the impact of dairy cooperatives on the...
TRANSCRIPT
Academic Year 2013-2014
THE IMPACT OF DAIRY COOPERATIVES
ON THE ECONOMIC EMPOWERMENT OF
RURAL WOMEN IN KARNATAKA
Dohmwirth, Carla
Promotor: Prof. Dr. M. Hanisch
Co-promoter: Prof. Dr. M.G. Chandrakanth
Thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements
for the joint academic degree of International Master of Science in Rural Development from Ghent University
(Belgium), Agrocampus Ouest (France), Humboldt University of Berlin (Germany), Slovak University of
Agriculture in Nitra (Slovakia) and University of Pisa (Italy) in collaboration with Wageningen University
(The Netherlands).
This thesis was elaborated and defended at Humboldt University, Faculty of
Life Sciences, Thaer-Institute, within the framework of the European Erasmus
Mundus Programme “Erasmus Mundus International Master of Science in Rural
Development " (Course N° 2010-0114 – R 04-018/001)
Certification
This is an unpublished M.Sc. thesis and is not prepared for further distribution.
The author and the promoter give the permission to use this thesis for
consultation and to copy parts of it for personal use. Every other use is subject
to the copyright laws, more specifically the source must be extensively
specified when using results from this thesis.
The Promoter(s) The Author
(name(s) and signature(s)) (name and signature)
Thesis online access release
I hereby authorize the IMRD secretariat to make this thesis available on line on
the IMRD website
The Author
(Name and signature)
III
Acknowledgement
I am very thankful to my first supervisor Prof. Dr. Hanisch for his constant support during
the course of this study, his valuable remarks and his guidance to get the results to the point.
My special thanks are also directed to Dr. Chandrakanth at the University of Agricultural
Sciences, Bangalore for his inspiration and his great help in realizing the field work.
I am grateful to Sadhana, Lavanya, Rajeshwari and Sinchana, not only for their valuable
effort in translating between Kannada and English but also for their friendship. I also want to
dedicate my thanks to their families for the assistance and company during my stay in the
villages. Without their hospitality and support this study would not have been feasible.
Thanks also to my family for their unconditional support during my studies and especially
during some difficult moments staying abroad. Thanks go to my friends from around the
globe and at home who helped me in many ways.
Last, not least, I am very thankful to all the interviewed women who shared their limited free
time with me to make this research possible.
IV
Abstract
Women play an important role in the economic and social development of societies, but they
are often denied equal opportunities because of socially embedded gender inequalities. This
research looks at the potential of dairy cooperatives for women‟s empowerment in South
India. Dairy production is of great importance for rural economy in India and women
contribute significantly to this activity. The Women Empowerment in Agriculture Index
developed by the International Food Policy Research Institute was adapted and applied as a
research tool. Using a snowball sampling technique, structured interviews were conducted
with women involved in four different dairy cooperatives (29) and women selling at the
private market (29). The results of the study indicate that there are economic benefits for
women participating in dairy cooperatives. However, the outcomes for women‟s
empowerment are ambiguous. Only in some domains women in dairy cooperatives rank
their empowerment status higher compared to non-members. The results point to the fact
that economic gains provided by cooperatives may not always lead to greater empowerment
for women. Moreover, the analysis indicates that women in mixed-gender cooperatives
experience greater decision-making power compared to women in single-gender
cooperatives. This study suggests that additional measures supporting women‟s role in dairy
cooperatives and a more participatory management are required in order to enhance gender
equality.
V
Contents
1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 4
1.1 Background ..................................................................................................................... 4
1.2 The Situation of Women in Rural India ......................................................................... 5
1.3 Relevance and Research Objectives ............................................................................... 7
1.4 Structure of the Study ..................................................................................................... 8
2 Literature Review ........................................................................................................... 9
2.1 Operation Flood and the Cooperative Dairy Sector in India .......................................... 9
2.1.1 The Anand Model ............................................................................................ 11
2.1.2 The Karnataka Milk Federation ....................................................................... 12
2.1.3 Dairy Sector Marketing .................................................................................... 14
2.1.4 Production Impact ............................................................................................ 15
2.1.5 Socio-Economic Impact ................................................................................... 17
2.2 Conceptualizing Women Empowerment in Agriculture and Development ................. 20
2.3 Cooperatives and Women Empowerment .................................................................... 26
3 Methodology .................................................................................................................. 32
3.1 Women Empowerment in Agriculture Index ............................................................... 32
3.2 Questionnaire Development ......................................................................................... 37
3.3 Study Area .................................................................................................................... 39
3.4 Sampling and Data Collection ...................................................................................... 41
3.4.1 Sampling Technique......................................................................................... 42
3.4.2 Interview Strategy ............................................................................................ 44
3.5 Limitations of the Primary Data ................................................................................... 46
VI
4 Results and Analysis ..................................................................................................... 48
4.1 Socio-Economic Characteristics ................................................................................... 48
4.2 Economic Advancement ............................................................................................... 50
4.3 Power and Agency: Five Domains of Women Empowerment ..................................... 55
4.3.1 Domain I: Productive Decisions ...................................................................... 55
4.3.2 Domain II: Resources ....................................................................................... 57
4.3.3 Domain III: Control over Use of Income ......................................................... 61
4.3.4 Domain IV: Leadership .................................................................................... 63
4.3.5 Domain V: Time .............................................................................................. 65
4.4 Comparing Mixed and Single-Gender Cooperatives .................................................... 67
4.5 Key Findings ................................................................................................................. 71
5 Discussion ...................................................................................................................... 73
5.1 Economic Advancement ............................................................................................... 73
5.2 Power and Agency ........................................................................................................ 74
5.3 Mixed and Single-Gender Cooperatives ....................................................................... 78
5.3.1 Conflict within the Household ......................................................................... 80
5.3.2 Top-Down Policy ............................................................................................. 81
5.3.3 Education and Training .................................................................................... 81
6 Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 83
References ............................................................................................................................. 90
A Appendices ..................................................................................................................... 98
A.1 Questionnaire ................................................................................................................ 98
A.2 Photos .......................................................................................................................... 106
1
List of Tables
Table 1: History of Operation Flood in Numbers ................................................................ 11
Table 2: Dairy Cooperative Development in Karnataka ...................................................... 14
Table 3: Definitions of Empowerment by Various Authors ................................................ 26
Table 4: Various Studies on Cooperatives and Women Empowerment .............................. 30
Table 5: Conversion of Variable Value into Index Value.................................................... 34
Table 6: Modified Women Empowerment in Agriculture Index ......................................... 35
Table 7: District-Wise Figures of the Study Area ................................................................ 40
Table 8: Regional Distribution of Sample ........................................................................... 42
Table 9: Households by Farm Size Category ...................................................................... 49
Table 10: Importance of Dairying by Farm Size ................................................................. 49
Table 11: Key Characteristics of Respondents .................................................................... 50
Table 12: Differences in Economics of Dairy Production by Membership ......................... 52
Table 13: Duration of Membership in DCS ......................................................................... 53
Table 14: Characteristics of Encountered Cooperatives ...................................................... 54
Table 15: Hours Spend on Dairy-Related Activities per Day .............................................. 65
Table 16: Number of Women Solely Responsible for Different Dairy-Related Tasks ....... 66
Table 17: Comparison of DCS and WDCS ......................................................................... 67
Table 18: Differences in Economics of Dairy Production between WDCS and DCS......... 68
Table 19: Economic Indicators of Households by DCS or WDCS Membership ................ 68
Table 20: Participation in Major Economic Decisions ........................................................ 70
Table 21: Key Findings ........................................................................................................ 71
2
List of Figures
Figure 1: Three-tier Cooperative Structure of Karnataka Milk Federation ......................... 13
Figure 2: Marketing Channels .............................................................................................. 15
Figure 3: Milk Production and Per Capita Milk Availability 1950-2011 ............................ 16
Figure 4: Three Dimensions of Women‟s Empowerment ................................................... 23
Figure 5: Agency and Opportunity Structures in Empowerment ........................................ 24
Figure 6: Women‟s Economic Empowerment ..................................................................... 25
Figure 7: Location of the Study Area ................................................................................... 39
Figure 8: Farm Size of Respondents‟ Households ............................................................... 49
Figure 9: Perceived Benefits of Cooperative Membership .................................................. 53
Figure 10: Decision-Making in Crop Production ................................................................ 55
Figure 11: Decision-Making about Feeding Management................................................... 56
Figure 12: Decision-Making about Loans by Source .......................................................... 58
Figure 13: Decision-Making about Loans by Membership ................................................. 59
Figure 14: Decision-Making about the Sale and Purchase of Land ..................................... 60
Figure 15: Decision-Making about the Purchase of Large Livestock.................................. 61
Figure 16: Decision-Making about the Use of Milk Income ............................................... 62
Figure 17: Decision-Making about Dairy Income by Recipient of Payment ...................... 63
Figure 18: Participation in Groups other than Dairy Cooperative ....................................... 64
Figure 19: Control over Dairy Income ................................................................................. 69
Figure 20: Decision-Making about the Sale and Purchase of Large Livestock ................... 69
3
List of Abbreviations
DCS District Cooperative Society
GOI Government of India
IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute
KDDC Karnataka Dairy Development Cooperation
KMF Karnataka Milk Federation
NDDB National Dairy Development Board
OF Operation Flood
SHG Self-help Group
STEP Support to Training and Employment Programme
WDCS Women District Cooperative Society
WEAI Women Empowerment in Agriculture Index
WSHG Women Self-Help Group
4
1 Introduction
1.1 Background
Out of the population of roughly 1.2 billion Indians, 70% live in villages. For more than
50% of the population crop and livestock farming continues to be the principal livelihood
source. Despite huge economic improvements over the last decades, around 30% of the
Indian population still lives below the poverty line of 1.25$ per day, predominantly in rural
rain fed areas (THE WORLD BANK, 2013).
Agriculture in India in general and in Karnataka in particular is characterized by marginal
and small landholdings1. These holdings with less than two hectares account together for
83% of all farms. Large farm sizes with ten and more hectares are very rare. The
agricultural land continues to be fragmented, the average farm size has declined from
1.33ha in 2000 to 1.23ha in 2005 (MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND CO-OPERATION, 2006).
Against this background it is understandable that farmers and policy planners are trying to
intensify less land-dependent, high-value production alternatives such as dairying (UOTILA
and DHANAPALA, 1994).
Dairy production is traditionally an important source of livelihood for the rural population
of India and an integral part of the crop-livestock production system. Cattles and buffalos
are fed on by-products of the crop-production and in turn provide dung to increase fertility
of the fields and are a source of draft-power. Milk, butter and ghee produced within the
household are an important source of nutrition for the families and with increasing market
access, allow for a regular cash inflow. Hence, dairy production is improving the viability
of the household and the farming system (KURUP, 2001).
An estimated 70% of rural households keep milch animals. The majority of them are small
and marginal farmers owning over 60% of all dairy animals. Livestock production is
mainly managed by family labour, especially by women (KURUP, 2001). There are over
330Mio heads cattle and buffaloes as in 2012 and the number continues increasing. The
total amount of milk produced was 124,850,000 tons in 2012, while the average yield per
animal was 1076kg of milk per year (FAOSTAT, 2014). The numbers show that the Indian
dairy sector is characterized by large numbers of animals, very small herd sizes and low
1 The GOI classification is used here: Landless ≥ 0,002 ha, Marginal: 0,002-0.9 ha, Small: 1-1.9 ha, Semi-
medium 2-3.9 ha, Medium 4 –9.9 ha; Large ≥ 10 ha
5
productivity. So at the supply side there are a large number of unorganized and scattered
small-scale producers in the rural areas. On the other side, triggered by population growth, a
rise in income levels and urbanization, there is an increasing demand for milk products by a
growing number of urban consumers2. The challenge is to bring together these groups in a
way as to ensure fair incomes for producers and relatively low prices for consumers. This is
complicated considering the perishability of milk, seasonal fluctuations of supplied
quantities, as well as the lack of procurement technologies and transportation infrastructure
in rural areas. Dairy cooperatives are considered a way to address these issues. By
establishing cooperatively their own collection system and processing facilities, farmers
can be assured a stable market and fair prices (UOTILA and DHANAPALA, 1994; BIRCHALL,
2004). Over the last decades dairy cooperatives have spread widely over India, now there
are more than 76,000 village-level cooperative societies, and 11 million producer-members
in the different states of India (RAJENDRAN and MOHANTY, 2004).
1.2 The Situation of Women in Rural India
Traditional rural society in India is generally dominated by men at family and society
level.3 One of the strongest indicators for the lower value attributed to females in Indian
society is the preference for sons, indicated by the sex ratio at birth (KISHOR and GUPTA
2009; BENNETT, 1993). Even when other development indicators such as income and
education improve, son-preference is found to persist: “The intensity of such forms of
gender discrimination, as evidenced by worsening sex ratios, oddly enough, is not
correlated with poor human development indicators. Violence against women is not always
associated with regions of low economic growth and poor human development indicators.
These phenomena suggest that gender violence is assuming new forms as the economy
grows.” (GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, 2005, p.172)
The boy preference becomes also visible in terms of nutrition and health status. Women
and girls are more often undernourished, because they use to eat after having served to the
male family members and children (GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, 2013).
2 Because of population growth and the high income elasticity of milk products, the demand is expected to
continue increasing. 3 However, there are clearly regional differences. The situation of women in the South is said to be better than
in the North of the country and there are some matrilineal communities, e.g. in Kerala. (AGARWAL, 1994)
6
The marriage system forms an important part of the patriarchal society. Parents often have
to pay dowry to marry their girls which implies a high economic cost of having daughters.
Indian law prohibits dowry payments since 1961 but it is still common practice, especially
in rural areas. If not in the form of cash, it may be as jewellery or household goods.
