actively
in decision making
3. Existing support from the private sector and Non-Governmental
Organizations (NGOs) - the private sector and NGOs like World Bank
has institutional policies and commitments to ending discrimination
against women and promoting gender equality in Malawi. Some of the
interventions include investment in women education, provision of
credits, promotion of income generating activities, promoting the use of
labor and time saving technologies, encouraging the growing of high-
value agricultural commodities and promoting value addition to
agricultural products. NGOs continue to play a lead role in ensuring
that women farmers receive training, information, and improved
technologies. Their services often are increasing in scope and scale,
either as complementary support to government efforts or to fill the
gaps created as government expenditures and capabilities decline. An
important emphasis, which recently has been highlighted in NGO
programmes, is their support for membership-based community and
farmer organizations. Women as well as men benefit from the
expanding opportunities to develop farmer-to-farmer extension and
training networks and to form partnerships with agricultural researchers
and development agencies (World Bank, 2007).
4. The government of Malawi enforces laws to protect women’s rights.
The Malawi constitution prohibits any discrimination based on gender,
race or tribe. This is an opportunity for reducing gender inequalities
since it is the only way to challenge patriarchy system. Several reforms
have taken place to ensure that legally women are protected from any
sort of discrimination. For instance, under the land reforms, the
38
constitution any inheritance of property based on ones gender but all
children regardless of sex has equal opportunity of inheriting property.
The only challenge is to sensitize communities on their rights and about
the constitution to guide their actions.
Threats
1. Global Climate change is one of the greatest threats to the agricultural
sector in the world today and Malawi has not been spared from the
impacts of climate change. For the past years, there have been
incidences of droughts in the country that have resulted in crop failures.
Although the impacts of climate change are experienced in the whole
agricultural sector, but the impact is great among women farmers due to
other disadvantages in accessing the production resources.
2. In most African countries, gender discrimination exists and it is usually
cultural based. In Malawi, the situation is the same. Social norms
underlie the allocation of land, men’s and women’s labour allocation in
agriculture. This traditional bias against women has led to an
asymmetric distribution of rights, resources and responsibilities (Udry,
1996). In addition, women are considered second citizens in the society
such that they are denied most development privileges. In Malawi a
number of forms of discrimination still persist especially in rural areas
where cultural traditions are still very strong. The government of
Malawi has adopted various international conventions advocating for
an end to discrimination against women but the extent to which these
conventions have been implemented is not known.
3. The agricultural marketing system in Malawi experiences several
failures ranging from poor agricultural prices, inadequate demand for
the agricultural products, overproduction that causes abundant supply
of products and crop failure that reduces the supply of the products. All
these become a threat to farmers’ especially small-scale farmers
including women.
39
4. Human Immuno-deficiency Virus/Acquired Immune Deficiency
Syndrome (HIV/AIDS) pandemic is a critical problem for rural
development and for rural women in particular, especially in sub-
Saharan Africa. HIV/AIDS has severe impacts on women and girls
because of gender specific division of family care, labour and resource
control, as well as gender related discrimination. In addition, women
and girls spend so much time taking care for the sick, attending
funerals, which exacerbate their problems of time constraints.
5. Competition from male farmers - Men already have an upper hand over
the women hence cannot effectively compete. In terms of access and
control over productive resources and markets, where women’s issues
are not considered then the competition would be unfair to women.
Where fairness is orchestrated, women can ably compete with male
farmers. Women farmers face a threat of competition from male
farmers who have more resources, are equipped with more technical
knowledge and their scale of production is much higher than that of
female farmers.
3.1.2. Strategy Formulation for Malawian Women Farmers
SWOT matrix presents a mechanism for facilitating the linkage among
strengths and weaknesses (internal factors), and threats and opportunities
(external factors). It also provides a framework for identifying and
formulating strategies. SWOT matrix helps to develop four types of strategies,
namely SO (strengths-opportunities) strategies, WO (weaknesses-
opportunities) strategies, ST (strengths-threats) strategies, and WT
(weaknesses-threats) strategies. SO strategies use internal strengths to take
advantage of external opportunities. WO strategies improve internal
weaknesses by taking advantage of external opportunities. ST strategies use
strengths to avoid or reduce the impact of external threats. WT strategies are
defensive tactics directed at reducing internal weaknesses and avoiding
40
environmental threats (Weihrich, 1982). Table 3.2 shows strategies
formulated for Malawian women farmers.
41
Table 3.1. SWOT Matrix for Malawian Women Farmers
Internal factors (controllable) External factors
(uncontrollable)
Favorable
factors
Strengths (S)
SO: Well equipped with local and
indigenous knowledge
S2: Hard working
S3: Ability to produce efficiently
S4: Market Sensitive
S5: Ability to diversify enterprises
Opportunities (O)
O1: Existing
government support
O2: Existing NGOs and
private sector support
O3: Existing legal
framework to protect
women’s rights
O4: Existing gender
awareness campaigns
Unfavorable
factors
Weaknesses (W)
W1: Time constraints
W2: Small land holding sizes
W3: Poor market access
W4: Poor education
W5: Lack of access to credit
services
W6: Inadequate access to
agricultural extension services
W7: Lack of access to and control
Threats (T)
T1: Climate change
T2: Gender
discrimination
T3: HIV/AIDS
pandemic
T4: Poor agricultural
prices
T5: Competition from
male farmers
42
over production resources
Table 3.2. Strategies Formulated for Malawian Women Farmers
Strengths (S) Weaknesses (W)
Opportunities
(O)
SO strategies
Establishment of financial
institutions to provide loans
and other financial related
assistance
WO strategies
Availability of
training and
extension to women
farmers
Threats (T)
ST strategies
Formation of women
farmer’s Production
Marketing Teams (PMTs)
Establishment of women
farmers associations
WT strategies
Government to help
transfer women
farmers out of
farming
3.1.3. Porter’s Diamond Model Application
Porter’s Diamond Model offers an organisational structure for
development linked to a theory of competitive advantage of Malawian women
farmers in the agricultural sector. This study determines whether Porter’s
(1990) theory of competitive advantage and his analysis of global competition
focusing on inter-firm competition is an appropriate model for Malawian
women farmers.
Michael Porter’s Diamond Model (Porter, 1990) is a useful technique
for identifying the factors that an enterprise has to consider in the business
operation and the interactions between these factors with a consideration of
the organisational structure, external competition and strategic decisions. The
diamond model comprises four major factors and two accessorial factors.
Although the variables function independently, an advantage variable in one
43
element can provide, or improve, the advantage in another variable. This
model was adopted and modified for this research purpose with a
consideration of unique characteristics of the context in which the model has
been applied. Five factors are incorporated in this study; these and their
corresponding sub-factors are described below:
1. Factor conditions: These are factors of production and inputs required
to compete in the industry. Under this factor/criterion, the following
sub criteria were identified: a) Human resources - this sub criterion
looks at the quantity, skills and cost of personnel for example,
extension workers working with women farmers, and the labour
required to become competitive. b) Natural resources - this sub
criterion looks at the abundance, quality, accessibility and the cost of
resources for production such as land and water. c) Technique and
equipment - this factor analyses the women farmer’s stock of scientific,
technical and market knowledge that can enhance their
competitiveness. It also considers the availability, and access to
equipment for production like machinery. d) Financial and capital
resources - this sub criterion looks at the amount and costs of capital
available to finance women farmer’s enterprises. e) Farm location - the
location of the farm has a great impact on the transportation costs and
on the cultural and business interchange of enterprises. f) Marketing
resources - this factor analyses the availability and the quality of
important marketing resources like storage facilities, transportation
means.
2. Demand conditions: Demand conditions emphasise the nature of the
consumer demand in the home country in motivating a firm to increase
its competitive position. In this study, the following sub criteria have
been considered: a) Availability of market for the produce by women
farmers - this sub criteria looks at both the domestic and international
demand for the products and services offered by women farmers. The
higher the demand, the more competitive advantage women farmers
44
have. b) Consumer’s preference to safe produce - this factor considers
consumer preferences in demanding safe products and services. The
stricter the consumers are in their preference towards safe foods, the
more creative and careful women farmers will be and this will create
their competitiveness. c) Consumer’s preference to value-added
produce - this factor considers consumer preferences in demanding
value-added products. The stricter the consumers are in their preference
towards value-added products, the more innovative and careful women
farmers will be and this will create their competitiveness.
3. Related and supporting industries: The presence or absence in a
nation of supplier industries and related industries, which are globally
competitive. In this study, the following sub criteria were considered
under this criterion: a) Availability and consistency of supply inputs -
this factor analyses the supply chain for important inputs needed by
women farmers like fertilizer, seeds and chemicals. b) Availability of
on-job education and training - the effectiveness of available
institutions in providing on-job education and training to women
farmers in their various enterprises. c) Property rights/legal protection -
the effectiveness of legal protection for women farmers on issues of
property rights.
4. Firm strategy, structure and rivalries: The conditions that govern
how companies are created, organised, managed, and as well as
determine the nature of domestic rivalry. This study considers the
following: a) too many farmers - the competition that exists due to the
availability of too many farmers who produce almost homogenous
products. The competition triggers innovation among farmers, which in
turn creates competitiveness. b) Forming business alliances - this can
help to reduce the cost of production for example by buying inputs
together in bulk or transporting produce together. c) Low cost
production practices – the use of low cost production techniques such
as physical and biological methods of weeds and pest control, manure
45
usage instead of fertilizer, which is expensive to reduce production
costs. d) Contract farming - the involvement of women farmers in
contract farming which can help them secure markets as well as good
prices for their products.
5. Government role: Government policies have a great influence on the
success of an industry. In this study, the following government support
initiatives are considered to enhance the competitiveness of women
farmers: a) Availability of budget to implement policies and programs -
government budget allocation for the implementation of policies and
programs that support women farmers. b) Enforcement of policies and
programs - the effectiveness and the extent to which the government
enforces policies and programs that empowers and supports women
farmers. c) Provision of subsidies and direct payment - the extent to
which the government come in to help women farmers through
subsidies (for inputs and other production resources) or thorough direct
payments that help to finance their enterprises. d) Provision of micro-
loans - whether the government provides micro-loans which benefit
women farmers in financing their enterprises. e) Provision of insurance
for protection - whether the government provides insurance to women
farmers for protection against risks and uncertainties.
In this research, the chance factor was not considered as it has already
been incorporated in other factors. In this study, the framework was used to
come up with the determinants of competitiveness for Malawian women
farmers in the agricultural sector based on the competitive elements
developed by Michael Porter in his book “The Competitive Advantage of
Nations” (Porter, 1990). The modified framework is illustrated in figure 3.2.
46
Figure 3.2. Modified Diamond Model, Adapted from Porter (1990).
47
Related and supporting industries: Availability
and consistency of supply inputs, Availability of
on-job education and training and Property
rights/legal protection
Demand conditions:
Availability of markets for
women farmers produce;
Consumer’s preferences
to safe produce and
Consumers’ preference to
value added produce
The role of the
government:
Availability of budget to
implement policies and
programs, Enforcement
of policies and
programs, Provision of
subsidies and direct
payment, Provision of
micro-loans and
Provision of insurance
for protection
Firm strategy, structure
and rivalry: Too many
farmers, Formation of
business alliances, Low cost
production practices and
Contract farming
Factor conditions:
Human resources, Natural
resources, Technique and
equipment, Financial and
capital resources, Farm
location and Marketing
resources
3.1.4. Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) Method Application
As a decision model that decomposes a complex multicriteria decision
problem into a hierarchy (Saaty, 1980), AHP is also a measurement theory
that prioritises the hierarchy and consistency of judgmental data provided by a
group of decision makers. AHP incorporates the evaluations of all decision
makers into a final decision, without having to elicit their utility functions on
the subjective and objective criteria, by pair-wise comparisons of the
alternatives (Porter, 1990). Saaty (1980) has enveloped the AHP that can
enable decision makers to represent the interaction of multiple factors in
complex situations. The process requires the decision makers to develop a
hierarchical structure for the factors that are explicit in the given problem and
to provide judgments about relative importance of each of these factors,
specify a preference for each decision alternative with respect to each factor.