Research suggests that the cost of dowry is even increasing over the last decades putting a
high financial burden on poor families with daughters (ANDERSON, 2007; SRINIVASAN,
2005). Women usually have to leave their parents‟ house and move to their husbands‟
home after marriage. Most married women don‟t have any land titles because they
surrender their share of inheritance in favour of their brothers. Consequently they are
economically vulnerable in case of abandonment by or death of their husband. They also
face barriers to access credits as they don‟t have any collateral (AGARWAL, 1994).
Moreover, women have less access to education resulting in lower literacy rates compared
to men. In rural areas of Karnataka, 60% of females are literate as per 2011 compared to
78% of males (GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, 2013).
Women are restricted in their access to and control over financial resources and are less
involved in financial transactions and decision-making. Less than 45% of women in India
have access to funds of their own, and only 15% have a bank or savings account of their
own (KISHOR and GUPTA, 2009). Even though women in rural areas work long hours in and
outside the household, e.g. in fuel and fodder collection, fetching water and taking care of
animals, their work is often neglected and made invisible in official statistics as it is not
paid-wage labour (BENNETT, 1993).
Women in many parts of India don‟t have the same freedom of movement as men. Two-
thirds of women in India face restrictions in visiting public places, such as market, health
care centre or other communities, by their own (KISHOR and GUPTA, 2009). As a
consequence their participation in public life and in local political bodies is limited.
These unequal gender relations with all their consequences affect millions of poor women
in India and worldwide. Because their access to resources and information is restricted,
women are prevented from contributing to economic development. Providing equal
opportunities for women and men is an end in itself but it is also instrumental in achieving
poverty reduction and social development. According to the World Bank gender equality
can improve other development goals in three major ways: “First, removing barriers that
prevent women from having the same access as men to education, economic opportunities,
7
and productive inputs can generate broad productivity gains […]. Second, improving
women‟s absolute and relative status feeds many other development outcomes, including
those for their children. Third, leveling the playing field—where women and men have
equal chances to become socially and politically active, make decisions, and shape
policies—is likely to lead over time to more representative, and more inclusive, institutions
and policy choices and thus to a better development.” (THE WORLD BANK, 2011, p.3)
By increasing women‟s economic participation, the aggregate income levels of poor
households increase and there is a direct positive effect on children‟s health, nutrition and
education since women are more likely to invest their extra income in basic family
maintenance.4 Considering these reasons women empowerment became a leading paradigm
for development policies (GOLLA et al., 2011; BENNETT, 1993).
1.3 Relevance and Research Objectives
Cooperatives in India have a long history and have been supported intensively by the
government and international donor agencies as a way to improve the income of the poor.
Especially dairy cooperative societies (DCS) have been promoted by the Government of
India (GOI) since the 1960s and are now found in a majority of villages all over the
country. Since women are traditionally responsible for livestock and dairy production,
efforts have been made to include women in the dairy cooperative sector from the
beginning. Dairy cooperatives can bring together the aims of increasing milk supply,
enhancing incomes of poor rural households and promoting economic participation of
women. They can contribute to the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals of
eradicating extreme poverty and hunger and promoting gender equality and empowering
women (BIRCHALL, 2004).
Most of work related to care and management of livestock is done by female household
members (KURUP, 2001). Nevertheless women are underrepresented in DCS, especially in
the management level (CUNNINGHAM, 2009; BENNETT, 1993). In the 1990s the first women
dairy cooperative societies (WDCS) where established in India to overcome these
problems. However, there are few studies to analyse the effect of dairy cooperative
4 Different studies in India show that women of poor rural households spend almost all their income for
family consumption and children‟s need. Men usually spend a significant part of the income under their
control for personal expenses such as tobacco and liquor which is also an expression of social status.
(AGARWAL, 1994; MENCHER, 1988)
8
membership on the socio-economic status of women compared to other forms of dairy
marketing. The general objective of this study is to evaluate the impact of membership in
mixed or single-sex milk cooperatives on women‟s economic empowerment. For this
purpose empirical data from two districts in the State of Karnataka has been collected and
analysed using a women‟s empowerment index developed by the International Food Policy
Research Institute (IFPRI).
1.4 Structure of the Study
Starting point is the review of relevant literature about the dairy cooperative sector in
India, about the concept of empowerment and about women in cooperatives. The next
chapter depicts the methodology used for the collection of primary data, including a
description of the Women‟s Empowerment in Agriculture Index (WEAI), the questionnaire
development, the study area, the sampling technique, and the interview strategy. The
limitations of the primary data are discussed. Next, the results of the interviews are
presented and key findings are lined out. Cooperative members and non-members are
compared to each other in terms of economic gains and women empowerment. In a
subsequent step disaggregated data is presented for members of mixed-gender and women
dairy cooperatives. Finally, the results are discussed with respect to other research findings
and conclusions and recommendations are derived.
In the first chapter the relevance of the research topic is pointed out taking into account the
importance of dairy production for the rural economy and the high participation of women
in this activity. Women have an important role to play in the economic development which
they are often denied within the formal market. Hence this research looks at dairy
cooperatives in South India as an example of a gender sensitive development approach.
9
2 Literature Review
To approach the main subject of this study - the impact of dairy cooperatives on women‟s
empowerment - the following chapter begins by providing literature on dairy cooperatives
and on women empowerment, separately. The dairy cooperative movement in India and
Karnataka, including its history and implications, is explained. Next, concepts of women‟s
empowerment and development are presented. These two components are then combined in
the third section, where studies about the impact of cooperatives on women‟s
empowerment are reviewed.
2.1 Operation Flood and the Cooperative Dairy Sector in India
Major strategies of rural development in India include micro-finance and self-help groups
as well as agricultural cooperatives, e.g. in the fertilizer and sugar sector. The promotion of
dairy cooperatives is one approach to increase the income and nutrition of the rural poor.
“In general, a cooperative is a business owned and democratically controlled by the people
who use its services and whose benefits are derived and distributed equitably on the basis
of use.” (FREDERICK, 2012, p.1) Based on the Rochedale principles, cooperatives are
characterized by: Voluntary and open membership, democratic member control, member
economic participation, autonomy and independence, education, training and information,
cooperation among cooperatives and concern for community (FREDERICK, 2012).
Cooperative business models are prominent in the dairy sector all over the world. Since
milk is highly perishable, there are high costs for its timely transport and processing. This
leads to an oligopsonistic market structure where cooperatives are perceived a successful
way to strengthen producers‟ position versus traders and processors.
In India, cooperatives in the dairy sector were promoted since 1970 through a policy
program known as Operation Flood (OF).5 In the early post-independence years the efforts
to modernize the Indian dairy sector failed. There was a lack of access to urban markets for
5 The history of cooperatives in India dates back to pre-independence times. The first law regarding
cooperatives, the Cooperative Societies Act of 1904 was introduced by the British officer Nicholson and
inspired by the Raiffeisen model of German agricultural credit cooperatives. It gave a legal framework for
agricultural credit cooperatives formed in Indian villages. In 1912 the act was reformed in order to cover
cooperative societies other than credit. In 1942 the Multi-Unit Cooperative Societies Act was enabled
regarding cooperatives which operated and have members in more than one state. This Act again was replaced
in 1984 by the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act which was reformed in 2002. (TAMIL NADU
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE, 2014)
10
many smallholders and production schemes generally focused on urban producers.
Improved breeds and artificial insemination were promoted by government agencies but
without ensured profitable markets there was no incentive for farmers to increase
production. (CANDLER and KUMAR, 1998) Against this background the successful Kaira
District Cooperative Milk Producers‟ Union, known as Anand, became famous. It was
founded in 1946 by a group of milk producers in Guajarat who wanted to supply their milk
to Bombay. Backed by political support the cooperative grew rapidly and became a blue
print for dairy cooperatives throughout India. (VERHAGEN, 1990)
In 1965, the GOI established the National Dairy Development Board (NDDB) with the aim
of spreading the “Anand-model” throughout India. This agency was responsible for setting
up cooperatives and provided technical support for planning, farmer extension services,
engineering, dairy technology, veterinary services, and nutrition. Consequently, Operation
Flood came to life as a large-scale policy strategy which aimed at expanding a cooperative
system of dairy marketing throughout the country in order to increase milk production and
enhance the incomes of rural households. OF has also to be seen in the context of a
macroeconomic policy of import substitution that was accompanied by high protection
levels for dairy. By shifting the supply curve of dairy products to a higher level a price
increase in the domestic market was avoided and the prices gradually declined towards
international market prices (CANDLER and KUMAR, 1998).
OF was implemented in three stages from 1970 to 1996 and gradually scaled-up. It was
developed by the GOI and the NDDB with the financial and technical assistance of
international agencies such as the European Union, the World Bank and the FAO. Dairy
commodity food aid supplied by the EU was sold to commercial prices and the returns were
used to support OF. (SINGH and PUNDIR, 2000; CUNNINGHAM, 2009; RAJENDRAN,
MOHANTY, 2004)
The first phase targeted four major cities: Bombay, Kolkata, Delhi, and Chennai. In the
next phase the geographical scope was extended to 147 major Indian cities and finally the
cooperative marketing systems covered almost the whole country. The number of
federations, unions and village level cooperative societies increased markedly throughout
OF‟s implementation. Simultaneously infrastructure to procure and process milk was
improved and veterinary services, feed, and artificial-insemination services for cooperative
members were extended (SINGH and PUNDIR, 2000).
11
Table 1: History of Operation Flood in Numbers
1970-1981 1981-1985 1985-1996
Operation Flood I Operation Flood II Operation Flood III
Number of Federations 10 18 22
Milk sheds covered 39 136 170
DCS set up (000) 13.3 34.5 72.5
Members (mio) 1.75 3.63 9.263
Avg. milk procurement
(mio kg /day)
2.56 5.78 10.99
Source: Based on SINGH and PUNDIR (2000, p.15)
2.1.1 The Anand Model
The term “Anand model” or “Anand pattern” is used to refer to the specific three-tier
organizational structure of the Anand cooperative. The primary producers are grouped at
the village level in “Dairy Cooperative Societies” (DCS). They function mainly as a
collection point of milk produced in one village. At the DCS each producer‟s milk is tested
for fat percentage and payment is made accordingly at weekly or fortnightly basis. At the
second tier, DCS are linked to district cooperative unions which are engaged in processing
of milk and packaging of final products. Moreover, the unions usually provide services to
the producers, such as cattle feed, artificial insemination and veterinary services. At the
state level the district unions are grouped together in federations responsible for
coordination and marketing tasks. (VERHAGEN, 1990; RAJENDRAN and MOHANTY, 2004)
Acoording to the Anand principles each level controls the next one; the DCS have the
ownership and control of union plants and other assets and the district unions in turn
control the work of the state federations. In many parts of India however, reality looks
different. State federations control the plants and assets and the DCS are formed on
initiative of the district level rather than on their own. Critiques see OF as a centralized top-
down approach which is at odds with the cooperative principles of autonomy and
independence. (VERHAGEN, 1990, p.13)
As CANDLER and KUMAR (1998) observe: “In Gujarat, the federation was essentially
established as a result of the felt need of the individual union to establish a common brand
name and a common marketing platform for unions and to enable unions to coordinate
12
various activities. In most other states, however, the federation was established as an
instrument for implementing Operation Flood II […].” (CANDLER and KUMAR, 1998, p.14)
In many states, including Karnataka, existing government-owned dairy development
corporations were converted into federations. As a consequence boards of these federations
and the respective unions were nominated and effectively controlled by the government and
not by the farmers. Similarly the dairies at union level often remain property of the
federation and not the union, by-passing the control of the producers. CANDLER and KUMAR
(1998) find that only in Guajarat, Kerala and Pondicherry, the federation is actually
controlled by an elected board. They see a general problem in the influence exercised by
politicians and bureaucrats on the cooperatives, convincing them to accept government
assistance and thereby political appointees at the board of directors. On the other hand
financial support by the government seems necessary because member-producers are
usually poor and cannot be expected to buy large shares. Therefore, large investments in
processing plants depend on government support (SINGH and PUNDIR, 2000).
2.1.2 The Karnataka Milk Federation
The largest dairy cooperative in Karnataka is the Karnataka Milk Federation (KMF) owned
and managed by over 2.2 million milk producers, organized in over 12,000 DCS at village
level and 13 milk unions at district level in the three-tier cooperative model. The
federation‟s responsibility is the coordination among the unions and the marketing of the
produce within and outside the state under the common brand name NANDINI. In 1974 the
first dairy development program in Karnataka started with financial help of the World Bank
and the central and state government. It was implemented in the framework of OF and
under the guidance of the NDDB. The main goal of the project was to incorporate the
existing dairy cooperatives and multi-purpose cooperatives at the village level into the
three-tier Anand model, as well as to establish new DCS in villages without cooperatives.
By the end of the project the targeted number of 1,800 DCS and four district unions were
established. (CANDLER and KUMAR, 1998) The Karnataka Dairy Development Cooperation
(KDDC) was formed in 1974 as a parastatal organization at the apex of the three-tier
structure. It was provided with a total capital stock of Rs. 465 million, 53% of that came
from the World Bank and the remaining part from the central and state governments
(ALDERMAN, 1987). The state government sold its dairy plants and other assets gradually to
13
the KDDC as part of the transferred capital. The name KDDC was changed later to
Karnataka Milk Federation (KMF), but its parastatal structure remained unchanged. There
is still a mix of farmer-elected, ex officio, and government-appointed members in the board
of directors at the federation and union level in 1998. (CANDLER and KUMAR, 1998)
CANDLER and KUMAR (1998) find that: “In Karnataka, significant progress has been made
towards professionalizing the management of the dairy industry, but ownership of state
dairy plants has still not been legally transferred to the Federation. […], it would probably
have been better to insist on a fully cooperative structure from the start.” (CANDLER and
KUMAR, 1998, p.9)
Figure 1: Three-tier Cooperative Structure of Karnataka Milk Federation
Source: KMF, 2014
As elsewhere in India the milk production in Karnataka was to be increased by introducing
high-yielding cross bred cows, improving fodder supply and providing veterinary services
and artificial insemination (CANDLER and KUMAR, 1998; ALDERMAN, 1987). Moreover
processing capacities, e.g. chilling facilities and powder plants, increased gradually from
650,000 litres milk per day in 1984 to 3,225,000 litres per day in 2014. Apart from that,
today there are several cattle feed plants, a sperm station, a packaging film plant and a
training institute under the control of KMF. The total turnover of KMF and its unions in the
financial year 2013-2014 was around Rs 90.89 billion or € 1.13 billion (Rs 80.22 = €1)
(KMF, 2014).
14
Table 2: Dairy Cooperative Development in Karnataka
1976 - 1977 2013 - 2014
Dairy Cooperatives 416 13,889 Registered
12,334 Functioning
Membership 37,000 2,247,000
Annual Avg. Milk Procurement (Kgs/day) 50,000 5,165,000
Cattle Feed Consumed (Kgs/DCS) 220 3296
Daily Payment to Farmers (Rs) 90,000 120,200,000
Total Turnover (KMF and unions)
(Rs/year) 88.2 million 90.89 billion
Source: KMF, 2014
Regarding the promotion of women‟s participation in DCS, KMF supports the Support to
Training and Employment Programme (STEP) for women, which was initiated by the
government of Karnataka in 1997. Since then about 1,200 women dairy cooperative
societies (WDCS) have been established. The women receive benefits such as interest-free
loans to purchase milk animals and trainings (KMF, 2014). Regarding mixed-gender DCS,
the Karnataka Cooperative Act 1959 prescribes the reservation of one seat of the director‟s
board for a female member (THE KARNATAKA COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1959).
2.1.3 Dairy Sector Marketing
It is estimated that around 30% of the milk produced in India is consumed directly by the
producer‟s households. The remaining 70% are marketed mainly through the informal
sector. According to different authors 10-20% of the marketed milk is sold through the
formal market, either to cooperative, private or state-owned dairies. Considering this, the
share of milk marketed through dairy cooperatives is estimated to be not more than 6% to
8% of the total milk produced (SEE CUNNINGHAM, 2009; RAJENDRAN and MOHANTY, 2004).
Nevertheless the cooperative sector is the largest player within the formal milk market in
India accounting for almost 60% of milk procurement within the organized sector in
1995/94 (CANDLER and KUMAR, 1998).
According to calculations by KURUP (2001) based on data of 1999 around 45% of milk
produced is consumed as liquid milk. Less than 20% of it is sold as packaged milk through
cooperative or private dairies, 28% of the produced milk is processed to ghee, including the
processing in the traditional and informal sector. Other important products are Khoa, a kind
of cheese, butter and Dahi, a sweet yogurt. In 2001 there were more than 600 processing
plants in the country with a processing capacity of over 66 Mio litres per day. But much of
15
this capacity lies idle, for the private and government sector it is estimated that up to 40 %
of the installed capacities are not used regularly. (KURUP, 2001)
Figure 2: Marketing Channels
Source: Author, based on RAJENDRAN and MOHANTY, 2004
Ensuring quality and hygiene standards of dairy products, is a wide-spread problem in
India. As KURUP (2001) puts it: “A very large percentage of these private sector brands is
substandard, often unhygienic, as quality and hygiene standards are seldom enforced.”
(KURUP, 2001, p.79) The problem for private brands is that they don‟t buy milk directly
from the producers but rely on contractors and subcontractors. They don‟t have any control
about the product until it reaches the plant. It is common practice by farmers and informal
traders to mix milk with water to increase the quantity sold. Regarding the dairy
cooperatives, the problem is reduced because milk is directly tested at the point of sale and
payment is made according to the fat content (CANDLER and KUMAR, 1998).
2.1.4 Production Impact
As the number of village milk cooperatives and members grew throughout the last decades,
so did the production of milk and per capita availability of milk. India turned from an
importer of dairy products into one of the largest producers worldwide. Milk production
increased at an average growth rate of 4.7% per annum since 1971 when OF was
implemented (KURUP, 2001).
16
Figure 3: Milk Production and Per Capita Milk Availability 1950-2011
Source: DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, DAIRYING AND FISHERIES, 2014
Proponents of OF claim, that the increase in milk production shows clearly the programs‟
positive impact. But at the same time there are scholars questioning, in how far the increase
in milk production can be attributed to OF (CANDLER and KUMAR, 1998). Some authors
suggest other factors to be causal to the production increase such as improved technologies,
assured producer prices and increased fodder availability as a by-product of the Green
Revolution (see KUMAR, 1997). For example PARTHASARTHY (1991), rejects the hypothesis
that increasing growth rates in milk production are an effect of OF. For him the shift from
low yield cows to high yield buffaloes was the main factor behind the increase in milk
production. (PARTHASARTHY 1991, cited in KUMAR, 1997). On the other extreme it has
been stated that: “This rapid growth and modernization [of the dairy sector] is largely
credited to the contribution of dairy co-operatives under the Operation Flood (OF)
Project.” (RAJENDRAN and MOHANTY, 2004, p. 34.) For the authors the Anand model
continues to be successful because it provides an institutional infrastructure which is
controlled and owned by the farmers themselves. (RAJENDRAN and MOHANTY, 2004)
SINGH and PUNDIR (2000) are of the opinion that there is evidence to attribute the increase
in milk production to services provided by OF such as “increased supply of concentrated
balanced cattle feed, better animal health care and management, training and education of
0,00
50,00
100,00
150,00
200,00
250,00
300,00
350,00
400,00
450,00
19
50
-51
19
60
-61
19
73
-74
19
80
-81
19
82
-83
19
84
-85
19
86
-87
19
88
-89
19
90
-91
19
92
-93
19
94
-95
19
96
-97
19
98
-99
20
00
-01
20
02
-03
20
04
-05
20
06
-07
20
08
-09
20
10
-11
Per CapitaAvailability(gram/day)
Milk Production(million tonnes)
17
milk producers, and remunerative producer price of milk […].” (SINGH and PUNDIR, 2000,
p.28)
CUNNINGHAM (2009) understands the causality between OF and increased milk production
in a different way. Since the cooperative share of dairying still is minor and accounts for
less than 10% of the total milk production the impact of OF should not be overestimated.
According to her the achievement of OF is rather to have “created a new policy
environment in the dairy sector and linked rural and urban populations, introduced market
orientation and technological advancements, developed extension services, and supported
the growth of cooperatives in a sustainable manner.” (CUNNINGHAM, 2009, p. 14)
As KUMAR (1997) and CUNNINGHAM (2009) point out there are no longitudinal studies to
precisely measure the impact of OF. There are case-studies at the micro-level but it is
difficult to generalize their results taking into account the large size and diversity of India.
It can be concluded that the production impact of OF remains controversial among scholars
and there is a lack of long-term independent data collection and impact assessment.
2.1.5 Socio-Economic Impact
The GOI and international agencies have financially supported the cooperative dairy sector
through OF for 25 years at a large scale. Still the GOI continues spending money to support
cooperatives in the dairy sector. The question arises if these expenses can be justified in
terms of income and employment creation for the rural poor.
It seems to be clear that most of the members of DCS at the village level are landless, small
and marginal farmers. According to a study by SHUKLA and BRAHMANKAR (1999), 75% of
DCS members belong to these groups of landowners (cited in KURUP, 2001). CANDLER and
KUMAR (1998) observe that the number of DCS members exceed the number of people
selling milk to the cooperatives, so-called “pourers”, and hence the actually beneficiaries.
Taking this into account, they find that 74% of pourers in the study area are small and
marginal farmers and 15% are landless, the remaining 11% are large farmers.
The extent, to which dairying contributes to the household income, ranges from 53% of the
total income for landless households to 19% of the total income for large farmers. (SHUKLA
and BRAHMANKAR, 1999, cited in KURUP, 2001, p.81). The suggested inverse relation
between land holding size and importance of dairying for the household economy, points
18
on the potential for dairying in improving the living conditions of the poorest part of the
society.
KUMAR (1997) and CUNNINGHAM (2009) discuss if dairy development has benefited poor
and richer households equally. They list some authors (Parthasarathy,1991; Baviskar 1988;
Mellor 1999) to suggest that investments in dairy production are going to lead to a more
equal distribution of income compared to investments in crop production. That is because
livestock production depends less on land area owned by the producer and the distribution
of cattle is more equitable than the distribution of land. Landless rural households can
benefit from dairy production and increased marketing opportunities through cooperatives.
GOSH and MAHARJAN (2001) support based on a case study in Bangladesh the positive
income effect of dairy cooperative membership on rural households. They share the view
that dairying can especially benefit the poor households because cattle are distributed far
more equally then land. The authors conclude that dairy cooperatives in Bangladesh
provide a viable means of income generation and continuous cash income for the benefit of
the poorest parts of the society.
On the other hand SQUICCIARINI, VANDEPLAS and SWINNEN (2013) challenge this
perception based on data collected among 1000 rural households in Andhra Pradesh. They
find that access to land seems to be a pre-condition to increase direct benefits of dairy
production for the poor. According to them landless households are less likely to participate
in dairy farming. Hence removing legal obstacles to land rent is recommended to allow
landless families to reap benefits of dairy development.
Similarly BASU and CHAKRABORTY (2008) find in a study of two villages in North East
India that and land ownership is a major determinant for participation in dairy cooperatives.
They point out that agriculture and dairying have to be seen as interrelated and a
diversification into dairying does not decrease the dependency on agriculture.
These findings are in line with VERHAGEN (1990); he questions the viability of dairy
production for landless households, which constitute the poorest part of the rural society.
Since landless producers face a serious scarcity of fodder, they have to incur higher
expenses for fodder and feed or accept lower milk yields per animal. In either case their
returns from dairy will be reduced. The author suggests that an increase in dairy activities
due to of OF may affect poor households even adversely because fodder scarcity is
triggered.
19
CANDLER and KUMAR (1998) confirm based on their impact assessment in Karnataka that
not all landless households can participate in dairying because of the high investment
requirements for cattle and continuous cost for feed. Nevertheless they also confirm that
landless families with cattle are better-off than those without. And dairy households in
villages with cooperatives earn more income from dairying than those in villages without
such cooperatives. In some cases, dairying shifts from a side line activity to a major source
of household income. The importance of dairy income for farm households lies moreover in
the regular cash income. Frequently the milk income is used for current expenses whereas
crop income, which is only received once or twice a year, is spend on investments and
major social events.
It can be concluded that people who don‟t have resources to own cattle and feed it, the
poorest part of the rural society, are left out of the scope of OF. However, many small and
marginal producers, who are still poor in absolute terms, can increase the returns from
dairying through a stable market. Probably the distribution of benefits of the so-called white
revolution is more equitable as compared to the land-based green revolution.
Regarding the impact of DCS on gender equality, the question arises how women are
affected by the participation in dairy cooperatives, because generally it can be expected that
there are differences in why men and women involve in cooperative action, in how they
participate and which benefits they derive 6 (PANDOLFELLI, MEINZEN-DICK and DORN,
2008). This is important in the context of DCS since women are largely responsible for
dairy production at the household level but are still underrepresented in cooperative
membership and the management of mixed-gender cooperatives. On the one hand improved
marketing opportunities provide economic possibilities for women that may eventually lead
to greater autonomy and higher social status. On the other hand, there may be an increased
workload for women and social barriers may prevent women from participating in
cooperative institutions (see CUNNINGHAM, 2009). Before coming back to the role that
dairy cooperatives can play for women‟s empowerment, I will contextualize the term
women empowerment and present various definitions and conceptual frameworks.
6 Even if they are members in the same cooperative, men and women may have different objectives. For
example in forest protection cooperatives, women are more interested in the collection of fuel wood, whereas
men are more concerned with timber for construction. (AGARWAL, 2007)
20
2.2 Conceptualizing Women Empowerment in Agriculture and Development
Boserup‟s book “Women‟s role in economic development” published in 1970, contributes
largely to the early discourse about the role of women in agriculture and development.
Boserup empirically shows the gender-based labour division prevalent across countries and
regions, the underestimation and undervaluation of female domestic and subsistence labour
and the negative effect of colonialism, modern technologies and capitalist market structures
on the status of women in traditional rural societies (BENERÍA and SEN, 1981).
Boserup‟s writings contributed to the approach of Women in Development (WID), a
network of female development professionals in the 1970s, who advocated for equal
opportunities for women in the productive market sphere (RAZAVI and MILLER, 1995).
In 1981 BENERÍA and SEN criticize Boserup‟s approach as based too much on neoclassical
economic theory. In their view, “…the problem for women is not only the lack of
participation in this process [modernization] as equal partner with men; it is a system that
generates and intensifies inequalities, making use of existing gender hierarchies to place
women in subordinate positions at each different level of interaction between class and
gender.” (BENERÍA and SEN, 1981, p.290)
They give examples for the outcomes that penetration of capitalism in former subsistence
economies may have on gender relations in different contexts. These include increased
workload for women, loss of female control over productive resources, new divisions of
labour and the change from traditional forms of patriarchal control to new forms. (BENERÍA
and SEN, 1981).
In line with this school of thought the Development Alternatives with Women for a New
Era (DAWN) network in the mid-1980s argued “the need for a new vision of development
based on the perspective of poor Third World women.” (SEN and GROWN, 1985, cited in
OXAAL and BADEN, p.4)
In this context for the first time the concept of women empowerment gained importance as
collective challenge to power structures which subordinate women.
During the 1980s WID is increasingly perceived as a concept focusing too narrowly on
women as an isolated group outside of social relations, this leads to a gradual shift from
WID to the Gender and Development (GAD) approach and finally to Gender
Mainstreaming (OKALI, 2011).