It provides a prioritised ranking order indicating the overall preference for
each of the decision alternatives.
An advantage of AHP over other multicriteria decision-making
methods is that AHP is designed to incorporate tangible as well as intangible
factors especially where the subjective judgments of different individuals
constitute an important part of the decision process. Therefore, AHP has been
successfully applied in a diverse array of problems, with the calculation
procedure as follows.
Step 1: Determine the objective and the evaluation factors. This step involves
development of the hierarchical structure with a goal or objective on the top
level, the factors at the second level and the sub-factors at the third level and
lastly the alternatives. Step 2: Find out the relative importance of different
factors with respect to the goal or objective. Construct a pair-wise matrix
using a scale of relative importance. The judgments are entered using the
fundamental scale of the AHP. Step 3: The next step is to compare the
48
candidate alternatives pair-wise with respect to the how much better (more
dominant) in satisfying each of the factors. It is ascertaining how well each
candidate alternative serves each factor. Step 4: The next step is to obtain
composite weights for each of the alternatives by multiplying the relative
normalised weight (Wi) of each factor with its corresponding normalised
weight value for each alternative and making summation over all the factors
for each alternative.
Then the comparison scale is used which was based on a
mathematically based, multi-objective decision-making tool that was
introduced by Saaty (1990). The AHP scoring system is a ratio scale where
the ratios indicate the degree of preference. The nine-point scale has been the
standard rating system used for the AHP. Table 3.3 shows the description of
the standard preference scoring system used for the AHP in the questionnaire.
Table 3.3. Standard Preference Scoring System for AHP, (Saaty, 1990)
Intensity of
importance
Definition Explanation
1:1 Equal importance Two elements contribute equally to
the objective
3:1 Moderate importance Experience and judgment
moderately favour one element
over another
5:1 Strong importance Experience and judgment strongly
favour one element over another
7:1 Very strong
importance
One element is favoured strongly
over another, its dominance is
demonstrated in practice
9:1 Extreme importance The evidence favouring one
element over the other is of highest
possible order of affirmation
49
2,4,6,8 Intermediate values When compromise is needed
between two elements
Using the AHP method, a criteria hierarchy with three levels including
5 principal criteria, 21 sub-criteria and 5 alternatives was designed as a
framework of an evaluation model. The quantitative analysis was then
conducted using AHP by calculating the importance weight of each criterion.
Figure 3.3 shows the AHP hierarchical structure for this study.
Figure 3.3. AHP Hierarchical Structure
3.2. Questionnaire Design
To support the general analysis of the situation of women
empowerment and competitiveness from literature, interviews were conducted
to evaluate more qualitative aspects and gain insights of the current situation
50
of Malawian women farmers. The questionnaire was designed based on
literature published previously and the theoretical framework of Porter’s
Diamond Model. Based on the hierarchical structure of the AHP ranking for
the determination of elements of competitiveness for Malawian women
farmers in the agricultural sector, the survey consisted of the following
sections: the first section looked at the general background information of the
survey respondents. The second section sought respondents’ opinions of
various statements on elements of competitiveness. The third section
investigated the most important criteria for determining the competitiveness
of women farmers in Malawian agriculture sector. Fourth section investigated
the best sub criteria for the factor conditions. Fifth section tried to find out the
most important sub criteria for the demand conditions. The sixth section
measured the most suitable criteria for the strategy, structure and rivalry. The
sixth section determined the best sub criteria for the government role and
support for women farmers. Section 7 evaluated the alternatives for enhancing
the competitiveness of women farmers in the agricultural sector. The
questionnaires are attached in Appendix II and III.
3.3. Sampling Plan
This section describes in details the procedure followed to draw
respondents for the survey. This study was conducted in Rumphi district in
the northern region of Malawi. The country is divided into 3 regions: northern
region, which has 6 districts, central region with 9 districts and southern
region with 13 districts. Rumphi is one of the districts among the 6 districts in
the northern region. The district was chosen for the study because it is one of
the districts where many agricultural activities take place. The district is
divided into 5 Extension Planning Areas (EPAs) namely Bolero, Mpherembe,
Mhuju, Mphompha and Ntchenachena and among these, Bolero EPA was
selected for convenience. The study targeted three categories of respondents,
women farmers, government officials (agricultural extension workers directly
working with women farmers) and researchers working on women issues. To
51
select respondents, two sampling techniques were used: random sampling and
purposive or judgmental sampling. Random sampling was used to select 30
women farmers among a population of about 3000 women farmers in the
study area representing 10 percent. The technique was selected because it
gives an equal chance to all the elements in the population of being selected.
The second category of respondents was agricultural extension
workers. A total number of 10 extension workers were targeted and selected
from Bolero EPA. A purposive or judgmental sampling technique was
employed. In this method, the researcher chooses the sample based on whom
they think would be appropriate for the study. In this case, the respondents
sought were those directly working with women farmers. This technique is
used primarily when there are a limited number of people with expertise in the
area being researched as it was in this case.
The third category was researchers that are working on women farmers
issues. A total number of 5 researchers were targeted and selected for this
study. Like the previous category, the sample was selected using purposive or
judgmental sampling technique.
Although the sample size is small for this study, respondent size is not a
limitation as Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method can be conducted
with small number of responses. In addition, AHP is designed to survey
people such as decision makers, who have specific knowledge about the topic
(Masozera et al., 2006).
3.4. Statistical Analysis
The primary data on the background information of the respondents
was analysed using Statistical Package for Social Scientists (SPSS 19) to
generate frequencies using descriptive statistics. The data obtained following
AHP method was analysed using Expert Choice software version 11.
52
A consistency test was also done using Expert choice software.
Because people tend to make inconsistent decisions, decision-making science
should judge the consistency of decision-making (Saaty, 2008). Consistency
Ratio (CR) is one of the most important cornerstones of AHP and can be
illustrated in the following manner: if factor A is more important than factor
B, and factor B is more important than factor C, then ultimately factor A
should be more important than factor C. However, there are instances where
people do not use this logic. A CR test is a measurement of validity of the
survey respondent’s responses. In this study, a consistency test was conducted
after obtaining the weights and ranks from the pair-wise comparison matrix
for the criteria. The test is performed to obtain the Consistency Index (CI) as
well as the Consistency Ratio (CR). The Consistency Ratio tells the decision
maker how consistent he/she has been when making the pair-wise
comparisons. Saaty (1990) proposed utilising a consistency ratio to verify the
consistency of the comparison matrix. CI and RI are defined as follows:
C.I = λmax – n
n-1
CR = CI/RI
where RI is the random index and it denotes the average CI over numerous
random entries of same order reciprocal matrices. If CR ≤ 0.1, the estimate is
accepted otherwise, a new comparison matrix is solicited until CR ≤ 0.1.
Table 3.4 indicates the random index numbers developed by Saaty (1990).
Table 3.4. Random Index Numbers (Saaty, 1990)
n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
R.I .00 .00 .58 .90 1.12 1.24 1.32 1.41 1.45 1.49 1.51
53
54
4. Results and Discussion
This chapter presents and discusses findings from the analyses of the
primary data. The first section presents the characteristics of survey
respondents. The second section presents results of the respondents’ opinions
regarding elements of competitiveness. The third section presents the analysis
results of the elements of competitiveness based on the application of the
Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method.
4.1. Characteristics of Survey Respondents
A total of 45 questionnaires were sent to three different categories of
respondents (5 researchers, 10 extension workers and 30 women farmers). All
these questionnaires were returned which represent a 100 percent response
rate. Figure (4.1, 4.2 and 4.3) shows the background information of survey
respondents.
Figure 4.1. Characteristics of Researchers and Extension Workers (n=5,
researchers and n=10, extension workers).
55
According to figure 4.1, the results show that 3 out of 5 researchers
were female and 2 were male representing 60 and 40 percent respectively.
The results also indicate that 2 out of 5 researchers interviewed had Bachelors
56
degree, 2 had masters’ degree and only 1 had a PhD degree. The graph also
shows that 1 researcher had less than 5 years of work experience, 2 had
between 5-10 years and 2 had more than 10 years of work experience. For the
extension workers, the results show that 6 of them were male while 4 were
female representing 60 and 40 percent respectively. The figure also shows
that 3 of the extension workers had a certificate, 5 had a diploma and 2 had a
bachelor’s degree. The figure also indicates that 7 of the extension workers
had between 5-10 years of work experience and 3 had more than 10 years of
work experience.
Figure 4.2. Characteristics of Farmers (n=30).
From figure 4.2, it is clear that more than 50 percent of the farmers
interviewed were aged less than 50 years. It also shows that about 66 percent
of the women interviewed were married while about 33 percent were either
widowed, divorced or separated. All the women farmers interviewed had
attended either primary or secondary education, however, 70 percent of them
had only attended primary education and 30 percent had attended secondary
education. Almost 50 percent of the women farmers interviewed indicated
their household size of more than 6 people which is above national average of
4.4 (2008 Population and Housing Census) (GOM, 2008) while the other 50
percent is distributed among the household sizes of (2-5 people).
57
Figure 4.3. Economic Activities of Women Farmers (n=30).
With reference to figure 4.3, the results indicate that more than 66
percent of women farmers interviewed grow tobacco, more than 90 percent
grow maize and more than 50 percent of them grow soybeans. It was also
found out that very few of them (about 6 percent) grow cassava. This is so
because tobacco is the main cash crop while maize is the staple food. Soybean
is a crop being promoted to improve diets at household level and also grown
as a cash crop by women farmers in the study area. Cassava is less grown
because traditionally the people of this area do not consume it as a staple. The
type of livestock that is commonly kept was found to be chicken where in this
case 80 percent of the respondents indicated that they keep chicken. This is so
because chicken are relatively cheap to acquire for parent stock, easy to keep
and manage and they can be raised on a small piece of land. Besides, women
tend to keep them to supplement their income needs when they sell them. The
second commonly kept type of livestock were goats where in this case about
30 percent of the women farmers were found to be raising goats. Like
chickens, goats are easier to manage on a free range system and are
commonly used in traditional functions like weddings and funerals. The figure
also shows that more than 70 percent of the respondents earn their income
through sales of farm produce. This shows that most of the respondents were
full time farmers and depend on agriculture for their livelihoods.
58
4.2. Results of Respondent’s Opinions on Elements of Competitiveness
The results of experts’ opinions on the elements of competitiveness are
presented in table 4.1.
Table 4.1. Summary of Experts’ Opinions on the Elements of Competitiveness
Statements Researcher’s
opinions (n=5)
Extension
worker’s
opinions
(n=10)
Farmer’s
opinions
(n=30)
There are adequate production
factors available to women
farmers
Disagree Disagree Agree
There is enough demand for
produce made by women farmersAgree Disagree Disagree
Related and supporting
industries’ cooperation is needed
in women farmers’ production
Strongly agreeStrongly
agree
Strongly
agree
The strategies and structures are
important to empower women
farmers
Strongly agreeStrongly
agree
Strongly
agree
The government’s role is very
important to empower women
farmers
Strongly agreeStrongly
agree
Strongly
agree
The results indicate that almost all the researchers (representing more
than 80 percent) agree to the statements that there is demand for women
farmers produce, that there is need for cooperation among related and
supporting industries, that strategies and structures are important for women
farmers and that the government role is important in empowering women
farmers. However, 80 percent of the researchers disagree that production
factors are available for women farmers. The results also indicate that more
59
than 80 percent of the extension workers agree that there is need for
cooperation among related and supporting industries, that strategies and
structures are important for women farmers, and that the government role is
crucial in empowering women farmers. However, 50 percent of the extension
workers disagree on the availability of production factors and demand for
women farmers produce.