21
In 1995 at the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, China, the idea of Gender
Mainstreaming is formally defined as: “Mainstreaming a gender perspective is the process
of assessing the implications for women and men of any planned action, including
legislation, policies or programmes, in all areas and at all levels. It is a strategy […] so
that women and men benefit equally and inequality is not perpetuated. The ultimate goal is
to achieve gender equality.” (UNITED NATIONS, 1997, n.p.)
In order to operationalize women empowerment as a variable to be measured and
evaluated, it is important to look at the underlying definitions and concepts.
The term empowerment is used in a range of different contexts to describe a strategy of
promoting previously disadvantaged groups in a participatory way, such as poor, ethnic
minorities or handicapped. MALHOTRA, SCHULER and BOENDER, (2002) argue that women
empowerment has to be distinguished from other forms of empowerment for three reasons:
1. Gender is an intersectional category overlapping with all other societal groups.
2. Women‟s disempowerment takes place to a large extent at the household and family
level.
3. Women‟s empowerment requires systemic transformation in most institutions.
Although “women empowerment” is a stated goal of many of today‟s development projects
there is no unique definition of what it actually means. In fact a review of the literature
reveals major differences in the way how women empowerment is defined and analysed.
MOSEDALE (2005) understands empowerment as a collective feminist agenda and sees the
origins of the term in “the struggle for social justice and women‟s equality through a
transformation of economic, social and political structures at national and international
levels” (BISNATH and ELSON, nd p.1, cited in MOSEDALE, 2005)
MOSEDALE (2005) defines women‟s empowerment as “the process by which women
redefine gender roles in ways which extend their possibilities for being and doing.” This
requires “[…] women recognising the ideology that legitimizes male domination and
understanding how it perpetuates their oppression.” (MOSEDALE, 2005, p. 252). She points
out that the extension of possibilities for women is not for the individual benefit but has to
be seen as a collective effort and achievement.
As the term em-powerment suggests, it is about power relations. G. SEN therefore describes
women empowerment as: “altering relations of power…which constrain women‟s options
22
and autonomy and adversely affect health and well-being” (SEN, 1993, cited in MALHOTRA,
SCHULER and BOENDER, 2002, p.5). For ROWLANDS (1997) the meaning of empowerment is
shaped by the user‟s understanding of “power”. According to her “power” can take many
different forms, which she categorizes as: power over (controlling power, resistance or
manipulation), power to (creating new possibilities), power with (acting in a group) and
power from within (enhancing self-respect and self-acceptance). Drawing on Focault, she
points out that power is not a zero-sum game, where someone has to lose power in order for
others to gain, but it is rather a mode of relationship between individuals and groups.
Broadening the traditional concept of power as domination over others, she concludes that:
“Empowerment is thus more than participation in decision-making; it must also include the
processes that lead people to perceive themselves as able and entitled to make decisions.”
(ROWLANDS, 1997, p.14) In her conceptual framework of empowerment, Rowland
distinguishes three dimensions of empowerment: “
personal: developing a sense of self and individual confidence and capacity, and
undoing the effects of internalised oppression
relational: developing the ability to negotiate and influence the nature of a relationship
and decisions made within it
collective: where individuals work together to achieve a more extensive impact than
each could have had alone.[…]” (ROWLANDS, 1997, p.15)
23
Figure 4: Three Dimensions of Women’s Empowerment
Source: ROWLANDS, 1997
A different framework to analyse empowerment has been developed by KABEER (1999).
She defines empowerment as “[…] the process by which those who have been denied the
ability to make choices acquire such an ability.”(KABEER, 1999, p.435)
She continues to frame choices in three interrelated dimensions:
1. Resources including not only material but also social and human resources, which are
pre-conditions for choice.
2. Agency, the process of becoming aware of and act upon one‟s goals.
3. Achievements, the outcomes of such choices. (KABEER, 1999)
ALSOP, BERTELSON and HOLLAND (2006) developed a similar framework of empowerment
for the World Bank drawing on the concept that: “Empowerment is defined as a group‟s or
individual‟s capacity to make effective choices, that is, to make choices and then to
transform those choices into desired actions and outcomes.” (ALSOP, BERTELSON and
HOLLAND, 2006, p. 10)
According the authors, empowerment can be achieved by improving two interrelated
factors; namely agency and opportunity structures. Agency refers to the capacity of an
24
individual or a group to make purposeful choices. Opportunity structures are those aspects
of the institutional environment that influence the actors‟ ability to put agency into practice.
Figure 5: Agency and Opportunity Structures in Empowerment
Source: ALSOP, BERTELSON and HOLLAND, 2006
MALHOTRA, SCHULER and BOENDER (2002) point out the multidimensionality of the
concept of women empowerment. They distinguish following dimensions along which
women empowerment has to occur: “economic, socio-cultural, familial/interpersonal,
legal, political, and psychological.” (MALHOTRA, SCHULER and BOENDER, 2002, p. 12)
These dimensions are interrelated but there is not always a positive correlation between
them, empowerment in one dimension doesn‟t necessarily lead to empowerment in the
others.
GOLLA et al. (2011) focus in their publication for The International Centre for Research on
Women (ICRW) on the economic dimension of empowerment, since they consider it as a
crucial condition for women to advance in other dimensions as well. The authors define
economic empowerment of women as follows: “A woman is economically empowered
when she has both the ability to succeed and advance economically and the power to make
and act on economic decisions.” (GOLLA et al.., 2011, p.4) According to this definition
there are two interrelated components; the first is economic advancement in terms of
economic gains and success and the second is power and agency regarding decision-making
and control over resources. These components enhance each other and lead eventually to
greater economic empowerment of women.
25
Figure 6: Women’s Economic Empowerment
Source: GOLLA et al., 2006
However, authors such as MAYOUX (2000) question the direct link between access to
economic resources and women‟s empowerment.
Taking into account the definitions of table 3 (see below), women‟s empowerment requires
that women can control decisions that affect their life and that they can chose between an
increasing number of options. The process of empowerment also includes the greater
awareness of women about their abilities and rights.
In this study, the focus is on economic empowerment of women, recognizing the equal
importance of other dimensions as well. Since empowerment is a complex
multidimensional process, including relational and cultural aspects, data on empowerment
can only be interpreted in a meaningful way keeping in mind the social and cultural
realities of women.
26
Table 3: Definitions of Empowerment by Various Authors
Author Definition
Alsop, Bertelsen and
Holland (2006, p.10)
“Empowerment is defined as a group‟s or individual‟s capacity to
make effective choices, that is, to make choices and then to
transform those choices into desired actions and outcomes.”
Batliwala, (1994) in
Mosedale (2005,
p.248)
“A spiral, changing consciousness, identifying areas to target for
change, planning strategies, acting for change, and analysing
activities and outcomes.”
Jejeebhoy (2000) in
Malhotra, Schuler
and Boender (2002,
p.7)
“Gaining control of their own lives vis-à-vis family, community,
society, markets.”
Kabeer (1999,
p.435)
“The process by which those who have been denied the ability to
make choices acquire such an ability.”
Mosedale (2005,
p.252)
“The process by which women redefine and extend what is
possible for them to be and do in situations where they have been
restricted, compared to men, from being and doing.”
Narayan (2002,
p.11)
“Empowerment is the expansion of assets and capabilities of poor
people to participate in, negotiate with, influence, control, and
hold accountable institutions that affect their lives.”
Rowlands (1997,
p.14)
“Empowerment is thus more than participation in decision
making; it must also include the processes that lead people to
perceive themselves as able and entitled to make decisions.”
Sen (1993) in
Malhotra, Schuler
and Boender (2002,
p.5)
“Altering relations of power…which constrain women‟s options
and autonomy and adversely affect health and well-being.”
Golla et al. (2011,
p.4)
“A woman is economically empowered when she has both the
ability to succeed and advance economically and the power to
make and act on economic decisions.” Source: Author
2.3 Cooperatives and Women Empowerment
After having reviewed concepts of empowerment, the role that dairy cooperatives can play
for women‟s empowerment will be discussed. Since current literature on women‟s
empowerment in dairy cooperatives is scarce, gender impacts of cooperatives will be
discussed more generally, drawing also on results from studies in different contexts that can
be useful for this case.
BURCHI and VICARI (2014) support the hypothesis that membership in a primary producer
cooperative has a positive impact on intra-household decision-making power of women. In
a study in Brazil they compare couples who are members of a genuine producer cooperative
27
with a control group to examine gender equality based on the capabilities approach.
According to the authors, co-operators experience democratic forms of decision-making
employed within the cooperative, and are more likely to introduce this kind of decision-
making in their household. Despite of different outcomes for various domains, there is an
overall improvement in relations between co-operators and their partners. The analysed
cooperative is found to “challenge the local patriarchal culture” and to improve the social
and economic status of women. (BURCHI and VICARI, 2014, p. 18)
MEERA and KRISHNE GOWDA (2013) conduct a case study of rural women in dairy
cooperatives in Karnataka. By interviewing 160 women of different WDCS they assess
economic empowerment in terms of increase in income, access to cash, access to credit,
knowledge of husband's income, confidence in financial transactions and aspiration for
economic autonomy. Using a before-after approach, they claim that the annual dairy
income has almost tripled after joining the WDCS and that 55 % of the interviewed women
have access to cash thanks to WDCS membership. They conclude that “the dairy
cooperatives are playing a vital role by creating employment opportunities for women,
access to income and access to credit. This is a sure march towards economic
empowerment of women.” (MEERA and KRISHNE GOWDA, 2013, p.34)
KAUR (2010) analyses data from 200 rural dairy households in Punjab that are selling either
to a private or cooperative dairies, including mixed-gender and women dairy cooperatives.
She observes that membership for women in the mixed cooperative is restricted to women
who are head of the household. In the village with a women cooperative, female
membership is compulsary. According to the researcher women‟s cooperatives are
promoted by authorities in order to make the milk society economically more succesful. “It
is thought that political affiliations of men do affect the smooth functioning of a society and
believed that women being apolitical, there will be less fights in the management of DCS.”
(KAUR, 2010, p.115)
Women in WDCS are more likely to receive payments made by the cooperative and have
better access to information provided by the cooperative. However, in other areas there are
no improvements and it is concluded that pure women cooperatives have not brought major
changes in terms of women empowerment. (KAUR, 2010)
DATTA and GAILEY (2012) interview seven members of the Lijjat women-cooperative,
dedicated to producing and marketing food items in an urban environment. They show that
28
empowerment can be embedded in social enterprises that work based on the principles of
collective ownership, cooperation, self-reliance and profit sharing. According to the authors
the non-interference of the government and the resulting autonomy was one reason for its
success. The interviewed women are found to be empowered through the participation in
the cooperative because their economic situation as well as their entrepreneurial skills
improved. (DATTA and GAILEY, 2012)
SHARMA and VANJANI (1993) study the situation of poor women in Rajasthan who are
trained in order to form a women dairy society. They find that commercializing dairy
production will rather increase women‟s workloads but not provide them a greater control
over income or a better position within the household. The current strategy of dairy
development reinforces traditional gender-based labour division and hierarchy, exploiting
female work force since “[…] the functioning and capital accumulation of the modern
dairy system represented by the male-controlled processing and marketing centres in the
city depend upon the cheap labour intensive work of females operating in the rural
sector.” (SHARMA and VANJANI, 1993, p.1387)
As BENETT et al. (1991) assess women are largely responsible for dairy productive tasks,
such as feeding, milking, shed cleaning and watering. But men often hold the cooperative
membership (in mixed cooperatives) and control the cash income. In cases where sales are
diverted from traditional informal traders to the cooperative, control over the income from
those sales tends to shift from female to male household members. A higher degree of
formality and the necessity of doing financial transactions outside the household have led to
a decrease in women‟s autonomy over dairy income. The authors conclude that:
”Operation Flood has too often meant more dairy work but no increase, and sometimes
even a decrease, in their [own remark: women who are not shareholders themselves] access
to dairy income” (BENETT et al., 1991, p.51)
Supporting this theory, LAHOTI, CHOLE and RATHI (2012) in a case study of Maharashtra
empirically show the high involvement of women in all dairy-related productive tasks and
much less involvement in any tasks related to financial or economic decisions. This in turn
can be explained by the definition of female as belonging to the “inside” in the Indian
culture. Financial transactions with non-family members are seen as “outside” and hence
belong to the sphere of men. (BENETT, 1993)
29
MAYOUX (1995) discusses experiences from cooperative projects in Nicaragua and India in
terms of their effect on the women involved. She argues that there are costs of participation
in collective action for women such as an increased workload and potential conflicts within
the family which are often ignored by policy-makers. It cannot be assumed that there is a
direct link between women‟s participation in cooperatives and an improvement in their
situation, because “The relationship between women‟s time and resource input and the
benefits they enjoy is generally mediated by power relations within the household and
community.” (MAYOUX, 1995, p. 248) The extent to which women have control over
income is not significantly different in cooperative forms of production compared to normal
market activities. Participatory or cooperative projects don‟t empower women per se since
they take place in an environment structured by gender inequalities. Moreover, MAYOUX
(1995) observes that women-only projects are often limited to activities that are
traditionally perceived as women‟s work and do not compete with male production sectors.
JONES, SMITH and WILLS (2012) conduct a qualitative research on women producer groups
in different countries that are involved in the Fair Trade market. In the case of India, they
emphasize that economic autonomy for women alone, does not necessarily change gender
relations within the community. There is a need to explicitly support women in developing
capabilities and self-confidence, which eventually induces social change. Market access
through collective enterprises doesn‟t lead automatically to more gender equity; it is a
“combination of enabling organizational dynamics and functional effectiveness, strong
market linkages, the multifaceted functions of marketing, access to resources and capital,
and the degree of external support that must ultimately converge to produce positive results
[…].” (JONES, SMITH and WILLS, 2012, p.29)
AGARWAL (2007) analyses the situation of women in forest protection cooperatives. She
makes a distinction between voluntary and non-voluntary, that is enforced co-operation, as
well as between pre-existing gender inequalities and gender inequalities arising from the
structure of new organizations. In the case of forest cooperatives, she finds that women bear
higher costs and get lower benefits from forest closure, which is a common tool for forest
protection. Because of gender inequalities and gendered work distribution, it is more
difficult for women to co-operate in forest cooperatives and they have fewer incentives to
do so. “In particular, the substantial gender gap in economic endowments, gendered social
norms and perceptions, the rules governing the institution, and the power of coercion
30
underlying gender relations (at home and in the community) significantly constrain
women‟s voluntary cooperation.” (AGARWAL, 2007, p.307) This observation might be
generalized for other forms of cooperative action where women‟s costs and benefits of
cooperation depend upon gender-specific norms.
Table 4: Various Studies on Cooperatives and Women Empowerment
Author Country / Region Type of cooperative Criteria Impact
Agarwal
(2007)
India Forest cooperatives Costs and benefits of
women‟s
cooperation
Negative
Burchi and
Vicari (2014)
Brazil Mixed primary
producers
cooperative
Intra-household
decision making
Positive
Bennett et al. (1991)
India Mixed dairy
cooperatives
Control over income Negative
Datta and
Gailey (2012)
India (Mumbai) Women worker
cooperative, Cottage
industry (urban)
Economic security,
entrepreneurial
behaviour,
contributions to the
family income
Positive
Jones, E.,
Smith, S.,
Wills, C.
(2012)
Kenya, Tanzania,
Uganda, India,
Nepal, Nicaragua,
and Mexico
Fair Trade
cooperatives,
agriculture and non-
agriculture
Economic and social
improvement
Mixed
Kaur (2010) India (Punjab) Women and mixed
dairy cooperatives
Membership, access
to credit, access to
information and
training, control over
resources and
income
Mixed
Mayoux
(1995)
Nicaragua and India Diverse, agriculture
and non-agriculture
Workload, social
status, control over
income
Mixed
Meera M. and
Krishne
Gowda (2013)
India (Karnataka) Women dairy
cooperatives
Economic
empowerment
Positive
Sharma and
Vanjani (1993)
India (Rajasthan) Women dairy
cooperatives
Health, income
control
Negative
Source: Author based on included studies
31
The literature review shows that there is mixed evidence for the empowering effect of
participation in cooperatives on women. It cannot be taken for granted that women will
improve their economic or social situation when becoming member in a cooperative
because of costs involved in cooperation and powerful gender relations within the society.
Nevertheless, there is evidence that positive empowerment outcomes are possible.
Based on the literature review the following working hypotheses guide this research:
1. Cooperative action facilitates and promotes women empowerment by providing
economic benefits and opportunities for participation and decision-making.
2. Income from participation in dairy cooperatives contributes to greater economic
autonomy of women.
3. Women‟s position in intra-household decision-making is positively affected by
participation in dairy cooperatives.
4. Women dairy cooperatives have a greater empowerment effect on their members
compared to mixed-gender cooperatives because women face fewer restrictions within
the organisation.
In the literature review, the history and impact of the dairy cooperative movement and
Operation Flood in India is discussed. It is shown that milk production increased
significantly in the last decades and that small holders have benefitted from the cooperative
marketing system. Furthermore, various concepts of women‟s empowerment with a focus
on economic empowerment are presented. Common key elements of empowerment are
decision-making power and choices as well as awareness about one‟s rights and abilities,
also referred to as agency. Finally, studies on women‟s empowerment in different kinds of
cooperatives are reviewed that yield quite mixed results. The working hypothesis guiding
the course of the study are presented. In the next chapter I will provide details about the
methodology applied for the collection and analysis of the primary data used in this study.
32
3 Methodology
“Gender, in particular, is noted to be an important signifier of differences in interests and
preferences, incomes are not necessarily pooled, and self-interest resides as much within
the home as in the marketplace, with bargaining power affecting the allocation of who gets
what and who does what. […] the household‟s property status and associated well-being
can no longer be taken as automatically defining the property status and well-being of all
household members, and especially not of women.” (AGARWAL, 2007, pp.274)
Therefore, the interviews within this study are conducted with women individually in order
to assess explicitly their level of economic empowerment.
The empirical data used in this study was collected during February and March 2014 in
eight villages in two districts of Karnataka.7
In this chapter, the methodological framework of the study, the process of questionnaire
development, the sampling technique and the interview strategy as well as the limitations of
the primary data, are described in detail.
3.1 Women Empowerment in Agriculture Index
As women empowerment is a multi-dimensional concept it is not easily measurable. One
tool for measuring women empowerment at the household level was proposed in 2012 by
the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI); the Women Empowerment in
Agriculture Index (WEAI) developed by ALKIRE and others. The WEAI focuses on those
aspects of empowerment which are directly linked to agriculture, hence it is considered as
most applicable for this study.
Recognizing the various aspects of women empowerment, the IFPRI framework includes
five domains:
1. Production: This domain includes decisions about agricultural production, assessing
sole or joint decision-making about food and cash crop farming, livestock, fisheries, and
autonomy in agricultural production.8
2. Resources: This domain looks at ownership of, access to and decision-making power
over productive resources such as land, livestock, agricultural equipment and credit.
7 The research for this study was part of an exchange program with the Department of Agricultural Economics
at the University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore. 8 Autonomy here refers to a person`s ability to act on her or his own values.
33
3. Income: This domain evaluates control over use of income and expenditures, in terms of
sole or joint decision-making within the household.
4. Leadership: This domain considers membership in economic or social groups and
comfort speaking in public as measures for leadership in the community.
5. Time: This domain regards the allocation of time to productive and domestic tasks and
the individuals` satisfaction with their leisure time.
(ALKIRE et al., 2011, p.7)
The WEAI has been developed and tested in pilot surveys in Bangladesh, Guatemala and
Uganda in 2011. By applying this tool, economic empowerment of women can be
measured relatively to male household members and also compared among various cases.
The WEAI can be useful in various cultural settings with locally specific adaptations.
(ALKIRE et al., 2011) In this study the concept of WEAI is modified and applied to meet
compliance with the research question under the given circumstances in the following way:
While WEAI is used in the pilot studies to assess the empowerment of a population
group, in this study it is more shaped to estimate the level of empowerment of individual
women.9
Only female farmers were interviewed and not the respective male household members.
In the original WEIA concept both are interviewed and the results compared to obtain a
measure of women empowerment relative to males.10
Because of time constraints this
was out of the scope.
The section of “Relative autonomy in productive decisions” suggested by the IFPRI was
excluded from this study, also because of time constraints. This set of questions
examines, whether activities of the respondents are rather externally or internally
motivated.
Regarding income and productive decisions, there was no distinction made between
food and cash crops. The suggested differentiation between these categories is based on
the assumption that women are usually more involved in production of subsistence
crops. However, during the pre-test it was found to be very difficult to distinguish
9 For a complete explanation of the methodology see ALKIRE et al. (2012, pp. 33).
10 The “gender parity in empowerment within the household” index is assigned a weight of 10 % compared to
90% for the “five domains” index, hence it has a relatively lower importance for construction of the index.
34
between the production of cash and food crops. In many cases crops such as rice or
millets are sold on the market as well as used for home consumption.
A new aspect, “Productive decisions in dairying”, was included into the framework as a
subdomain to capture the specific impact of dairying on women‟s empowerment.
Regarding ownership and control over assets, only the ownership of land was considered
as other assets were largely perceived as “jointly owned” (as discussed below). The
category “Purchase, sale and transfer of assets” was only evaluated for land and large
animals because of missing data and the lower economic relevance of other assets such
as chicken or farm equipment.
Time use was estimated by means of a timetable allocating all activities realized during
the day prior to the interview as proposed by the IFPRI. The section “leisure time”
where women are asked about their satisfaction with the available free and resting time
was excluded from the WEAI because of the complexity of the question.11
Table 6 depicts the questions in each (sub-) domain used for the construction and
evaluation of the WEAI with the respective weighting. Answer scales regarding decision-
making in the domains Production, Resources and Income have a value from 1 (only
women) to 5 (only husband). These variable values are converted into values for the
calculation of WEAI as follows:
Table 5: Conversion of Variable Value into Index Value
Variable
value
Value assigned
for index Explication Score
1 4 Decision solely taken by woman 100 %
2 3 Decision taken mainly by woman 75 %
3 2 Joint decision 50 %
4 1 Decision taken mainly by man 25 %
5 0 Decision taken only by man 0 % Source: Author
The maximum value in table 6 is based on the converted index values, that means for each
question the highest obtainable value is 4.
11
In the IFPRI survey, interviewees were asked to range their satisfaction with leisure time on a scale from
one to ten. However, the ten-point scale requires a lot of verbal clarification from the interviewer and a high
level of abstraction from the respondent since it uses a numerical response to express (dis)agreement in a
highly nuanced way (DAWES, 2008). Hence, for simplicity, in the questionnaire used for this study there was
only a dichotomous question about satisfaction with leisure time.
35
Table 6: Modified Women Empowerment in Agriculture Index
Domain Weight Question(s) Scale Comments Max.
value
Produc-
tion
20%
Crops 10% E17 Who takes decisions
about which inputs to buy?
1-5
If there is only
subsistence farming, 0
is assigned for E19.
12
E18 Who takes decisions
about which crops to grow?
E19 Who takes decisions
about when and who takes
crops to market/sales-man?
Dairy 10% E10 Who takes decisions
about construction of cattle
shed?
1-5 16
E11 Who takes decisions
about selection of breeds?
E12 Who takes decisions
about management of fodder?
E13 Who takes decisions
about health care of animals?
Resources 20%
Ownership
of land
6.7% E20A How much land does
your household own?
Acres
For landless
households, 0 is
assigned.
100%
E20B How much land do you
own yourself alone?
Purchase,
sale and
transfer of
land and
large
animals
6.7% E20E Who can decide
whether to sell/give away the
land?
1-5
For landless
households, only
livestock is
considered.
16
E20F Who can decide
whether to do new purchase
of land?
E21D Who can decide
whether to sell/give away
large livestock?
E21E Who can decide
whether to do new purchase
of large livestock?
Access to
and
decision on
credit
6.7% E30 Who made decision to
borrow from (source)?
1-5
For households
without loan, 0 is
assigned. If a
household has more
than one credit, the
weighted average of
the decision-making
score is calculated
based on the size of
the loan.
8
E31 Who made the decision
what to do with the money
from (source)?
36
Domain Weight Question(s) Scale Comments Max.
value
Income 20%
Control
over the
use of
income
20% E5D Who takes decisions
about the use of income from
crop farming or major other
income source?
1-5 16
E8 Who takes decisions
about minor household
expenditures (e.g. food,
cloth, cooking utensils,
ornaments)?
E9 Who takes decisions
about large household
expenditures (e.g. furniture,
bike, ceremonies)?
E15 Who takes decisions
about the use of income from
milk?
Leader-
ship
20%
Group
member
and
speaking in
public
20% E34 Are you active member
in any groups/association?
Yes /
No
5
E35 Have you ever had a
leadership role in this group?
E37 Do you feel comfortable
speaking up in public, if only
women are present?
E38 Do you feel comfortable
speaking up in public, if also
men are present?
Time 20%
Workload 20% E41 Please describe what
you did yesterday.
Hours Free time is calculated
in absolute terms
Source: Author, based on INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE, 2012
For Ownership of land the percentage value is directly derived by dividing the land owned
by the woman by the total land owned by the household. In the domain Leadership, for
questions E35, E37 and E38, the values 1 or 0 are assigned for “Yes” and “No”,
respectively. For question E34, the value 1 is assigned if the woman is a member in one
group and the value 2, if she is member in more than one group. Time use is evaluated
based on the hours of free time. As free and resting time such activities are considered as
sleeping, eating, meeting friends, social activities. All other activities such as cooking, child
care and field work are considered as working time.
Empowerment in each domain and at the aggregated level is calculated as follows:
37
1. The answers to each question included in the WEAI are converted into values according
to table 5. These values are added up within each domain and then divided by the
maximum obtainable value to get a percentage value. This percentage represents the
level of empowerment per domain for each interviewed woman.
2. A threshold value is applied to categorize each woman in each domain as empowered or
not empowered, assigning the values 1 or 0 respectively. The threshold is 50% for all
domains, except time use. For time use the cut-off level is 10.5 working hours per day as
suggested by IFPRI (ALKIRE ET AL, 2011, p.11). In other words, a woman is empowered
in the time domain if she didn‟t work more than 10.5 hours the previous day.
This way, the absolute number of women empowered in each domain can be calculated.
3. To reach to the final score of empowerment for one person, the sub-domains in which
each woman is empowered (the value is 1) are summed up and divided by the number of
all sub-domains. The result is a number between 0 and 1, to be understood as percentage
of empowerment. If this percentage is equal or higher than 50% the woman is
considered as “empowered”.
3.2 Questionnaire Development
To assess different factors that may impact empowerment outcomes, questions regarding
the socio-economic environment of the respondents were included. The questionnaire also
covers economic aspects of dairy production. Therefore, it was structured in the following
parts:
(1) Household identification
(2) Household members and their occupation
(3) Respondents demographic characteristics
(4) Crop production
(5) Dairy cooperative
(6) Milk production and marketing
(7) Women empowerment and decision-making
The duration of each interview is scheduled to take around 30 to 45 minutes. The order of
the sections is guided by the idea that “Early in the interviewing process when the
researcher is attempting to build a relationship with respondents and capture their
attention, a few easy-to-answer neutral questions may be helpful.” (MALHOTRA, 2006,
38
p.178) In other words, it was intended to begin with more general and unthreatening
questions to proceed to more sensitive and personal issues in the end.
First, information about all household members12
and their main occupation is gathered.