The results shows almost the same trend for the farmers where (about
96 percent) strongly agree that there is need for cooperation among related
and supporting industries, that structures and strategies are important for
women farmers and that government role is important in empowering women
farmers. On the availability of demand, 56 percent of the farmers disagree
while 26 percent of them agree. On availability of production factors, 43
percent of the farmers agree while 33 percent of them disagree.
The results on expert’s opinions regarding elements of competitiveness
have shown a similar trend for all the three categories of respondents.
However, there are differences in opinion regarding the availability of
demand and production factors. This is the case because each group of experts
look at these elements from a different angle hence they have a different
understanding and views about them.
4.3. Results of AHP Model Analysis for the Competitiveness Elements
The data on the AHP model was analyzed using Expert choice software
to determine the expert’s priorities of the competitiveness factors (criteria and
sub-criteria) by evaluating the weights and ranks. The analysis outputs are
shown in the appendix I and the output results are summarized and discussed
in this section.
4.3.1. Results of Criteria Analysis
Figure 4.4 and table 4.2 summarize the results of the expert’s priorities
of the criteria with respect to the goal. The results indicate that researchers
60
prioritized demand conditions (0.299) as the most important criteria, followed
by related and supporting industries (0.251), factor conditions (0.231),
government role (0.115) and lastly strategy, structure and rivalry (0.104). On
the other hand extension workers, prioritized government role (0.303)
followed by related and supporting industries (0.207), factor conditions
(0.206), strategy, structure and rivalry (0.176) and lastly demand conditions
(0.109). Farmers prioritized strategy, structure and rivalry (0.382) followed by
factor conditions (0.218), government role (0.171), related and supporting
industries (0.121) and demand conditions (0.109). The results also show that
all the judgments were consistent since the inconsistencies for all the three
categories were less than or equal to 0.1 as suggested by Saaty (1990).
Figure 4-4. Summary of the Experts’ Priorities of the Criteria with Respect to
the Goal.
61
Table 4.2. Summary of the Experts’ Priorities of the Criteria with Respect to
the Goal
Criteria
Researchers
(n=5)
Extension
workers (n=10)
Farmers (n=30)
Weight Rank Weight Rank Weight Rank
Factor conditions 0.231 3 0.206 3 0.218 2
Demand conditions 0.299 1 0.109 5 0.109 5
Related and
supporting industries
0.251 2 0.207 2 0.121 4
Strategy, structure and
rivalry
0.104 5 0.176 4 0.382 1
Government role 0.115 4 0.303 1 0.171 3
Inconsistencies (researchers = 0.07, extension workers = 0.10, and farmers =
0.03).
From the results, it can be pointed out that researchers prioritized
demand conditions because the availability of both domestic and international
demand is crucial for the competitiveness of women farmers in Malawi. The
main factor under demand is the availability of markets for women farmer’s
produce. In Malawi, one of the major problems farmers face is lack of
markets for their produce, especially at international level. This problem is
even more serious among women farmers due to other challenges such as
transportation, time burdens, low productivity, and low quality and low value
products. Therefore, there is need to invest in market-oriented interventions
that facilitate women access to markets while addressing other gender issues
as it was observed by (IFAD, 2001; IFPRI, 2002 and Kindness and Gordon,
2002).
62
Extension workers’ prioritized government role this is so because the
government can help women farmers through implementation of gender
responsive policies and programs, improving budget allocation to
interventions targeting women farmers, and provision of subsidies, micro-
loans and insurance. FAO (2010) pointed out that governments have the role
to eliminate discrimination against women under law, build human capital of
women and girls and also improve on collection of sex-disaggregated data. In
addition, since the government of Malawi considers agriculture as the most
important sector, women farmers can benefit from the efforts put into the
sector with deliberate effort to target them.
Farmers however prioritized strategy, structure and rivalry to help them
become competitive. This could be because most of the women farmer
groupings that exist are not effective. As farmers, the way they organize and
manage their enterprises, determines their competitiveness. A report by
Commission of the Status of Women (CSW) (2012) indicated that “The future
belongs to the organized” therefore women farmers need to organize
themselves to gain economies of scale in acquiring production inputs, bulking
up produce for markets, receiving production extension and training and to
benefit from social networking to learn from other women farmers and to
benefit from government and NGO interventions
4.3.2. Factor Conditions
Figure 4-5 and table 4-3 summarize the experts’ priorities of the factor
conditions. The results indicate that researchers prioritized financial and
capital resources (0.377) as the most important factor condition for women
farmers. According to extension workers, the crucial factor condition was
technique and equipment (0.259) while for farmers; the most important factor
condition was natural resources (0.436). The results also show that all the
judgments were consistent since the inconsistencies for all the three categories
were less than or equal to 0.1.
63
Figure 4.5. Summary of Experts’ Priorities of the Factor Conditions.
Table 4.3. Summary of Experts’ Priorities of the Factor Conditions
Factor conditions
Researchers
(n=5)
Extension
workers (n=10)
Farmers
(n=30)
Weight Rank Weight Rank Weight Rank
Human resources 0.123 3 0.198 3 0.086 5
Natural resources 0.077 6 0.127 4 0.436 1
Technique and
equipment0.121 4 0.259 1 0.195 2
Financial and capital
resources0.377 1 0.229 2 0.095 4
Farm location 0.082 5 0.104 5 0.118 3
Marketing resources 0.220 2 0.082 6 0.070 6
Inconsistencies (researchers = 0.10; extension workers = 0.08; farmers =
0.05).
The results indicate differences in priorities among the experts
regarding the important factor conditions. Researchers perceive financial and
64
capital resources to be the important factor, which is in line with the criterion
(demand conditions) they prioritized. If farmers have adequate financial and
capital resources, they will enhance production and meet the demand both at
domestic and international levels. Zeller et al. (1997) argued that producers
who have access to well designed credit, savings and insurance services can
avail themselves of capital to finance the inputs and labour and equipment
they need to generate income; can afford to invest in riskier but more
profitable enterprises and asset portfolios; can reach markets more effectively
and can adopt more efficient strategies to stabilize their food consumption.
However, rural financial programs have been largely designed, crafted and
implemented with the male head of households and fail to recognize that
women are active, productive and engaged in economic agents with their own
financial needs and constraints (Fletschner, 2009 and Diagne, Zeller, and
Sharma, 2000). In Malawi, women have less access to financial services than
men (FAO, 2011). This was also found to be the case with Nigeria and Kenya
(Saito, Mekonnen, and Spurling, 1994) and in Uganda (Dolan, 2004).
Therefore, there is need to improve women’s access to financial and capital
recourses to enhance their competitiveness.
Extension workers chose technique and equipment, which is in line
with the government role they prioritized under criteria. This is the case
because as extension workers, they believe imparting knowledge and skills in
women farmers is crucial for them to become competitive. Women farmers
need to be trained in good agricultural practices and business skills for them
to be able to run their enterprises as commercial ventures. However women
farmers are generally illiterate and have less access to extension education and
training and to mechanical tools and equipment (FAO, 2011). Therefore, there
is need to improve women’s access to technical education and training as well
as to use of mechanical tools and equipment.
Farmers prioritized natural resources as the most important factor. This
is so because these are the obvious factors that directly constraint production.
65
Women farmers in Malawi lack access to land and water resources.
According to FAO (2010), women farmers land holdings are generally
smaller and the tenure security is less than that of men. Therefore, there is
need to ensure women’s access to land, ensure tenure security as well as
access to sufficient, safe and clean water for farming and domestic use.
4.3.3. Demand Conditions
Figure 4-6 and table 4-4 give a summary of the experts’ priorities of the
demand conditions. The results indicate that among the three sub-factors
under demand conditions, all the experts prioritized availability of markets for
women farmer’s produce to be the most important one. The sub-criterion had
the weights of 0.540, 0.437 and 0.455 for researchers, extension workers and
farmers respectively. The results also show that the experts were consistent in
their judgments since the inconsistencies were found to be less than or equal
to 0.1.
Figure 4.6. Summary of Experts’ Priorities of the Demand Conditions.
66
Table 4.4. Summary of Experts’ Priorities of the Demand Conditions
Demand conditions
Researchers
(n=5)
Extension
workers (n=10)
Farmers
(n=30)
Weight Rank Weight Rank Weight Ra
nk
Availability of markets
for women farmer’s
produce
0.540 1 0.437 1 0.455 1
Consumer’s preference
to safe produce0.272 2 0.215 3 0.185 3
Consumer’s preference
to value added produce0.188 3 0.348 2 0.360 2
Inconsistencies (researchers = 0.00512; extension workers = 0.02; farmers =
0.10).
From the results all the experts have indicated that availability of
markets for women farmer’s produce is an important factor under demand
conditions to enhance the competitiveness of women farmers. However, the
performance of agricultural markets in Malawi often tends to fail for
smallholder farmers of whom majority are women (Barrett, 2008). The failure
of agricultural markets for smallholder farmers often result from lack of
access to information or from the endemic problem of information asymmetry
between the farmers and buyers (Poulton et al., 2006). Consequently, majority
of smallholder farmers sell their produce in local poor-paying markets or at
the farm-gate rather than travel to distant better-paying markets (Fafchamps
and Hill, 2005). The situation is even worse for women farmers due to other
challenges like poor transportation, lack of organization among women
farmers and time constraints. Therefore, facilitating women farmers’ access to
67
better-paying markets has been an issue of major concern to government and
private sectors.
4.3.4. Related and Supporting Industries
Results of the experts’ priorities of the related and supporting industries
are illustrated in figure 4.7 and table 4.5.
Figure 4.7. Summary of Experts’ Priorities of the Related and Supporting
Industries.
Table 4.5. Summary of Experts’ Priorities of Related and Supporting Industries
Related and
supporting industries
Researchers
(n=5)
Extension
workers (n=10)
Farmers (n=30)
Weight Rank Weight Rank Weight Rank
Availability and
consistency of supply
inputs
0.540 1 0.504 1 0.667 1
Availability of on-job
education and training0.121 3 0.310 2 0.229 2
Property rights/legal
protection0.338 2 0.186 3 0.103 3
Inconsistencies (researchers = 0.02; extension workers = 0.06; farmers = 0.08)
68
Regarding related and supporting industries, the results show that all
the experts have indicated availability and consistency of supply inputs to be
the most important factor for enhancing the competitiveness of women
farmers. As shown in figure 4.7 and table 4.5, the priority weights were 0.540,
0.504 and 0.667 for researchers, extension workers and farmers respectively.
This is an important factor because often, farmers in Malawi have problems to
access inputs especially women and most of the times, the availability of the
inputs is not consistent. One of the major impediments to improved
smallholder agricultural productivity has been limited to indispensable inputs
such as improved seed varieties and fertilizer. Input supply problems have
been widely cited to explain why farmers do not purchase and use them.
Imports are often regulated and frequently there are bottlenecks in distribution
that are attributable to poor infrastructure. Increase in fertilizer prices further
disadvantage poor farmers especially women (Gladwin, 1992). Therefore, to
have a consistent supply of production inputs available at an affordable price
will help women farmer’s become more competitive.
4.3.5. Strategy, Structure and Rivalry
Figure 4.8 and table 4.6 provide a summary of experts’ priorities of
strategy, structure and rivalry factors that can help women farmers become
competitive. Researchers and farmers prioritized contract farming indicating
the weights of 0.347 and 0.557 for researchers and farmers respectively. On
the other hand, extension workers prioritized forming business alliances
(0.333) to be the most important factor.
69
Figure 4.8. Summary of Experts’ Priorities of Strategy, Structure and Rivalry
factors.
Table 4.6. Summary of Experts’ Priorities of Strategy, Structure and Rivalry
factors
Strategy, structure
and rivalry
Researchers
(n=5)
Extension
workers (n=10)
Farmers (n=30)
Weight Rank Weigh
t
Rank Weight Rank
Too many farmers 0.065 4 0.053 4 0.038 4
Forming business
alliances0.270 3 0.333 1 0.147 3
Low cost production
practices0.317 2 0.290 3 0.258 2
Contract farming 0.347 1 0.324 2 0.557 1
Inconsistencies (researchers = 0.10; extension workers = 0.00829; farmers =
0.10).
Maertens and Swinnen (2009) pointed out that contract farming can
help women farmers overcome barriers and transaction costs involved in
meeting the demand in domestic and international markets. In Malawi,
70
contract farming was developed to address the problem of lack of access to
domestic, regional and international markets which include developing an
efficient and effective Market Information System (MIS) through creating a
better marketing network which will link farmers to markets, strengthening
extension in grades and standards (Kumwenda and Madola, 2005). Despite
the potential of contract farming in commercialization and diversification of
smallholder agriculture, in Malawi contract farming has mainly been confined
to the production of Malawi’s traditional exports of sugar, tea and tobacco.
Therefore, women farmers are often excluded from contract farming since
they are concentrated in subsistence crops. This was also the case in Kenyan
fruit and vegetable export (Dolan, 2001) where women comprised less than
10 percent of the farmers involved in smallholder contract farming. Likewise
in Senegal, where only 1 of a sample of 59 farmers contracted to produce
French beans for the export sector was a woman (Maertens and Swinnen,
2009).
4.3.6. Government Role
Regarding the role of the government, the priorities of different experts are summarized in figure 4.9 and table 4.7.
Figure 4.9. Summary of Experts’ Priorities of the Role of the Government
The results indicate that researchers prioritized provision of micro-
loans (0.338) to women farmers to be the most important government
71
intervention. Extension workers and farmers prioritized provision of subsidies
and direct payments to be the most important government intervention with
the weights of 0.246 and 0.470 for extension workers and farmers
respectively.
Researchers’ choice is consistent with their choice of factor conditions
where they consider that women farmers can become competitive if they have
enough capital to fund their enterprises. One of the ways the government can
ensure this is by providing micro-loans to women farmers. Micro-loans are
often considered as an instrument that promotes empowerment and when well
managed is a sustainable development tool. It can stabilize livelihoods,
broaden choices, and provide startup fund for productive investment and help
poor people (women farmers) to be self-reliant.
Table 4.7. Summary of Experts’ Priorities of the Role of Government
Role of the government
Researchers
(n=5)
Extension
workers (n=10)
Farmers (n=30)
Weight Rank Weight Rank Weight Rank
Availability of budget
to implement policies
and programs
0.105 5 0.161 5 0.091 5
Enforcement of policies
and programs0.179 3 0.175 4 0.104 4
Provision of subsidies
and direct payments0.202 2 0.246 1 0.470 1
Provision of micro-
loans0.338 1 0.187 3 0.120 3
Provision of insurance
for protection 0.175 4 0.231 2 0.214 2
Inconsistencies (researchers = 0.01; extension workers = 0.10; farmers =
0.06).
72
On the other hand, extension workers and farmers consider that the
most important role of the government is to provide subsidies and direct
payments to women farmers. Direct payments are an effective means of
combating poverty and overcoming immediate challenges. Well designed
direct payments may provide a steady source of income (Molyneux, 2009).
Malawi government implements several subsidy programs under the Ministry
of Agriculture and Food Security (MoAFS). One of them is the Farm Input
Subsidy Programme (FISP) with the goal of enhancing food self sufficiency
by increasing smallholder farmers’ access to and use of improved agricultural
inputs, thereby boosting the incomes of resource-poor farmers. This
programme has yielded tangible results since its inception and most
households have achieved food security and boosted their incomes.
4.3.7. Results of the overall analysis
The overall output results are indicated in the appendix I. Table 4.8
shows the summary of the overall analysis results of the first five sub-criteria
prioritized by the respondents in their order of importance. The weights of the
overall levels (global weights) were obtained by multiplying the weights of
criteria by the weight of the sub-criteria. From the results, it can be pointed
out that according to researchers, the first five factors were: 1) availability of
markets for women farmer’s produce (0.161); 2) availability and consistency
of supply inputs (0.136); 3) financial and capital resources (0.087); 4)
property rights/legal protection (0.084); and 5) consumer preferences to safe
produce (0.081). According to extension workers, the first five factors in
order of their importance were: 1) availability and consistency of supply
inputs (0.104); 2) provision of subsidies and direct payments (0.075); 3)
provision of insurance for protection (0.070); 4) availability of on-job
education and training (0.064) s; and 5) forming business alliances (0.059).
On the contrary, farmers prioritized the following first five factors: 1)
contract farming (0.213); 2) low cost production practices (0.099); 3) natural
73
resources (0.095); 4) availability and consistency of supply inputs (0.081);
and 5) provision of subsidies and direct payments (0.080).
The overall analyses indicate that all the experts prioritized availability
and consistency of supply inputs in their first five priorities of factors. This
shows that this is a very important factor for enhancing the competitiveness of
women farmers in Malawi.
Table 4.8. Overall Analysis Results of the First 5 Priority Sub-criteria
(Inconsistencies researchers=0.07, extension workers=0.09,
farmers=0.05)
Respondents First 5 Sub-criteria Overall weights Order
Researchers
Availability of markets for
women farmers’ produce
0.161 1
Availability and consistency
of supply inputs
0.136 2
Financial and capital
resources
0.087 3
Property rights/legal
protection
0.084 4
Consumer preference to safe
produce
0.081 5
Extension
workers
Availability and consistency
of supply inputs
0.104 1
Provision of subsidies and
direct payments
0.075 2
Provision of insurance for
protection
0.070 3
Availability of on-job
education and training
0.064 4
Forming business alliances 0.059 5
74
Continuous Table 4.8
Farmers
Contract farming 0.213 1
Low cost production practices 0.099 2
Natural resources 0.095 3
Availability and consistency
of supply inputs
0.081 4
Provision of subsidies and
direct payments
0.080 5
4.3.8. Results of the Analysis of Alternatives
Figure 4.10 and table 4.9 show a summary of results on experts’
priorities of the alternatives to enhance women farmers’ competitiveness.
Researchers prioritized establishment of women farmers associations (0.284)
to be the most important alternative. Extension workers prioritized availability
of training and extension to women farmers (0.351) while farmers prioritized
formation of women farmers’ Production Marketing Teams (PMTs) (0.358)
as the most important alternative.
Figure 4.10. Summary of Experts’ Priorities of the Alternatives.
75
Table 4.9. Summary of Experts’ Priorities of the Alternatives
Alternatives
Researchers
(n=5)
Extension
workers (n=10)
Farmers (n=30)
Weight Rank Weight Rank Weight Rank
Formation of women
farmer’s Production
Marketing Teams
(PMTs)
0.249 3 0.228 3 0.358 1
Establishment of
financial institutions to
provide loans and other
financial related
assistance
0.268 2 0.138 4 0.179 3
Availability of training
and extension to
women farmers
0.162 4 0.351 1 0.323 2
Government to help
transfer women out of
farming
0.038 5 0.041 5 0.028 5
Establishment of
women farmers
associations
0.284 1 0.241 2 0.111 4
Inconsistencies (researchers = 0.02; extension workers = 0.10; farmers = 0.06)
These priorities are consistent with the priorities of the factors
discussed earlier. Researchers’ priority of the alternatives corresponds to the
farmers’ priority. One of the alternatives for women farmers to enhance their
competitiveness is through collective action by forming groups. Women’s
associations have the potential to raise the voice and visibility of women and
76
can provide many services and benefits to their members. Through collective
action, women associations are able to reach out to governments and private
sector NGOs and seek institutional support for women’s income generating
activities (FAO, 2011). Collective action is a powerful means for women to
increase production and access to markets. Supportive collective structures
help women farmers though economies of scale, greater bargaining power,
facilitating access to agricultural services. Groups empower women by
providing opportunities to participate in decision-making and take on
leadership roles. Functioning as production cooperatives, savings
associations and marketing groups, women groups can promote production
and help women maintain control over the additional income they earn as it
has been demonstrated by a project based around polyculture fish production
in Bangladesh (Naved, 2000). Achieving scale through pooling resources can
help women overcome some of the constraints faced by individual farmers
such as acquiring access to land, credit and information as it was the case in
Kenya (Spring, 2000). Therefore, women farmers can enhance their
competitiveness through working together as a group.
Extension workers prioritized availability of training and extension to
women farmers. In Malawi, extension staff to farmer ratio is very high due to
unavailability of qualified staff. This exerts more pressure on a few staff
members that are available and deny services to most smallholder farmers of
which the majority of them are women. The usefulness of extension and
related information services rests on both the farmers’ access to the source of
the information and its quality and appropriateness. Studies in Malawi found
that few women have contact with extension agents and that women’s
participation in agricultural training is limited (Hirschmann and Vaughan,
1984). Provision of services like training, working through groups rather than
individuals has been shown to increase women’s control over resources
(United Nations Development Program (UNDP), 2008). Therefore, it is
important that extension should focus on gender-sensitive, demand driven and
participatory approaches to impact on women. Extension agents should be
77
trained to meet specific needs of female farmers, provide extension messages
in the simplest way possible since most women are illiterate. This alternative
coupled with the others selected by researchers and farmers can yield good
results and help empower women farmers to attain competitive advantage.
From the results it was also noted that all the categories of respondents
indicated the alternative of the government helping to transfer women out of
farming as their last priority with the weights of 0.038, 0.041 and 0.028 for
researchers, extension workers and farmers respectively. This is so because it
is practically not possible because farming in Malawi is a tradition.
Households depend on agriculture as their major source of income and
livelihoods. Therefore, people are skeptical to move from the agriculture
sector to other sectors for fear of losing their source of income and food.
Efforts by government to develop the other sectors of the economy are yet to
produce tangible results in terms of moving people/labour from agriculture to
non-agriculture sectors. Unless the non-agriculture sectors are developed
enough it is almost impossible to move women farmers out of farming.
Apparently, it is imperative that government should work to improve the
agricultural industry through activities like value addition and production of
high value crops which will in turn help to motivate development of
manufacturing and other supply industries. In the long run these industries
will provide employment to women and eventually move them from actual
farming to other forms of employment.
78
79
5. Conclusions and Recommendations
This chapter presents conclusions and recommendations for this study.
In the first section, conclusions for major findings of the study are presented.
Recommendations which include limitations of this study are presented in the
second section and third section presents future research in relation to the
findings of the study.
5.1. Conclusions
This study illustrates the application of SWOT analysis, Porter’s
Diamond Model and AHP method to assess women farmers’ empowerment
through competitive analyses. A SWOT analysis was conducted to come up
with strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats for women farmers in
Malawi. Using the SWOT matrix, strategies for enhancing the
competitiveness of women farmers were formulated. A Porter’s Diamond
Model was used to identify factors of competitiveness for Malawian women
farmers and the Analytic Hierarchy process (AHP) approach was applied to
determine the importance of factors relating to the competitiveness of women
farmers. Researchers, extension workers and women farmers were considered
as key stakeholders (experts) of this process. Five researchers that work on
women issues, 10 extension workers working directly with women farmers
and 30 women farmers were selected as survey respondents for this study.