This provides useful information about the intra-household dynamics and the family
income. Secondly, basic information about the respondent such as education, marital status
and religion is requested. In order to obtain an idea of the family income, details of crop
production are collected for the on-going year. Next, the respondents are asked about their
experiences in the dairy cooperative, if they were selling members. Otherwise, they are
asked the reasons for not being member or not selling to the cooperative. The subsequent
section considers the details of milk production and income from dairying. The last and
most detailed part of the questionnaire contains questions regarding the level of
empowerment of the interviewee. This part was elaborated on the base of the WEAI and the
IFPRI household survey in Bangladesh (INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH
INSTITUTE, 2013) including different sections for each of the five domains. Examples were
included in the questionnaire to facilitate the understanding of the respondents.
The preliminary version of the questionnaire was pre-tested among 14 interviewees
assessing the feasibility of the questions and the reliability13
of the constructed index. After
the pilot interviews some minor changes were incorporated in the final questionnaire.
Mostly closed-ended questions are employed in the questionnaire, possible answer options
are given where suitable. The answer options provided and their order might have
influenced the answers. A difficulty was encountered in the assessment of ownership of and
control over assets. Here, only land ownership was clearly attributed to one household
member. For other assets, such as animals and vehicles most women declared there was
“joint ownership”. To assess how ownership translates into access to or control over assets,
questions were asked about decision-making for the purchase and sale of these assets.14
To estimate decision-making within the household a Likert-type scale was developed using
a semantic differential scale ranging from “decision is taken solely by woman” (1) to
“decision is taken solely by husband” (5). A scale with five scale points was considered
12
A household here is considered as “a group of people who live together and take food from the same pot.”
(ALKIRE et al., 2012, p.21). 13
Reliability was tested using Cronbach´s Alpha for all questions regarding decision-making. 14
Nevertheless the data should be interpreted carefully because some assets, especially land is never or very
rarely sold or purchased. DEERE and DOSS (2006) provide an overview of the difficulties in assessing the
“asset gap” at the household level in developed and developing countries.
39
most suitable because it allows for a relatively detailed distinction without complicating the
answer too much.15
In cases of widows the same question was asked referring to the
brother, son or father according to the family situation.
If the respondent was not sure, where to range the decision-making process regarding a
certain topic according to the scale, she was encouraged to explain the typical process. The
researcher, translator and respondent then tried to reach to a common understanding of the
situation. Accordingly, the interviewer assigned the scale value which captures best the
perception of the respondent. However, there is a bias caused by the interpretation of the
interviewer influenced by her personal cultural background and understanding. The Likert-
scale approach may lead to a loss of more detailed information. To address this dilemma,
whenever possible additional information was noted down and is available for the data
analysis as background information.
3.3 Study Area
The studied areas are located in the districts of Chickballapur and Mandya in the South East
of Karnataka, a state in South India. They belong to the Eastern and Southern dry zones that
can be classified as tropical semi-arid areas. The two districts are located at around 60 km
and 130 km, respectively, from the state capital and economic centre, Bangalore.
Figure 7: Location of the Study Area
Source: MAPSOFINDIA.COM, 2014
15
See MALHOTRA (2006) and DAWES (2008) for more information on Likert scales.
40
Table 7: District-Wise Figures of the Study Area
Mandya Chickballapur (*Kolar)
Population 1,805,769 1,254,377
Rural population 82.92% 77.60%
Sex ratio (females for every 1000
males)
995 968
Female rural literacy rate (%) 59.21% 57.10%
Average operational holding size (ha) 0.61 1.15 *
Male owned 0.64 1.18*
Female owned 0.54 1.02*
Number of operational holdings 524000 418000 *
Female owned 113000 (21.5%) 65000 (15.5%)*
Population density (person/sqkm) 364 296
Irrigated area (% of cultivable area) 56% 27% * Up to 2005 Chickballapur was part of the Kolar district, so data here is provided for Kolar district.
Source: Author, based on DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CO-OPERATION (2006), ANONYMOUS (2014),
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CO-OPERATION, (2014 a and b)
Major differences between Mandy and Chickballapur districts regarding agricultural
production are the water availability and cropping patterns. The most important crops in
terms of area sown in Mandya are paddy (rice), ragi (finger millet), pulses and sugar cane
in this order. Coconut and areca nut (betel) plantations are widespread, too. (GOVERNMENT
OF KARNATAKA, 2009; DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CO-OPERATION, 2014b)
In Chickballapur the agricultural production is more diversified. The main cereals are
maize and ragi, alongside groundnut as the most important legume. Apart from that,
horticulture is an important source of income, including the production of vegetables, fruits
and flowers. (CHICKBALLPUR DISTRICT ADMINISTRATION, 2014; DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE AND CO-OPERATION, 2014a)
Even though the amount and distribution of rainfall in both districts is similar16
, water is
available throughout the year in Mandya because of irrigation facilities17
, whereas
Chickballapur suffers from a lack of water during the dry season. Irrigation in Mandya is
mainly realized by means of canals, in Chickballapur by bore wells. As a consequence
groundwater is more severely depleted in Chickballapur. (DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
AND CO-OPERATION, 2014 a /b)
16
Mandya has an annual rainfall of 700mm and Chickballapur of 743mm, most of that during the two
monsoon seasons from June to December. (DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CO-OPERATION, 2014 a/b) 17
Water comes mostly from the water reservoir projects supplied by the river Cauvery. (GOVERNMENT OF
KARNATAKA, 2009)
41
According to THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CO-OPERATION (2014a)
Chickballapur is prone to droughts, whereas the major risk to agriculture in Mandya are
pests and diseases. Apart from crop production, sericulture and dairying are other important
agricultural activities in both districts.
The rural poverty line in Karnataka is established at Rs 902 (around €12) per month per
person in 2011-12 and one fourth of the rural population lives below this poverty line
(GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, 2013).
3.4 Sampling and Data Collection
To address the main research question of this study, to what extent dairy cooperatives
contribute to women‟s economic empowerment, the ideal approach would have been to
analyse time series data of women farmers before and after joining a dairy co-operative.
Since this data is not available and it was not feasible to collect it in the frame of this study,
a with-and-without approach is used instead. Therefore, it is quite difficult to establish
causality between cooperative membership and empowerment, considering the possibility
that only women who are already more empowered become members in a cooperative. This
would induce a self-selection bias.
The idea was to conduct a comparative analysis of two groups of women who live under
similar conditions but are distinguished by their participation or non-participation in a
village dairy cooperative. Therefore, an equal number of women of each group were
selected purposively for the interviews. Moreover, within the sample of members, women
in a mixed-gender cooperative (15) and those in a single-sex-cooperative (14) are
distinguished. The sample consists of a total of 58 women farmers.
Since the living conditions in the two districts of the study area are somewhat different in
terms of water availability and cropping patterns, a similar number of co-operators and non-
co-operators within each region were interviewed in order to reduce this source of bias.
42
Table 8: Regional Distribution of Sample
District Mandya
Taluk Mandya K.R. Pet
Village Hullenahalli
Mixed coop
VC farm
Hullenahalli coop
Bommenayakana-halli
No coop
Bandabovina-halli
Women coop
Members 11 3 1 6
Non-members 11 1 8 0
Total 22 4 9 6
District Chikballapur
Taluk Shidlaghatta Chikballapur
Village
Dhanamittena-
halli
Women coop
Amooratimmana-
halli
Women coop
Mushtur
Dyavarahalli
Members 4 4 0 0
Non-members 0 0 4 5
Total 4 4 4 5
Source: Author
Apart from the structured interviews, background information was collected on each of the
dairy cooperatives.
3.4.1 Sampling Technique
In villages with dairy cooperatives, before conducting individual interviews, male or female
members of the directors‟ board were approached. The aim of the study was explained to
them and they were asked to provide information on the dairy cooperative in an informal
way. This contact was also useful in order to gain confidence among the villagers, an
essential step in data collection, and the starting point of the sampling.
The sampling technique used for data collection was a combination of purposive and
snowball sampling. The principal restriction to a random sampling technique was that there
was no list available of dairy producers at the village level. A list of dairy cooperative
members would have been accessible in some places in local language, but it didn‟t contain
any information about the place of residence of the potential interviewees.
Considering the lack of registration and formal organization, women dairy producers in
rural India, especially those who are outside the cooperative system, can well be considered
as a hidden or difficult to reach population. As ATKINSON and FLINT (2001) suggest,
snowball sampling is advantageous in accessing such kind of populations, which are often
overlooked in more formalized samplings.
43
The second major advantage of snowball sampling is the creation of confidence since the
researcher identifies and accesses the interviewee through a group member. This provides
the researcher some degree of trustworthiness compared to more impersonal forms of
identification. This is highly important for an outsider in order to obtain sensitive
information from rural women. (ATKINSON and FLINT, 2001)
Taking into account the problem of accessibility to the population and the need of
confidence-building, snowball sampling was considered the best option for data collection
in the context of this study. However, it is important to be aware of the disadvantages of
this technique. The major drawback of snowball sampling is a selection bias which limits
the generalizability and representativeness of the data. Theoretically, this can be addressed
by increasing the sample size and replicating the study. However, because of time
constraints, it was not feasible within this study to obtain a larger sample size.
Another problem is the selection of and access to the initial respondents, which requires
some “previous knowledge of insiders” (ATKINSON and FLINT, 2001, n.p.). During the data
collection, in villages with DCS, members of the board of directors of the dairy cooperative
were approached first. They in turn established the contact between the researcher and other
members of the cooperative. This was desirable in order to overcome suspiciousness
towards the researcher as a stranger in the village and allow for personal conversations with
women. On the contrary this approach is a potential source of bias, since only interviewees
are selected who are well-known to the directors‟ board, mostly neighbours or family
members.
However in the other villages, the initial sample was selected based on the knowledge of
the translators. Since data was collected during several field trips and with different
translators the selection bias arising from this procedure may be reduced. Later, women
were approached based on information provided by fellow village women.
Purposive sampling was necessary to find an equal number of women dairy cooperative
members and non-members. Especially in Hullenahalli, with a mixed-gender cooperative, it
was difficult to find women who are themselves shareholders rather than those having
access to the cooperative only through a male household member. Similarly, it was difficult
to find women who sell privately in villages were cooperatives are in prominent. Moreover,
in practice the distinction between members and non-members was not always clear. In
many cases women or their husbands are shareholders in the village dairy cooperative but
44
they sell the all their produce through other channels. These women were considered as
non-members since they don‟t actively use the (marketing) services of the cooperative or
participate in its organizational structure.18
The share in the dairy cooperative is either a
remainder from former participation or can be understood as a form of insurance. In case
the private market would collapse, shareholders can shift to the cooperative. Moreover, the
mere holding of a share can entitle farmers to receive benefits such as veterinary services.
3.4.2 Interview Strategy
All interviews were realized with the help of local translators. The questionnaire in the
written form was not translated to local language because translators preferred to have
greater flexibility in formulating questions. Translation was essential because it was
absolutely necessary to communicate with women in their native language, Kannada. Four
translators assisted the researcher during the interviews in the different villages. It was
important to find female translators since women are expected to behave more openly
towards other women.19
Three of the four translators hold a MSc. degree in Agricultural
Economics and have own research and interviewing experience. Before starting the data
collecting, the purpose of the study was explained to the translators and the questions were
clarified one by one to avoid interpretation mistakes.
An attempt was made to interview women in the absence of male family members,
especially husbands or in-laws, so that women would have the possibility to answer more
frankly to sensitive issues. Nevertheless, in the field setting it was often difficult to find
women alone or to ask male family members to leave. Sometimes it was useful to
accompany women in the kitchen or outside the house to talk to them confidentially.
However, it was not always possible to avoid male involvement. Generally, men tended to
answer the more technical questions at the beginning of the questionnaire. Women
sometimes asked their husbands, brothers or sons for the information as they were not
aware about e.g. the quantity harvested or the sales prices of crops. When men realized that
the focus of interest is on their wife or mother, they often lost the initial curiosity and left.
18
Five respondents use to sell through the DCS as well as privately, four of them are treated as coop
members, because they sell a major part of their produce to the cooperative. Only one is treated as non-
member since she sells only a very minor part to the cooperative and receives her main income from private
sales. 19
See SNELL et al. (1989) on disclosure behaviour of women.
45
The more personal questions in the end of the questionnaire, regarding decision-making
within the household, control over credits and time allocation were invariably answered by
women themselves.
Since the translators were local women, often living in the same village as the interviewees,
it was relatively easy to create an atmosphere of trust were interviewees would openly
answer the questions. In general, women seemed to be willing to share their personal
perceptions and information regarding their dairy activities and their family life with the
interviewers.
In order to estimate time use and workload, women were asked to describe the activities
they had realized the day before. This question was the last one, as it may lead to a longer
informal conversation and distract the interviewees‟ attention. Usually this question was
answered willingly but there was some difficulty to capture the duration of each activity
during the day. Women were not aware of or not remembering the amount of time they
spend for each activity or the time of day when completing an activity. Nevertheless, an
attempt was made to approximate the duration of each activity based on the information
provided, considering the hour of meals or sleeping time. Moreover, to estimate time use
more correctly it is recommended to repeat the survey at different points of the year to
capture seasonality; obviously this was not possible in the scope of this study.20
Regarding family income it became visible that the data obtained from direct questions was
not meaningful.21
It is not clear whether people were not knowing or not willing to share
this sensitive information. Since the estimation of production costs is out of the scope of
this study, only gross returns from dairy and crop production are calculated in order to
estimate the dairy‟s portion of the total household income. Information on crop production
is based on the last agricultural year. To obtain the gross crop income the quantity sold of
each crop in quintals was multiplied by the price received per quintal. Where prices were
not indicated by farmers, the minimum support prices paid for the period 2013-14 by the
government were used for paddy, sorghum (“jowar”), ragi and sugarcane.22
The gross
return calculated for one harvest of sugarcane was then multiplied by 2/3, because the
20
See GHISSASSIM, JOHNSON and DE SENTENAC (2005) for detailed information about time use surveys in
India. 21
The answers ranged from very low to very high numbers, and were not in line with the possibly obtained
income from stated activities. 22
As to be found at: http://ahara.kar.nic.in/msprates.html
46
harvest cycle of sugarcane is 18 month. In some cases, were farmers produce vegetables,
they are paid a fixed price for the whole field. Hence, the total price received by them, is
used to calculate the gross income. For coconut orchards a gross return of Rs25,000 per
acre is assumed (2000 nuts à Rs12.5)23
Data on milk production and sales was obtained for
one day at the point of time of the interview. Annual gross dairy income was calculated as
litres per day multiplied by price per litre multiplied by 305 days as the average duration of
lactation. The total annual gross income is estimated as the sum of gross dairy income,
gross crop income and non-farm and off-farm income. Products used for own consumption
have not been taken into account for the calculation of income.