Results suggest that different stakeholders have different views
regarding the important factors to empower women farmers. This is the case
because for example researchers and extension workers have different focus,
approaches, knowledge and experiences in working with women farmers. On
the other hand, women farmers had different views because their experience
is different from those of researchers and extension workers.
80
The study has revealed that researchers prioritize factors related to the
availability of demand, markets and financial resources as the most important
81
for women farmers to become competitive in the agricultural sector. On the
other hand, extension workers prioritize factors related to government support
and interventions such availability of education, extension and training to
women farmers, provision of subsidies, direct payments and insurance as
important to empower women for them to be competitive. Farmers consider
their strategies, structure, rivalry, and related factors to be most important. For
example, they identified contract farming and use of low cost production
practices as the most important factors.
The study also revealed that researchers and farmers consider collective
action or women working as a group to be important alternative strategies for
empowering women farmers. These alternatives are establishment of women
farmers association and formation of Production Marketing Teams (PMTs).
On the contrary, extension workers consider availability of extension and
training to women farmers as the most important alternative.
However, in some cases, the priorities were the same for example; all
the stakeholders prioritized availability of markets for women farmers’
produce and availability and consistent supply of inputs as the most important
factor under related and supporting industries. This shows that these factors
are very important since all the stakeholders had similar views regarding these
factors.
According to the results, it can be concluded that the best alternatives
for empowering women farmers so that they can enhance their competitive
advantage are formation of women farmers Production Marketing Teams;
establishment of women farmers associations; and availability of extension
and training to women farmers. However, there is no single alternative that is
more superior hence a combination of these alternatives will enhance women
farmers’ competitiveness. There is need to help women farmers form
functional groups and train and educate them so that they can effectively and
efficiently carry out their activities as a group.
82
5.2. Recommendations
From the findings of this study, the following recommendations can be
drawn:
1. There is need for coordination among all the stakeholders (researchers,
extension workers and women farmers) for them to identify best
alternatives to empower women farmers and enhance their
competitiveness
2. All the stakeholders have a part to play in empowering women farmers
to enhance their competitiveness. Researchers need to conduct more
research on women issues to understand their situation more so that
they can communicate their findings to relevant stakeholders for
affirmative action. Extension workers need to focus on providing
relevant extension services to women farmers that will equip them with
knowledge and techniques for their various enterprises. Women
farmers need to organize themselves so that they can be able to utilize
the available resources and to take advantage of the opportunities that
exist for them to become more competitive in the agricultural sector.
3. Policy makers need come up with policies that address the real needs of
women farmers that can empower them and enhance their
competitiveness. Policymakers need the right information needed to
inform policy development and more analytical statistics which can be
used to fine-tune programs and policies to reach the most vulnerable
and needy segments of population e.g. women farmers. Therefore, this
research will provide that information to policy makers for gender
responsive policy making.
4. The limitation of this study was lack of expert reasons for their choice
of the important factors, hence, there is need to use in combination with
the AHP based questionnaire, an open ended data collection tool like
focus group discussions to allow respondents to explain more about
83
their priorities of different factors. This will help to come up with a
strong basis for interventions and future research.
5.3. Future Research
Since this study was conducted just in one district and with a small
sample, the results may not reflect the situation of the whole country hence
there is need to replicate the study in other districts to understand the general
situation.
Research also needs to be conducted to assess the effectiveness of the
interventions by the government and Non-Governmental Organizations that
are in place and are being implemented to empower women farmers.
There is also need to evaluate the policies regarding women empowerment in Malawi to determine their effectiveness in addressing women farmers’ issues.
84
85
References
Afshar, H. 1998. Introduction: Women and Empowerment in Haleh Afshar
(Ed.), Women and Empowerment: Illustrative from the Third World,
Some Illustrative Studies. MacMillan Press. London, pp. 1-10.
Ahearn, M., D. Culver, and R. Schoney. 1990. Usefulness and Limitations of
COP Estimates for Evaluating International Competitiveness: A
Comparison of Canadian and US Wheat. American Journal of
Agricultural Economics, December.
Alcantara, R. L. C., M. M. P. Marchesini, H. M. S. Filho, and M. O. Batalha.
2009. Competitiveness of Brazilian Agri-Systems. VII International
Conference. Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Alvarano, I., K. Molina, and E. Bol. 2008. Determination of the
Competitiveness Linkages through the Agricultural Associative
Enterprises: The Case of the Communities on the Parismina River
Basin in Costa Rica. Ecologic Engineering 34:373-381.
Ayala-Garay, A. V., G. Almaguer-Vargas, N. K. Trinidad-Pérez, I. Caamal-
Cauich, and R. Rendon. 2009. Competitividad de la Producción de
Mango (Mangifera indica L.) en Michoacán. Revista Chapingo serie
horticultura. Retrieved on August 21, 2010 from the World Wide Web:
http://scielo.unam.mx/pdf/rcsh/v15n2/v15n2a5.pdf.
Balassa, B. 1965. Trade Liberalisation and ‘Revealed’ Comparative
Advantage. The Manchester School, Vol. 33: 99-123.
Balassa, B. and Associates. 1982. Development Strategies on Semi Industrial
Economics. A World Bank Research Publication. The Johns Hopkins
University Press.
86
Banse, M., M. Gorton, J. Hartell, G. Hughes, J. Köckler, T. Möllman, and W.
Munch. 1999. The Evolution of Competitiveness in Hungarian
Agriculture: From Transition to Accession. Paper presented at the
Sixth European Congress of Agricultural Economists, Warsaw, Poland,
24th-28th August.
Banterle, A. and L. Carraresi. 2007. Competitive Performance Analysis and
European Union trade: The Case of the Prepared Swine Meat Sector.
Food Economics – Acta Agricult Scand C, Vol. 4:159-172.
Barney, J. 1991. Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage.
Journal of Management, Vol. 17:99-120.
Barney, J., M. Wright, and D. J. Ketchen. 2001 The Resource-based View of
the Firm: Ten years after 1991. Journal of Management. 27:625 - 641.
Barney, J. B. 2001. Resource-based Theories of Competitive Advantage: A
Ten-year Retrospective on the Resource-based View. Journal of
management, 27:643-650.
Barrett, C. B. 2008. Smallholder Market Participation: Concepts and Evidence
from Eastern and Southern Africa. Food Policy 34:299-317.
Batra, A. and Z. Khan. 2005. Revealed Comparative Advantage: An Analysis
for India and China. New Delhi: Indian Council for Research on
International Economic Relations.
Bavorova, M. 2003. Influence of Policy Measures on the Competitiveness of
the Sugar Industry in the Czech Republic. Agricultural Economics –
Czech, 49(6):266-274.
Beintema, N. M. and F. Di Marcantonio. 2009. Women’s Participation in
Agricultural Research and Higher Education: Key Trends in sub-
87
Saharan Africa. Washington, DC, and Nairobi, IFPRI and CGIAR
Gender & Diversity Program
Beintema, N. M. 2006. Participation of Female Agricultural Scientists in
Developing Countries. Brief prepared for the meeting “Women in
Science: Meeting the Challenge”, an adjunct to the CGIAR Annual
General Meeting, Washington, DC, 4 December.
Boserup, E. 1970. Women’s Role in Economic Development. New York, NY,
St. Martin’s Press.
Braidotti, R. 1994. Women, the Environment, and Sustainable Development:
Towards a Theoretical Synthesis. London and New York: Zed Books,
pp. 83.
Brydon, L., and S. Chart. 1989. Women in the Third World: Gender Issues in
Rural and Urban Areas. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers
University Press.
Bureau, J. C., and J. P. Butault. 1992. Productivity Gaps, Price Advantages
and Competitiveness in E.C. Agriculture. European Review of
Agricultural Economics, 19(1):25-48.
Bureau, J.C., J.P. Butault, and A. Hoque, 1992. International Comparisons of
Costs of Wheat Production in the EC and United States. Staff Report
No. 9222, Economic Research Service, United States Department of
Agriculture, Washington D.C.
Burgess, J.C. 1991. Land Management and Soil Conservation in Malawi: A
Case Study. In Buchner et al.
Chang, Y. L. 1997. Research on Tourism Competitiveness and Performance
in Asian Countries. Master’s thesis. Taipei: Graduate Institute of
Tourism Industry, Chinese Culture University.
88
Chavas, J. P., R. Petrie, and M. Roth. 2005. Farm Household Production
Efficiency: Evidence from The Gambia. American Journal of
Agricultural Economics 87(1):60-179.
Cockburn, J. 1998. Measuring Competitiveness and its Sources: The Case of
Mali’s Manufacturing Sector. African Economic Policy Paper
Discussion, Nairobi, pp. 16-25.
Cromwell, E., and J. Winpenny. 1993. Does Economic Reform Harm the
Environment? A Review of Structural Adjustment in Malawi. Journal
of International Development, Vol. 5 (6).
Davis, K., E. Nkonya, E. Kato, D. Ayalew, M. Odendo, R. Miiro, and J.
Nkuba, 2009. Impact of Farmer Field Schools on Agricultural
Productivity, Poverty, and Farmer Empowerment in East Africa.
Research Report submitted to IFPRI, 31 August 2009.
Davison, J. 1992. Changing Relations of Production in Southern Malawi’s
households: Implication for Involving Rural Women in Development.
Journal of Contemporary African Studies 11(1): 72–84.
Diagne, A., M. Zeller, and M. Sharma. 2000. Empirical Measurements of
Household’s Access to Credit and Credit Constraints in Developing
Countries. FCND Discussion Paper No. 90, Washington, DC,
International Food Policy Research Institute.
Dolan, C. S. 2001. The “good wife”: Struggles over Resources in the Kenyan
Horticultural Sector. Journal of Development Studies, 37(3): 39–10.
Dolan, C. S. 2004. “I sell my labour now”: Gender and Livelihood
Diversification in Uganda. Canadian Journal of Development Studies,
25(4): 643–661.
89
Doss, C. R. 2001. Designing Agricultural Technology for African Women
Farmers: Lessons from 25 Years of Experience. World Development,
29:2075-2092.
Due, J. M., and C. H. Gladwin. 1991. Impacts of Structural Adjustment
Programs on African Women Farmers and Female-headed Households.
American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 73:1431-1439.
Due, J. M., F. Magayane, and A. A. Temu. 1997. Gender Again – Views of
Female Agricultural Extension Officers by Smallholder Farmers in
Tanzania. World Development, 25: 713-725.
Engberg, L. E., J. H. Sabry, and S. A. Beckerson. 1988. A Comparison of
Rural Women’s Time Use and Nutritional Consequences in Two
Villages in Malawi. In Poats et al.
Fafchamps, M., and R. V. Hill. 2005. Selling at the Farm Gate or Travelling
to the Market. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 87(3):
717-734
FAO. 1993. Agricultural Extension and Women Farm Workers in the 1980s.
Rome.
FAO. 1997. Higher Agricultural Education and Opportunities in Rural
Development for Women. Rome.
FAO. 2010. The State of Food and Agriculture- Women in Agriculture,
Closing the Gender Gaps in Agriculture. Rome.
FAO. 2010a. Roles of Women in Agriculture. Prepared by the SOFA team
and Cheryl Doss. Rome.
FAO. 2011. World Census of Agriculture: Analysis and International
Comparison of the Results (1996-2005). FAO Statistical Development
Series No. 13. (Columns 3 and 4).
90
FAO. 1996. World Food Summit Plan of Action. Rome.
Fertö, I., and L. Hubbard. 2003. Revealed Comparative Advantage and
Competitiveness in Hungarian agri-food sectors. World Economy,
26(2):247-259.