3.5 Limitations of the Primary Data
The major limitations of the field study as already alluded to above, can be summarized as
follows:
1. Sample is not randomized and small: Under field conditions and within the time and
resource constraints of this study, the best possible sampling technique was employed as
discussed above. However, since the sample is not random, the results of this study have
clearly a limited generalizability. Considering the total number of 2.2 million dairy
cooperative members in Karnataka, out which approximately 30% are female, the
sample is very small and not representative.
2. Cultural difference: The evaluation of highly subjective issues such as interpersonal
relations, as intended in this study, is influenced by a person`s cultural and personal
background. In this case cultural differences between the researcher and the respondents
may increase the divergence between their respective perceptions and interpretations of
a certain situation.
3. Translation: It was necessary to make use of translators, so that some information may
be lost or blurred in the course of translation.
4. Lack of time series data: The data obtained through the field work refers only to one
point in time. Empowerment though is a process that occurs over a period of time
making it difficult to establish causalities.
23
Information provided by Dr. Chandrakanth.
47
5. Quantification: Converting the complex process of decision-making into a Likert-scale
variable leads clearly to a loss of more detailed information provided by many women.
There is a trade-off between maintaining the depth of information, the diversity of
personal perceptions and experiences on the one hand, and the intention to generate
quantitative data on the other hand.
In this chapter, it is described how the WEAI was applied and modified as a major tool in
this study. The questionnaire design, the snow ball sampling technique as well as the
process of data collection and its difficulties are discussed. Information about the study
area is also provided. The limitations of the study resulting from the sampling technique
and study design are summarized.
48
4 Results and Analysis
In this chapter the results of the field study are presented by means of descriptive analysis.
First, there is a short overview over the socio-economic characteristics of the respondents
and their households. Next, the economic implications of dairy cooperative membership for
the respondents are presented. Consequently, the data gathered on the five dimensions on
women empowerment applying the WEAI, as discussed above, is presented for members
and non-members, separately. The data is then further disaggregated for members of
single-gender and mixed-gender dairy cooperatives. In the last section the key findings are
summarized.
4.1 Socio-Economic Characteristics
The 58 interviewed women are Hindus and belong to backward castes. They are aged
between 25 and 65 years24
. 50 women are married, seven are widows and one was never
married. The household size is between two and 13 members. 43% of the respondents are
illiterate, whereas ten respondents attended school for ten years, and three for twelve years.
The remaining respondents received between four and nine years of schooling. On average,
respondents attended school for 4.6 years; this is in line with the Indian average of 4.4 year
of schooling (UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME, 2013). However, cooperative
members attended school on average for 6.1 years whereas non-members attended school
for 3.2 years.
78 % (45) of the households are small and marginal farms with less than one hectare land.
Four households owned more than four hectares of land. The average land holding is 1.24
hectares. There are two landless households, one member and one non-member household.
The average farm size in Mandya is significantly smaller with 0.8 hectares compared to 2
hectares in Chickballapur; both values are slightly higher compared to the districts‟
averages. Four households additionally lease between 0.4 and 1 hectare of land with crop-
sharing arrangements.
24
Some respondents don‟t know their exact age due to missing documentation.
49
Figure 8: Farm Size of Respondents’ Households
Source: Author
Table 9: Households by Farm Size Category
Non-Member DCS Member Total
Landless 1 1 2
Marginal 17 14 31
Small 5 9 14
Semi-medium 5 2 7
Medium 1 3 4 Source: Author
Table 10: Importance of Dairying by Farm Size
Avg. share of dairy
income in total
income
Avg. number of
milk animals
Avg. number of
cross breed cows
Landless (N=2) 32% 4.5 2
Marginal (N=31) 41% 3.3 0.9
Small (N=14) 29% 3.5 1.5
Semi-medium (N=7) 24% 4.6 2.1
Medium (N=4) 15% 8.3 3.3 Source: Author
50
Table 11: Key Characteristics of Respondents
All respondents (N=58) Member
respondents
(N=29)
Non-member
respondents
(N=29)
Signifi-
cance*
Indicator Mean S.D. Min Max Mean S.D. Mean S.D.
Schooling
(years)
4.6 4.4 0 12 6.1 4.4 3.2 4.1 0.012
Age (years) 41 9.2 25 65 40 9.3 41 9.1 0.408
Farm size (ha) 1.24 1.4 0 8.5 1.48 1.75 1.06 1.0 0.306
Irrigated farm
area (ha)
0.69 0.61 0 2.43 0.78 0.63 0.60 0.56 0.226
Household
members
5 2.1 2 13 5.4 2.6 4.6 1.5 0.419
Gross income
(„000 Rs/year)
258 290 16 1,989 337 376 179 129 0.014
*Mann-U-Whitney (2-tailed)
Source: Author
The number of dairy animals kept varies between one and 20 animals, with an average of
3.8 heads per household. The quantity of milk produced from all animals of one household
is between 2 litres and 104 litres per day, on average, 11.9 litres. The milk yield per
lactating animal was between 1.2 and 12 litres per day. The average is 5.5 litres per day,
including buffalos and local breed cows, which yield lower milk quantities compared to
cross breed cattle. The milk quantity obtained also differs depending on the time of the last
calving, which is not taken into account for this study. Since the study is conducted during
the dry season where milk yields decline, it can be assumed that average milk production
over the year is slightly higher.
Applying the framework by GOLLA et al. (2006), women‟s economic empowerment
requires economic advancement as well as power and agency. The results on how these are
affected by women‟s membership in dairy cooperatives will be presented in the following.
4.2 Economic Advancement
The average number of dairy animals increases from 3.0 heads for non-members to 4.8
heads for members. Members tend to keep cross breed cows whereas non-members are
more likely to keep buffalos.25
25
Cross bred cows have higher milk yields but the milk contains lower amounts of fat compared to buffaloes.
Moreover, buffalos are less susceptible to diseases and hence require lower expenses for veterinary treatment.
Buffaloes also are less demanding in feeding and can be fed easily on crop residues (TAMIL NADU
AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, 2014 a).
51
The quantity of milk produced at the moment of the interview, is 5 litres for non-members
compared to 18.8 litres for members. This notable difference is due to both, a higher
number of animals, especially cross bred cows, and a higher productivity per animal.
The share of dairy gross-income in the total gross-income is estimated to be 41% for
households which sell to the DCS and 27% for non-members. The importance of the dairy
income to the rural household becomes also clear by the fact that it is used mostly to meet
current expenses for basic needs, such as nutrition, education and health care.26
Different
from crop farming, dairying is a source of regular cash inflow, received daily, weekly or at
least fortnightly. Women who can afford it also keep savings, mostly through women self-
help groups. Respondents further use the income from dairying for crop production,
marriage functions, to pay back a loan or for personal expenses.
Even though cooperative members keep a smaller share of the milk produced for home
consumption, they obtain a higher amount of milk per person in absolute terms compared to
non-members. On average, cooperative members keep 12% of the total milk for own use
and non-member 25.6%.27
A household with a woman cooperative member consumes on
average 362ml of milk per person per day, whereas non-DCS households had 218ml. Out
of this quantity, also butter, ghee and yogurt is produced for home consumption. This
finding may indicate nutritional benefits for households with DCS membership.
The gross returns from dairying per day for all animals range from 20Rs to 2,244Rs. The
average is 385Rs for DCS members and 112Rs for non-members. Gross returns per animal
are 79Rs and 38Rs, respectively. However, only one respondent has a gross return of more
than 1000Rs per day that is at the same time the household with the largest land area found
in this study (21 acre) and the highest number of milk animals.28
Six women have returns of
500Rs to 1000Rs per day from dairying. 50% of women earn less than 125Rs per day from
dairying. Out of this, costs for feed stuff, veterinary services, and the repayments of loans
have to be met. These costs are 36Rs per day per animal for DCS members compared to
26
“Where does the money earned [by selling milk] get spent? It certainly does not get spent on the women
who worked so hard to produce it. It may go into general everyday needs for the family-in terms of food,
clothing, etc. It may contribute towards educating a son and, most important, it may aid in providing the
children‟s necessary marriage expenses.”( SHARMA AND VANJANI, 1993, p.1385, own note) 27
SHUKLAR AND BRAHAMANKAR (CITED IN KURUP, 2001) find in 1999 that DCS member households retain
47% of the milk for home consumption compared to 12% found in this study. It might indicate the increasing
commercialization of dairy production through DCS as well as an intensification of production. 28
If this outlier is excluded the difference between the two groups remains significant, the average for coop
members decreases to 319 Rs per day.
52
10Rs per day per animal for non-members. The following table reports some of the
economic indicators of dairy production for the two groups, along the significance values of
the Mann-Whitney-U test.
Table 12: Differences in Economics of Dairy Production by Membership
Member
respondents
(N=29)
Non-member
respondents (N=29)
Significance
(2-tailed)
Indicator Mean S.D. Mean S.D.
Herd size (heads) 4.8 3.5 3 1.0 0.011
Buffaloes 0.8 1.0 1.6 0.95 0.001
Cross bred cows 2.4 2.0 0.4 0.82 0.000
Yield per animal (liters/day) 7.6 2.84 3.4 1.64 0.000
Total milk produced
(liters/day) 18.8 18.8 5 4.7 0.000
Share of gross income from
dairying 41% 18% 27% 26% 0.037
Daily gross return from
dairying (Rs/day/animal) 79 41 38 39 0.000
Cost of dairy production
(Rs/day/animal) 36 19 10 20 0.000
Share of milk for home
consumption 12% 7% 25% 15% 0.000
Available milk (ml/per
person/day) 362 188 218 118 0.003
Source: Author
Prices paid by the cooperatives vary between 20Rs and 25Rs per litre according to the fat
content, averaging 22Rs per litre. Additionally there is a government subsidy of 4 Rs per
litre paid unregularly to the farmers depending on the district and cooperative policies. In
case of the Hullenahalli cooperative, members receive a bonus payment at the end of the
year according to the amount of milk sold to the cooperative. The other cooperatives don`t
pay out the members but save the money for future investments.
Non-members sell at the private, mostly informal, market. Here the sales price lies between
20Rs and 40Rs per litre, on average 26Rs per litre. Apart from the higher price, a “benefit”
of selling to private traders is the lack of quality control allowing farmers to mix milk with
water in order to sell bigger quantities. Moreover, some respondents feel that they have the
obligation to sell to their neighbours as they traditionally do. The most important reason
stated by interviewees for not participating in a cooperative is the low quantity of milk
53
produced so that it is not perceived worthwhile to take the milk twice a day to the
cooperative. If there is no cooperative in the neighbourhood opportunity costs of
participation increase, especially for women who are often restricted in their mobility.
Cooperatives members in this study joined the DCS between four month and 30 years ago,
on average they have been members for eleven years.
Table 13: Duration of Membership in DCS
Duration of membership (years) Number of respondents
0.25 to 5 4
6 to 10 18
11 to 15 3
>15 4 Source: Author
Figure 9: Perceived Benefits of Cooperative Membership
Source: Author
The most important benefits perceived by cooperative members are the supply of
concentrated feed stuff, the provision of free or low-priced veterinary service, and a higher
price paid. The perception of a higher price may be related to the government subsidy or
the bonus payment in the end of each year. Five respondents state that they face problems
in the cooperative, such as an increased workload (4), too strict quality controls (3) and a
delay in payment (1).
54
80% (24) of the members interviewed perceive that their economic situation has improved
since they entered the cooperative. One woman feels that her situation has worsened
because she made large investments but her cattle are affected by disease. These results
depict that women who are members in a DCS achieve economic gains. The next table
depicts some of the characteristics of the cooperatives concerned in this study.
Table 14: Characteristics of Encountered Cooperatives
Hullenahalli milk
producers
co-operative
Bandabovinahalli
women dairy co-
operative society
Amoorathim
manahalli
women dairy
co-operative
society
Dhanamittenah
alli women
dairy co-
operative
society
Year of
foundation
1977
2005/6
2005/6
2005/6
Number of
shareholders
710 200 115
58
Requirements
to become
shareholder
Owning at least one
buffalo or cow, fee of
115Rs, 100 Rs
refundable, max. 2
persons per household
106 Rs fee
Only women
105Rs fee
Only women
105Rs fee
Only women
Distribution of
dividends
among
shareholders
Yes, once a year. No, saved for dairy
development and to
build-up savings to
give loans to
members.
No, saved to
build a
cooperative
building
(now temple
is used).
Price (Rs/litre,
3.5 % fat
content)
23.5 20
22
22
Frequency of
payments
Weekly Every 15 days Every 15
days
Every 15 days
Board of
Directors
Elected every 5 years, 11
members. 2 seats are
reserved for women, 1 for
backward cast and 1 for
scheduled cast members.
8 members, meet
monthly
9 members,
meet
monthly
8 members,
meet monthly
Employees One executive officer, one
tester, one clerk and 2-4
temporary employees.
Secretary and
tester. Minimum
requirement for
secretary is a 10th
grade education
and one month
training.