Fletschner, D. 2009. Rural Women’s Access to Credit: Market Imperfections
and Intrahousehold Dynamics. World Development, 37(3): 618–631.
Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), 2005. Breaking Ground: Gender
and Food Security. Rome: FAO.
Foss, N. 1997. Resources, Firms, and Strategies: A Reader in the Resource-
Based Perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.
Gilbert, R. A., W. D. Sakala, and T. D. Benson. 2002. Gender Analysis of a
Nationwide Cropping System Trial Survey in Malawi. African Studies
Quarterly, 6 (1&2): 223–243.
Gladwin, C. H. 1992. Gendered Impacts of Fertilizer Subsidy Removal
Programs in Malawi and Cameroon. Agricultural Economics 7: 141–
53.
Gorton, M., S. Davidova, M. Banse and A. Bailey. 2006. The International
Competitiveness of Hungarian Agriculture: Past Performance and
Future Projections, Post-Communist Economies, 18(1):69-84.
Gorton, M., A. Daniłowska, S. Jarka, S. Straszewski, A. Zawojska, and E.
Majewski. 2001. The International Competitiveness of Polish
Agriculture, Post-Communist Economies, 13(4):445-457.
Gorton, M., S. Davidova, and T. Ratinger. 2000. The Competitiveness of
Agriculture in Bulgaria and the Czech Republic Vis- à-Vis the
European Union (CEEC and EU Agricultural Competitiveness),
Comparative Economic Studies, XLII (1):59- 86.
91
Government of Malawi (GOM). 1994. Demographic and Health Survey
1992, National Statistical Office, Zomba, Malawi.
Government of Malawi (GOM)/UNICEF. 1987. The Situation of Children
and Women in Malawi, Lilongwe.
Government of Malawi (GOM). 2008. Population and Housing Census 2008.
National Statistical Office, Zomba, Malawi.
Hoskisson, R., M. Hitt, W. Wan, and D. Yiu. 1999. Theory and Research in
Strategic Management: Swings of a Pendulum. Journal of
Management. 25:417-456.
International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). 2001. The
Challenge of Ending Rural Poverty. Rural Poverty report, Rome, Italy
International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). 2002. Cutting Hunger in
Africa through Smallholder-led Growth.
Kabeer, N. 1995. Reserved Realities: Gender Hierarchies in Development
Thought. London: Verso.
Kabira, W. M., E. W. Gachukia, and F. O. Matiiangi. 1997. The Effect of
Women’s Role on Health: The Paradox. International Journal of
Gynecology and Obsterics, 58: 23-24.
Keller, B., and D. C Mbwewe. 1991. Policy and Planning for the
Empowerment of Zambia's Women Farmers. Canadian Journal of
Development Studies 12 (1): 75-88 [as cited in Rowland’s, Jo. 1995. ''
Empowerment examined.'' Development in Practice 5(2): 101-107].
Kennedy, E., and P. Peters. 1992. Household Food Security and Child
Nutrition: The Interaction of Income and Gender of Household Head.
World Development, 20 (8).
92
Kindness, H., and A. Gordon. 2002. Agricultural Marketing in Developing
Countries: The Role of NGOs and CBOs. Social and Economic
Development Department, Natural Resources Institute, University of
Greenwich, London, UK. (Policy Series No 13)
Koopman, J. 1993. The Hidden Roots of the African Food Problem: Looking
within the Rural Household, pp. 82-103. In: N. Folbre et al., (Eds.)
Women’s Work in the World Economy. University Press, New York,
NY.
Kumwenda I. and M. Madola. 2005. The Status of Contract Farming in
Malawi. Food, Agriculture and Natural Resources Policy Analysis
Network.
Kurttila, M., M. Pesonen, J. Kangas, and M. Kajanus. 2000. Utilizing the
Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) in SWOT Analysis—A hybrid
Method and its Application to a Forest-certification Case. Forest Policy
and Economics, 1:41–52
Lee, W., Y. Chen, Y. Lee, and C. Liao. 2003. The competitiveness of the Eel
Aquaculture in Taiwan, Japan and China, Aquaculture 221:115-124.
Li, D., and M. Tian. 2012. Empirical Study of Performance Evaluation on
Specialised Cooperative Organisations of Farmers in Sichuan by AHP.
Journal of Management and Sustainability, 2(1).
Maertens, M., and J. F. M. Swinnen. 2009. Are Modern Supply Chains
Bearers of Gender Inequality? Paper presented at the ILO-FAO
workshop “Gender Dimension of Rural Employment”, 30 March–3
April 2009, Rome.
Markusen, J. R. 1992. Productivité, compétitivité, performance commerciale
et revenue réel: le lien entre quatre concepts", Conseil économique du
Canada, Ottawa, 1-12.
93
Masozera, M. K., J. R. R. Alavalapati, S. K. Jacobson, and R. K. Shrestha.
2006. Assessing the Suitability of Community-based Management for
the Nyungwe Forest Reserve, Rwanda. Forest Policy and Economics
8(2):206–216.
Masters, A., and A. Winter-Nelson. 2000. Evaluating the Economic
Efficiency of Agricultural Activities in Developing Countries:
Domestic Resource Cost and the Social Cost-Benefit Ratio. In: ROSE,
R.,C. TANNER & M. BELLAMY (eds.): Issues of Agricultural
Competitiveness: Markets and Policies. International Association of
Agricultural Economist’s Occasional Paper No. 7:395-405.
Mathijs, E., and L. Vranken. 2001. Human Capital, Gender and Organisation
in Transition Agriculture: Measuring and Explaining Technical
Efficiency of Bulgarian and Hungarian farms. Post-Communist
Economies, 13(2):171-187.
Meinzen-Dick, R., A. Quisumbing, J. Behrman, P. Biermayr-Jenzano, V.
Wilde, M. Noordeloos, C. Ragasa, and N. Beintema. 2010.
Engendering Agricultural Research. IFPRI Discussion Paper No. 973.
Washington DC, IFPRI.
Mkandawire, R. M. 1989. Invisible Farmers: Women in Agriculture in
Southern Africa: A Case Study of Malawi. Journal of Extension
Systems. Vol 5 (1).
Molyneux, M. 2009. Conditional Cash Transfers: a ‘Pathway to women’s
empowerment’? Pathways of Women’s Empowerment. Pathways brief
5, IDS, Brighton.
Moser, C. 1993. Training Strategies for Gender Planning: From sensitising to
skills and techniques, in Moser, C. 1993, Gender Planning and
Development: Theory, Practice and Training, Routledge, London.
94
Mulder, N., A. Vialou, B. David, M. Rodriguez, and M. Castilho. 2004. La
Compétitivité de l’Agriculture et des Industries Agroalimentaires dans
le Mercosur et l’Union Européenne dans une Perspective de
Libéralisation Commerciale, Working Paper/Document de travail
N°2004- 19, Centre d‟Etudes Prospectives et d‟Informations
Internationales (CEPII), Paris, France, November.
National Statistical Office, 2002. 2002 Malawi Core Welfare Indicators
Questionnaire Survey: Report of Survey Results, Zomba: NSO.
Naved, R. T. 2000. Intra-household Impact of the Transfer of Modern
Agricultural Technology: A Gender Perspective. Food Consumption
and Nutrition Division Discussion Paper No. 85, Washington, DC,
IFPRI.
Padilla-Bernal, L.E., A. Rumayor-Rodriguez, O. Perez-Veyna, and E. Reyes-
Rivas. 2010. Competitiveness of Zacatecas (Mexico) Protected
Agriculture: The Fresh Tomato Industry. International Food and
Agribusiness Management Review. Vol. 13(1).
Pearson, S. R., and R. K. Meyer. 1974. Comparative Advantage among
African Coffee Producers. American Journal of Agricultural
Economics, 56:310–313.
Porter, M. E. 1990. The Competitive Advantage of Nations. Macmillan,
London.
Poulton, C., J. Kydd, and A. Doward. 2006. Overcoming Market Constraints
on Pro-poor Agricultural Growth in sub-Saharan Africa. Development
Policy Review 24(3): 243-277
Powell, T. C. 2001. Competitive Advantage: Logical and Philosophical
Considerations. Strategic Management Journal, 22:875-888.
95
Quaddus, M. A., and M. A. B. Siddique. 2001. Modelling Sustainable
Development Planning: A Multicriteria Decision Conferencing
Approach. Environment International. 27, 89–95.
Quisumbing, A. 1996. Male-female Differences in Agricultural Productivity:
Methodological Issues and Empirical Evidence. World Development,
24(10):1579-1595.
Razavi, S., and C. Miller. 1995. From WID to GAD: Conceptual Shifts in the
Women and Development Discourse. Occasional Paper No. 1 for
Beijing, Genva: UNRISD.
Reve, T., and L. Mathiensen. 1994. European Industrial Competitiveness.
Bergen Foundation for Research in Economics and Business
Administration.
Rochman, N.T., E. Gumbira-Sa’id, A. Daryanto, and N. Nuryartono. 2011.
Analysis of Indonesian Agro-industry Competitiveness in
Nanotechnology Development Perspective using SWOT-AHP Method.
International Journal of Business and Management, 6(8).
Saaty, T. 1980. The Analytic Hierarchy Process. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Saaty, T. 1990. Multicriteria Decision Making: The Analytic Hierarchy
Process. USA: RWS Publications, Pittsburgh, PA, 1990
Saaty, T. 2008. Decision Making with the Analytic Hierarchy Process.
International Journal of Services Science, 1:83–98.
Saito, K., H. Mekonnen, and D. Spurling. 1994. Raising the Productivity of
Women Farmers in sub-Saharan Africa. World Bank Discussion
Papers, Africa Technical Department Series No. 230. Washington, DC,
World Bank.
96
Segal, M. T. 1986. Land and Labor: A Comparison of Female- and Male-
Headed Households in Malawi’s Small-Holder Sector., WID Forum X,
Office of Women in International Development, Michigan State
University.
Shen, J. C., and J. Y. Hsieh. 2002. Study on Prediction Model of International
Tourism Competitiveness. The Second Conference on Sustainable
Operation of Tourism, Leisure and Food Industry, Kaohsiung: National
Kaohsiung Hospitality College.
Shen, J. C., and N. R. Tsai. 2001. Study on National Competitiveness of
Principal Tourism in West Europe-Application of the Weights. Chiayi:
Nan Hua University. Collection of Papers for a Conference on
Environment, Sustainable Tourism and Management.
Siggel, E., and J. Cockburn. 1995. International Competitiveness and its
Sources: A Method of Development Policy Analysis. Concordia
University, Department of Economics, Discussion Paper 9517.
Sinn, R., and S. Wahyuni. 1996. Women, Gender Issues and Goat
Development. In: Proc. VI International Conference on Goats, 6-11
May 1996, Beijing, China: 240-244.
Sirikai, S. 2006. Competitiveness Analysis: An AHP Approach for the
Automotive Components Industry in Thailand. Thammasat Review.
Spring, A . 2000. Agricultural Commercialization and Women Farmers in
Kenya. In A. Spring. 2000. Women farmers and commercial ventures:
increasing food security in developing countries. Boulder, USA, Lynne
Rienner Publishers, Inc.
Spring, A. 1988. Using Male Research and Extension Personnel to Target
Women Farmers. In Poats et al.
97
Stoelhorst, J. W., and E. M. van Raaij. 2004. On Explaining Performance
Differentials Marketing and the Managerial Theory of the Firm.
Journal of Business Research. 57: 462 - 477.
Swann, P., and M. Taghavi. 1992. Measuring Price and Quality
Competitiveness: A Study of 18 British Product Markets, Avebury
Press, Aldershot.
Tapscott, D. 2001. Rethinking Strategy in a Networked World, Strategy &
Business, pp 34-41
Tavana, M. 2004. A Subjective Assessment of Alternative Mission
Architectures for the Human Exploration of Mars at NASA Using
Multicriteria Decision Making. Computers and Operations Research,
31(7):1147-1164.
Thorne, F. 2005. Analysis of the Competitiveness of Cereal Production in
Selected EU Countries. Paper presented at the 11th EAAE Congress,
Copenhagen, Denmark, 24-27 August.
Tiessen, R. 2008. Small Victories but Slow Progress. International Feminists
Journal of Politics, 10:198-215.
Timothy, A., and A. Adeoti. 2006. Gender Inequalities and Economic
Efficiency: New Evidence from Cassava-based Farm Holdings in Rural
South-western Nigeria. African Development Review, 18(3):428-443.
Trabold, H. 1995. The International Competitiveness of a Voppswirtschaft.
German Institute for Economic Research. Quarterly Journal
of Economic Research (special issue in International
Competitiveness), Dunker & Humblot: Berlin, pp. 169 – 183
Udry, C. 1996. Gender, Agricultural Production and the Theory of the
Household. Journal of Political Economy, 104(5): 1010–1045.
98
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). 2008. Innovative
Approaches to Promoting Women’s Economic Empowerment: Paper
for the Partnership Event on September 25, 2008: MDG3 – Gender
Equality and Empowerment of Women – A Prerequisite for Achieving
all the MDGs by 2015 (New York, 2008), UNDP, New York.
United Nation Development Programme (UNDP). 1995. Human Development
Report. New York: Oxford University Press. Washington, DC, World
Bank.
van Duren, E., L. Martin, and R. Westgren. 1991. Assessing the
Competitiveness of Canada’s Agri-food Industry. Canadian Journal of
Agricultural Economics, 39:727-738.
Vargas, H. 2006. Ventajas Comparativas Reveladas de la Producción
Agroindustrial Guatemalteca. Guatemala: IICA.
Viaene, J., and X. Gellynck. 1998. Small Firms, Old Traditions Equals Low
Profit: Pig Meat Processing in Belgium, in: Traill, B., Pitts, E. (eds),
Competitiveness in the Food Industry, Blackie Academic &
Professional, London, Chapter 5, pp. 149-178.
Vollrath, T.L. 1989. Competitiveness and Protection in World Agriculture.
Agricultural Information Bulletin No. 567, Economic Research Service
(US Department of Agriculture: Washington DC).
Vollrath, T.L. 1991. A Theoretical Evaluation of Alternative Trade Intensity
Measures of Revealed Comparative Advantage. Weltwirtschaftliches
Archive, 130:265-279.
Weihrich, H. 1982. The Tows Matrix – A Tool for Situational Analysis. Long
Range Planning,15(2):54-66, Pergamon Press Ltd.
99
Weihrich, H., M. V. Cannice, and H. Koontz. 2008. Management -
Globalization and Entrepreneurship Perspectives. 12th ed. Beijing:
Economic Science Press; 2008.
Wernerfelt, B. 1984. A Resource-Based View of the Firm. Strategic
Management Journal. 5:171-180.
Wijnands, J., H. Bremmers, B. van der Meulen, and K. Poppe. 2008. An
Economic and Legal Assessment of the EU Food Industry’s
Competitiveness. Agribusiness, 24(4):417-439.
World Bank. 1991. Women and Development in Malawi: Constraints and
Actions, Population and Human Resources Division, Southern Africa
Department, World Bank, Washington, D.C.
World Bank. 2000. Engendering Development—Through Gender Equality,
Resources, and Voice. Policy Research Report. World Bank,
Washington, DC.
World Bank. 2001. World Development Report 2000/2001: Attacking
Poverty, New York: Oxford University Press.
World Bank. 2007b. Promoting Gender Equality and Women’s
Empowerment. In: Global Monitoring Report 2007: Millennium
Development Goals: Confronting the challenges of gender equality and
fragile states, pp. 105– 148, Washington, DC.
World Bank. 2010. The Malawi Third Integrated Household Survey.
National Statistical Office (NSO), Zomba, Malawi.
World Bank, FAO, and IFAD. 2009. Gender in Agriculture Sourcebook.
Washington, DC, World Bank.
World Economic Forum. 1995. The World Competitiveness Report.
International Institute for Management Development. Genève.
100
Zeller, M., G. Schrieder, J. von Braun, and F. Heidhues. 1997. Rural Finance
for Food Security for the Poor. Washington, DC, International Food
Policy Research Institute.
101
102
Appendices
Appendix I. Data Analysis Outputs
Figure A1. Researchers’ Priorities of the Criteria (n=5).
Table A1. Pair-wise Comparison of the Criteria for Researchers (n=5)
Figure A2. Extension Worker’s Priorities of the Criteria (n=10).
Table A2. Pairwise Comparisons of the Criteria for Extension Workers (n=10)
Figure A3. Farmers’ Priorities of the Criteria (n=30).
103
Table A3. Pairwise Comparisons of the Criteria for Farmers (n=30)
Figure A4. Synthesis Summary of Sub-criteria for Researchers (n=5).
Figure A5. Synthesis Summary of Sub-criteria for Extension Workers (n=10).
104
Figure A6. Synthesis Summary of Sub-criteria for Farmers (n=30)
105
106
Table A4. Synthesis Summary of Sub-criteria for Researchers (n=5)
Criteria Criteria weights Sub-criteria Sub-criteria weights Overall weights Order
Factor
conditions0.231
Human resources 0.123 0.028 13
Natural resources 0.077 0.018 19
Technique and equipment 0.121 0.028 14
Financial and capital resources 0.377 0.087 3
Farm location 0.082 0.019 18
Marketing resources 0.220 0.051 7
Demand
conditions0.299
Availability of markets for
women farmer’s produce0.540 0.161 1
Consumer preference to safe
produce0.272 0.081 5
Consumer preference to value
added produce0.188 0.056 6
Related and
supporting
industries
0.251 Availability and consistency of
supply inputs0.540 0.136 2
Availability of on-job
education and training
0.121 0.030 11
107
Property rights/legal protection 0.338 0.084 4
Continuous Table A4
Strategy,
structure and
rivalry
0.104
Too many farmers 0.065 0.007 21
Forming business alliances 0.270 0.028 12
Low cost production practices 0.317 0.033 10
Contract farming 0.347 0.036 9
Government
role0.115
Availability of budget to
implement policies and
programs
0.105 0.012 20
Enforcement of policies and
programs0.179 0.020 16
Provision of subsidies and
direct payments0.202 0.023 15
Provision of micro-loans 0.338 0.039 8
Provision of insurance for
protection 0.175 0.020 17
108
Table A5. Synthesis Summary of Sub-criteria for Extension Workers (n=10)
Criteria Criteria weights Sub-criteria Sub-criteria weights Overall weights Order
Factor
conditions0.206
Human resources 0.198 0.041 14
Natural resources 0.127 0.026 17
Technique and equipment 0.259 0.053 8
Financial and capital resources 0.229 0.047 13
Farm location 0.104 0.021 19
Marketing resources 0.082 0.017 20
Demand
conditions0.109
Availability of markets for women
farmer’s produce0.437 0.048 12
Consumer preference to safe produce 0.215 0.023 18
Consumer preference to value added
produce0.348 0.038 16
Related and
supporting
industries
0.207
Availability and consistency of
supply inputs0.504 0.104 1
Availability of on-job education and
training0.310 0.064 4
Property rights/legal protection 0.186 0.039 15
109
Continuous Table A5
Strategy,
structure and
rivalry
0.176
Too many farmers 0.053 0.009 21
Forming business alliances 0.333 0.059 5
Low cost production practices 0.290 0.051 10
Contract farming 0.324 0.057 6
Government
role0.303
Availability of budget to implement
policies and programs0.161 0.049 11
Enforcement of policies and
programs0.175 0.053 9
Provision of subsidies and direct
payments0.246 0.075 2
Provision of micro-loans 0.187 0.057 7
Provision of insurance for protection 0.231 0.070 3
110
Table A6. Synthesis Summary of Sub-criteria for Farmers (n=30)
Criteria Criteria weights Sub-criteria Sub-criteria weights Overall weights Order
Factor
conditions0.218
Human resources 0.086 0,019 16
Natural resources 0.436 0.095 3
Technique and equipment 0.195 0.043 9
Financial and capital resources 0.095 0.021 14
Farm location 0.118 0.026 12
Marketing resources 0.070 0.015 19
Demand
conditions0.109
Availability of markets for women
farmer’s produce0.455 0.050 8
Consumer preference to safe produce 0.185 0.020 15
Consumer preference to value added
produce0.360 0.065 6
Related and
supporting
industries
0.121 Availability and consistency of
supply inputs0.667 0.081 4
Availability of on-job education and
training
0.229 0.028 11
111
Property rights/legal protection 0.103 0.012 21
Continuous Table A7
Strategy,
structure and
rivalry
0.382
Too many farmers 0.038 0.015 20
Forming business alliances 0.147 0.056 7
Low cost production practices 0.258 0.099 2
Contract farming 0.557 0.213 1
Government
role0.171
Availability of budget to implement
policies and programs0.091 0.016 18
Enforcement of policies and
programs0.104 0.018 17
Provision of subsidies and direct
payments0.470 0.080 5
Provision of micro-loans 0.120 0.021 13
Provision of insurance for protection 0.214 0,037 10
112
Fig
ure A7. Researchers’ Priorities of Alternatives (n=5).
Table A7. Pairwise Comparisons of Alternatives for Researchers (n=5)
Fig
ure A8. Extension Workers’ Priorities of Alternatives (n=10).
Table A8. Pairwise Comparisons of Alternatives for Extension Workers (n=10)
Fig
ure A9. Farmers’ Priorities of Alternatives (n=30)
113
Table A9. Pairwise Comparisons of Alternatives for Farmers (n=30)
Appendix II. Questionnaire for Researchers and Extension Workers
Thank you for taking time to respond to this questionnaire. The
information provided will be used in an MSc thesis to study women farmers’
Empowerment in Malawi through competitive analyses.
There are 2 sections in this questionnaire. Section A seeks to obtain
background information and section B seeks your opinion on the elements of
competitiveness. All information provided will be kept confidential and only for
the use in this thesis.
Best regards.
Student: Loveness Msofi
Advisor: Dr. Rebecca Chung
Department of Tropical Agriculture and International Cooperation
National Pingtung University of Science and Technology
114
Please put a check mark √ or specify in the blank that most applies:
Section A: Respondent’s Demographic Data
1. Name of the respondent
2. Gender
□(1) Male □ (2) Female
3. Education
□ (1) Certificate □ (2) Diploma □ (3) Bachelors degree
□ (4) Masters degree □ (5) Ph.D. Degree
4. Occupation
□(1) Extension worker/officer □ (2) Researcher
5. Your job title: ___________________________
6. Department/Institution: ___________________ (whatever is
applicable)
7. How long have you been working with women farmers or on women
farmer’s issues? years
115
Section B: Elements of Competitiveness
1. What is your opinion about the statements below regarding women farmers?
Statements Strongly
disagreeDisagree Neutral Agree
Strongly
agree
There are adequate
production factors available
to women farmers
□ □ □ □ □
There is enough demand for
produce made by women
farmers
□ □ □ □ □
Related and supporting
industries’ cooperation is
needed in women farmers’
production
□ □ □ □ □
The strategies and structures
are important to empower
women farmers
□ □ □ □ □
The government’s role is
very important to empower
women farmers
□ □ □ □ □
116
117
2. For the competitiveness elements below, could you please rate each of the (A items) against each of the
corresponding (B items) in order of their importance to women farmers.
A items A is more important
than B
B is more important than A B items
Factor conditions
9:1 7:1 5:1 3:1 1:1 1:3 1:5 1:7 1:9
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Demand conditions
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □Related and supporting
industries
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Strategy, structure and rivalry
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Government role
Demand conditions
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □Related and supporting
industries
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Strategy, structure and rivalry
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Government role
Related and supporting
industries
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Strategy, structure and rivalry
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Government role
Strategy, structure and
rivalry□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Government role
118
3. For the factors conditions, could you please rate each of the (A items) against each of the corresponding (B
items) in order of their importance to women farmers.
A items A is more important
than B
B is more important
than A
B items
9:1 7:1 5:1 3:1 1:1 1:3 1:5 1:7 1:9
Human
resources
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Natural resources
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Technique and equipment
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Financial and capital resources
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Farm location
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Marketing resources
Natural resources
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Technique and equipment
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Financial and capital resources
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Farm location
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Marketing resources
Technique and
equipment
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Financial and capital resources
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Farm location
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Marketing resources
Financial and Capital
resources
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Farm location
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Marketing resources
119
Farm location □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Marketing resources
4. For the demand conditions, could you please rate each of the (A items) against each of the corresponding (B
items) in order of their importance to create competitive advantage for women farmers.
A items A is more important
than B
B is more important
than A
B items
9:1 7:1 5:1 3:1 1:1 1:3 1:5 1:
7
1:9
Availability of market for the
produce by women farmers
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □Consumers’ preference to
safe produce
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □Consumers’ preference to
value-added produce
Consumers’ preference to safe
produce□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □
Consumers’ preference to
value-added produce
120
5. For the related and supporting industries, could you please rate each of the (A items) against each of the
corresponding (B items) in order of their importance to women farmers.
A items A is more important
than B
B is more important than A B items
9:1 7:1 5:1 3:1 1:1 1:3 1:5 1:7 1:9
Availability and consistency of
supply inputs (seed, fertilizer,
and chemicals)
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □Availability of on-job
education and training
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □Property rights/legal
protection
Availability of on-job education
and training□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □
Property rights/legal
protection
121
6. For strategies, structure and rivalry for women farmers, could you please rate each of the (A items) against
each of the corresponding (B items) in order of their importance to create competitive advantage for women
farmers.
A items A is more important
than B
B is more important
than A
B items
9:1 7:1 5:1 3:1 1:1 1:3 1:5 1:7 1:9
Too many farmers
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Form business alliance
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Low cost production practices
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Contract farming
Form business alliance□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Low cost production practices
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Contract farming
Low cost production
practices□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Contract farming
122
7. For the government role, could you please rate each of the (A items) against each of the corresponding (B
items) in order of their importance to women farmers.
A items A is more important
than B
B is more important
than A
B items
9:1 7:1 5:1 3:1 1:1 1:3 1:5 1:7 1:9
Availability of budget to
implement policies and
programs
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □Enforcement of policies and
programs
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □Provision of subsidies and direct
payment
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Provision of micro-loans
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Provision of insurance for protection
Enforcement of policies and
programs
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □Provision of subsidies and direct
payment
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Provision of micro-loans
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Provision of insurance for protection
Provision of subsidies and
direct payment
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Provision of micro-loans
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Provision of insurance for protection
Provision of micro-loans □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Provision of insurance for protection
123
8. For the decision alternatives, could you please rate each of the (A items) against each of the corresponding
(B items) in order of their importance to enhance women farmer’s competitive advantage?
A items A is more
important than B
B is more important
than A
B items
9:1 7:1 5:1 3:1 1:1 1:3 1:5 1:7 1:9
Formation of women
farmer’s Production
Marketing Teams (PMTs)
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □Establish financial institutions to provide
loans and other financial related assistance
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □Availability of training and extension to
women farmers
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □Government to help transfer women out of
farming
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □Establishment of Women Farmer’s
Association
Establish financial
institutions to provide
loans and other financial
related assistance
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □Availability of training and extension to
women farmers
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □Government to help transfer women out of
farming
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □Establishment of Women Farmer’s
Association
124
Availability of training
and extension to women
farmers
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □Government to help transfer women out of
farming
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □Establishment of Women Farmer’s
Association
Government to help
transfer women out of
farming
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □Establishment of Women Farmer’s
Association
125
Appendix III. Questionnaire for Farmers
Thank you for taking time to respond to this questionnaire. The
information provided will be used in an MSc thesis to study women farmers’
Empowerment in Malawi through competitive analyses.
There are 2 sections in this questionnaire. Section A seeks to obtain
background information and section B seeks your opinion on the elements of
competitiveness. All information provided will be kept confidential and only for
the use in this thesis.
Best regards.
Student: Loveness Msofi
Advisor: Dr. Rebecca Chung
Department of Tropical Agriculture and International Cooperation
National Pingtung University of Science and Technology
126
127
Please put a check mark √ or specify in the blank that most applies:
Section A: Respondent’s Demographic Data
8. Name of the respondent
9. Age
□ (1) Aged under 25 □ (2) Aged 25-34 □ (3) Aged 35-44
□ (4) Aged 45-54 □ (5) Aged 55-64 □ (6) Aged 65 and older
10.Marital Status
□ (1) Single □ (2) Married □ (3) Widowed/ Divorced/ Separated
11. Education level
□ (1) Never attended □ (2) Primary school
□ (3) Secondary school □ (4) Tertiary education
12. Household Size (number of family members including yourself)
□ (1) 1 □ (2) 2 □ (3) 3 □ (4) 4 □ (5) 5 □ (6) More than 5
13. Annual household Income
□ (1) Less than MK 20,000 □ (2) MK 20,000 - 49,999
□ (3) MK 50,000 - 99,999 □ (4) More than MK 100,000
14.Main farming activity (tick all applicable)
a) Crops grown:
□(1) Tobacco □(2) Maize □(3) Beans □(4) Cassava
□(5) Soybeans □(6) Vegetables □(7) Others (specify):
128
b) Livestock kept:
□(1) Cattle □(2) Goats □(3) Sheep □(4)Pigs
□(5) chicken □(6) Ducks □(7)others (specify):
15.Sources of household income (tick all applicable)
□(1) Salary from off-farm employment □(2) Selling firewood
□(2) Beer brewing □(3) Selling fish □(4) Selling snacks
□(7) Others (specify):
Section B: Elements of Competitiveness
1. What is your opinion about the statements below regarding women farmers?
Statements Strongly
disagreeDisagree Neutral Agree
Strongly
agree
There are adequate
production factors available
to women farmers
□ □ □ □ □
There is enough demand for
produce made by women
farmers
□ □ □ □ □
Related and supporting
industries’ cooperation is
needed in women farmers’
production
□ □ □ □ □
The strategies and structures
are important to empower
women farmers
□ □ □ □ □
The government’s role is
very important to empower
women farmers
□ □ □ □ □
129
2. For the competitiveness elements below, could you please rate each of the (A items) against each of the
corresponding (B items) in order of their importance to women farmers.
A items A is more important
than B
B is more important than A B items
Factor conditions
9:1 7:1 5:1 3:1 1:1 1:3 1:5 1:7 1:9
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Demand conditions
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □Related and supporting
industries
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Strategy, structure and rivalry
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Government role
Demand conditions
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □Related and supporting
industries
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Strategy, structure and rivalry
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Government role
Related and supporting
industries
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Strategy, structure and rivalry
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Government role
Strategy, structure and
rivalry□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Government role
130
3. For the factors conditions, could you please rate each of the (A items) against each of the corresponding (B items)
in order of their importance to women farmers.
A items A is more important
than B
B is more important
than A
B items
9:1 7:1 5:1 3:1 1:1 1:3 1:5 1:7 1:9
Human
resources
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Natural resources
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Technique and equipment
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Financial and capital resources
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Farm location
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Marketing resources
Natural resources
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Technique and equipment
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Financial and capital resources
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Farm location
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Marketing resources
Technique and
equipment
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Financial and capital resources
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Farm location
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Marketing resources
Financial and Capital
resources
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Farm location
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Marketing resources
131
Farm location □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Marketing resources
4. For the demand conditions, could you please rate each of the (A items) against each of the corresponding (B items)
in order of their importance to create competitive advantage for women farmers.
A items A is more important
than B
B is more important
than A
B items
9:1 7:1 5:1 3:1 1:1 1:3 1:5 1:
7
1:9
Availability of market for the
produce by women farmers
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □Consumers’ preference to
safe produce
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □Consumers’ preference to
value-added produce
Consumers’ preference to safe
produce□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □
Consumers’ preference to
value-added produce
132
5. For the related and supporting industries, could you please rate each of the (A items) against each of the
corresponding (B items) in order of their importance to women farmers.
A items A is more important
than B
B is more important than A B items
9:1 7:1 5:1 3:1 1:1 1:3 1:5 1:7 1:9
Availability and consistency of
supply inputs (seed, fertilizer,
and chemicals)
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □Availability of on-job
education and training
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □Property rights/legal
protection
Availability of on-job education
and training□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □
Property rights/legal
protection
133
6. For strategies, structure and rivalry for women farmers, could you please rate each of the (A items) against each of
the corresponding (B items) in order of their importance to create competitive advantage for women farmers.
A items A is more important
than B
B is more important
than A
B items
9:1 7:1 5:1 3:1 1:1 1:3 1:5 1:7 1:9
Too many farmers
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Form business alliance
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Low cost production practices
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Contract farming
Form business alliance□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Low cost production practices
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Contract farming
Low cost production
practices□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Contract farming
134
7. For the government role, could you please rate each of the (A items) against each of the corresponding (B items) in
order of their importance to women farmers.
A items A is more important
than B
B is more important
than A
B items
9:1 7:1 5:1 3:1 1:1 1:3 1:5 1:7 1:9
Availability of budget to
implement policies and
programs
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □Enforcement of policies and
programs
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □Provision of subsidies and direct
payment
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Provision of micro-loans
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Provision of insurance for protection
Enforcement of policies and
programs
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □Provision of subsidies and direct
payment
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Provision of micro-loans
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Provision of insurance for protection
Provision of subsidies and
direct payment
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Provision of micro-loans
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Provision of insurance for protection
Provision of micro-loans □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Provision of insurance for protection
135
8. For the decision alternatives, could you please rate each of the (A items) against each of the corresponding (B
items) in order of their importance to enhance women farmer’s competitive advantage?
A items A is more
important than B
B is more important
than A
B items
9:1 7:1 5:1 3:1 1:1 1:3 1:5 1:7 1:9
Formation of women
farmer’s Production
Marketing Teams (PMTs)
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □Establish financial institutions to provide
loans and other financial related assistance
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □Availability of training and extension to
women farmers
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □Government to help transfer women out of
farming
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □Establishment of Women Farmer’s
Association
Establish financial
institutions to provide
loans and other financial
related assistance
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □Availability of training and extension to
women farmers
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □Government to help transfer women out of
farming
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □Establishment of Women Farmer’s
Association
136
Availability of training
and extension to women
farmers
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □Government to help transfer women out of
farming
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □Establishment of Women Farmer’s
Association
Government to help
transfer women out of
farming
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □Establishment of Women Farmer’s
Association
137
Bio-Sketch of the Author
Personal Information
Full Name: Loveness Msofi
Gender: Female
Nationality: Malawian
Date of Birth: April 25th, 1986
Email Addresses: [email protected]
Education
2010-2012 National Pingtung University of Science and Technology, Taiwan
(MSc in Agribusiness Management).
2004-2008 Bunda College of Agriculture, Malawi (BSc in Agricultural
Extension).
Experiences
2009 to date Women’s Programmes Officer at Blantyre District Agriculture
Office (Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security).
2008-2009 Secondary School teacher at Chinsapo Secondary School (Ministry
of Education Science and Technology).
138
139