Secretary
and tester (no
payment)
Secretary and
tester (no
payment)
Source: Author
55
4.3 Power and Agency: Five Domains of Women Empowerment
4.3.1 Domain I: Productive Decisions
Crop Production
Regarding crop production, clearly men are the key decision-makers within the studied
households. Women often believe that they don‟t have the knowledge to take any decisions
in crop farming. Especially, about the marketing of crops29
husbands often take decisions
without consulting their partner (72%). Only one woman states that she takes decisions
about crop marketing mostly on her own. 25% of women perceive the choice of crops to
grow as a joint decision, and 20% feel that there is a joint decision regarding input
purchase.
Figure 10: Decision-Making in Crop Production
Source: Author
In this subdomain there is no major difference between member and non-member
respondents.
29
Even though, marketing is not a production activity in the strict sense, it is included here following the
approach developed by IFPRI (ALKIRE et al., 2012).
56
Dairy Production
Women are more empowered to take production decisions in dairy farming compared to
crop farming. Half of the respondents take decisions regarding the management of feed and
fodder of dairy animals on their own, 16 of them are non-members. The point here is that
high yielding cross bred cows are more frequently fed with concentrated feedstuff which is
usually purchased from the cooperative, whereas buffalos are fed more with field residuals.
Hence, cooperative members have to involve in a market transaction to purchase feed, a
task that is more likely realized by males.
Figure 11: Decision-Making about Feeding Management
Source: Author
Apart from the feeding management, another difference between coop-member and non-
members can be found with regard to the selection of cattle breed. Here ten members say
their husband decides alone about the selection of breeds, but only four non-members
answer the same. This may be the case because higher expenses have to be incurred to
purchase a cross bred cow compared to buffalos.
A Spearman's rank-order correlation30
is run to investigate the relationship between the
level of women‟s empowerment in dairy production and the share of dairy income in the
household income. A significant positive correlation is found between the two variables
30
Spearman's rank-order correlation is appropriate to test correlation of non-parametric variables. SPSS
statistical software package was used.
57
(rs=.288, p=.028). However, there are negative but not significant correlations between
women‟s empowerment in dairy production and dairy returns per day (rs = -.102, p=.446)
and costs incurred for dairying (rs =-.149, p=.264). In other words, where dairying has a
higher importance for the total household economy in relative terms, women are more
likely to take decision about the activity. This is mostly the case where men are
contributing little to the household economy because of low crop incomes or for widows. In
these cases women manage dairy farming as a main source of income for the household.
Overall it seems that cooperative membership rather reduces women‟s autonomous
decision-making in dairy production.
4.3.2 Domain II: Resources
Ownership of land
As AGARWAL (1994) points out for South East Asia, “arable land is the most valued form
of property, for its economic as well as its political and symbolic importance.” (AGARWAL
1994, p.17) Land is not only the basis of many livelihoods but also a source of identity and
social status. AGARWAL further distinguishes between access to and rights in land. A
woman can have access to land without ownership, but only rights in land provide a legal
security. On the other side, ownership does not lead automatically to effective control over
land. Hence, independent and effective rights in land for women are necessary to improve
their autonomy.31
In more than half of the households in the sample, the biggest part of the land is owned by
the respondent`s father-in-law (16), mother-in-law (6) or by other family members (8),
typically brothers-in-law. In 19 households the respondents‟ husbands own the major part
of the land. In the remaining seven cases, women own land themselves; three of them are
cooperative members.
Two out of the land owning women state that their land title is registered jointly with their
husband. In one case, the respondent owns three out of ten acres, belonging to the
household. In the four remaining cases, respondents are widows and therefore land owners.
In conclusion, women‟s access to land is found to be very restricted. This fact doesn‟t seem
to be affected in any way by a membership in a DCS.
31
Rights are defined as “claims that are legally and socially recognized and enforceable by an external
legitimized authority [...]” (AGARWAL, 1994, p.19)
58
Access to and decision on credit
Almost 88% of the households have loans from at least one source. 15 households access
loans through more than one channel. DCS member households have a better access to
credits, 90% of them have access to at least one loan compared to 66% of non-members.
However, loans of DCS members are smaller on average (69,853Rs) compared to non-
members (111,923Rs). Loans are used mainly for crop farming (20), current consumption
expenditures (10) and the purchase of life stock (9). Other purposes include education of
children, purchase of land, farm machinery or the marriage of daughters, i.e. dowries.
For 45% of the loans taken women state that they took the decision to borrow money
jointly with the husband. In 14 cases respondents took the decision to borrow money
completely or mainly by themselves, eleven loans out of these are accessed through a Stree
Shakti women‟s self-help group32
.
Figure 12: Decision-Making about Loans by Source
Source: Author
One third of all loans are provided by a Stree Shakti group. These loans are usually smaller
than formal bank loans, ranging from 2,000Rs to 45,000Rs. Nevertheless, the role of
women`s savings and credit groups, such as Stree Shakti, is very important because “For
32
Stree Shakti is the most wide-spread WSHGs in the State implemented by the Department of Women and
Child Development. For a detailed study about the impact of Stree Shakti groups on women`s access to credit
see GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA (2005) pp.197.
59
poor women obtaining credit is even harder than for poor men, because of lack of
resources, prejudice in the lending agencies, and power relations in the family.” (MAYOUX
and ANAND, 1995, p.187) By obtaining and controlling credit, women can start or improve
independently their economic activities, from which they would be prevented otherwise.
Nevertheless, the data indicates that Stree Shakti loans are often used for consumption
purposes (9) and to co-finance crop farming (5).
Figure 13: Decision-Making about Loans by Membership
Source: Author
Decision-making power over and access to credit is slightly higher for women cooperative
members compared to non-members. This can be at least partly attributed to the higher
participation of members in Stree Shakti groups (see Leadership) resulting in an increased
access to female-managed credits.
Sale and Purchase of Assets
Since the concept of joint ownership does not automatically translate into equal access to or
control over assets (AGARWAL, 1994), an attempt is made to estimate control over assets by
asking about decision-making for the purchase and sale of these assets.33
33
In this category only land and large animals, cattle, buffalo, and oxen are included. Since only some of the
households keep small animals or own farm equipment and means of transportation, it would have been
difficult to include them into the comparison among the households.
60
Regarding land, half of the respondents (27 out of 54 answers) feel that a decision about
sale of land would be taken jointly and for purchase of land this number increases to 34. A
smaller number of respondents assume that their husbands would take the decision to sell
(19) and purchase (13) land without consulting them. Four women would take these
decisions themselves, corresponding to the ownership of land. It seems that even though
women usually don‟t own land they considerably participate in decisions about this
important asset.
Figure 14: Decision-Making about the Sale and Purchase of Land
Source: Author
There is no major difference between the groups of members and non-members in terms of
decision-making power about sale and purchase of land. Considering decision-making
about sale and purchase of large animals the situation is similar. Most women state that
both decisions are taken jointly. Five women take the decision to sell or purchase animals
completely or mainly on their own. Nevertheless, a notable minority of women feel that
their husbands take the decision to sell (16) or purchase (17) large livestock with low or no
female participation.
61
Figure 15: Decision-Making about the Purchase of Large Livestock
Source: Author
Non-members are slightly more empowered to take solely decisions about the purchase of
livestock which corresponds to the results above regarding productive decisions.
4.3.3 Domain III: Control over Use of Income
“For women, however, poverty is a matter not only of income but of the extent to which
they can control it.” (MAYOUX and ANAND, 1995, p. 182). Therefore, in this domain the
control over the use of dairy income and other main income as well as decision-making
power over small and major household expenditures are examined.
Income, apart from dairy production, is mainly derived from crop farming. However, some
households engage in paid off-farm or on-farm work. Nine women state that they are
involved in wage-earning activities. These include work in a garment factory in a nearby
city, tailoring, handicraft production and paid farm work. In all these cases the economic
contribution of the women‟s work is essential for the household economy, since the
households typically own very limited land and crop production is mainly for subsistence
needs. The real number of women involved in wage labour, especially paid farm work,
might be higher. Respondents might hesitate to admit that they do this kind of work for
cultural reasons. Traditionally, field labour outside the own farm is done only by scheduled
caste women and more generally, a women working outside home lessens the prestige of
her family (MENCHER, 1988, BENNETT, 1993).
62
There is no significant difference found between members and non-members in terms of
decision-making about minor and large household expenditures and income derived from
activities other than dairying. For many of the interviewees it was the case that “[…]
women`s incomes were ideally put into a „family pool‟ over which men, as heads of the
household, had jurisdiction, women`s power being generally limited to saying how much
was spent on food, children`s clothing and similar items.” (MAYOUX and ANAND, 1995, p.
182) Regarding the decision making about the use of income from milk, the data indicates
that non-member women tend to be more empowered to take decisions alone (17) than
members (11).
Figure 16: Decision-Making about the Use of Milk Income
Source: Author
It is important to note that women cooperative members are less likely to receive the
payments for milk (8) then non-members (24). This is probably caused by the fact that
usually private traders or neighbours who want to purchase milk come directly to the house
of the producer. Hence, the woman who is at home will sell the milk and receive the
payment by herself (see KAUR, 2010). On the other side, the cooperative will pay out the
money to farmers only weekly or fortnightly. Often husbands or other male family
members go to receive the money at the day of the payment instead of the female members.
63
Even if this does not necessarily imply a loss of control over the dairy income, the data here
suggests that the one who receives the payment is more likely to take decisions about the
money received. The next figure depicts control over dairy income depending on the
receiver of the payment; this can either be the woman, her husband, both of them or a third
person, generally a family member.
Figure 17: Decision-Making about Dairy Income by Recipient of Payment
Source: Author
This supports an observation by BENNETT (1993) that: “There is a strong connection
between a woman‟s access to the outside-particularly to independent income-and her
control over the use of family resources on the inside.” (BENNETT, 1993, p.15).
4.3.4 Domain IV: Leadership
Leadership refers to a woman`s active participation and influence in her community. In the
WEAI methodology it is approximated by active membership in a community group and
comfort speaking in public (ALKIRE et al., 2012, p.30).
Three quarters of the respondents are members in Stree Shakti women self-help groups.
The four women, who are members in more than one group, participate moreover in local
initiatives. The remaining 25% don‟t participate in any group, mostly because of a lack of
availability of WSHGs in the village. Other reasons for non-participation are a lack of time,
64
a lack of saving capacity, restrictions imposed by the husband, and personal conflict with
other women. It seems that most women are very interested to join a WSHG, indicating the
great importance of this group. Six of the interviewed women hold or have held a
leadership role in a Stree Shakti group. Six women hold leadership roles as members of the
directors‟ board in a WDCS.34
More than 90% of interviewed women feel comfortable
speaking publicly among women groups. When it comes to groups of mixed gender, 80%
of members (23), compared to 49% of non-members (14), feel comfortable to speak in
public situations, indicating a higher self-confidence. Cooperative members are more likely
than non-members to participate in a WSHG.
Figure 18: Participation in Groups other than Dairy Cooperative
Source: Author
The question, whether leadership abilities increase because of cooperative membership or
membership is rather a consequence of higher leadership of the individual women, cannot
be answered in this study. In any case, it seems that cooperatives offer a possibility for
women to exercise and improve their leadership abilities.
34
Leadership in the DCS is not included in the statistical analysis to not bias results.
65
4.3.5 Domain V: Time
The interviewed women have an average of 11.3h free time including resting, eating,
watching TV and social activities. Most of them were below the time poverty line of 10.5h
work per day. However, the large majority of women (53) are satisfied with their free time.
A reason might be, that the line between work and free time is often flexible. A detailed
time use analysis would need more insights in how women perceive the different activities
they conduct.35
As mentioned earlier, some researchers (e.g. BENETT et al., 1991; SHARMA
and VANJANI, 1993) suggest an increased work load for women when dairy production is
commercialized by means of cooperatives. The data collected here indicates that there is no
major difference between members and non-members regarding time spend on dairying.
The interviewed women spend on average 4.5h per day for dairy related activities such as
feeding, cleaning the cattle shed and taking the milk to the cooperative or selling to private
people. Four women perceive an increase in workload due to cooperative membership as a
problem.
Table 15: Hours Spend on Dairy-Related Activities per Day
N Mean S. D.
Members 29 4.22 1.91
Non-members 29 4.72 1.6
Source: Author
It seems surprising that the time spend on dairying does rather decrease for cooperative
members although they keep larger herds of animals. This might be explained looking at
the work distribution within the household presented in figure 16. Women cooperative
members rely more on the support of their husbands and other family members to realize
dairy activities. Especially the time-consuming task of grazing animals outside the house
was less frequently done by cooperative members.36
35
In this study, the distinction between work and leisure or rest time is made based on the judgment of the
researcher or simplicity reasons. 36
More non-cooperative households (26) than cooperative households (17) take their animals out for grazing.
This explains partly the higher feeding costs for members. Cooperative members have easier access to
purchase feeding through the cooperative.
66
Table 16: Number of Women Solely Responsible for Different Dairy-Related Tasks
Source: Author
The most time-consuming activity regarding dairying is feeding and watering of animals,
on average 1.5h are spent on this activity. It includes also bringing fodder from the field or
fetching water which requires sometimes walking long distances. Fodder (and water)
scarcity is perceived as the most problematic issue by woman (17) when asked about
challenges to dairy production. As the study was conducted during the dry season, it can be
expected that the time spend on fodder collection and fetching water may be lower at other
times of the year but probably other activities related to crop production will consume more
time. Hence, outcomes of the time use survey may differ considerably throughout the year.
However, the data obtained is in line with other studies. E.g. according to a study in
Harayana, women in DCS member households spend on average 4.2h on dairy related
activities compared to 2.4h spend by men (YADAV and GROVER, 2009). And in a study in
Kerala the authors observe an amount of 4.5h and 3.4h spend on dairying by women and
men in DCS, respectively (SUBHADRA, SURESH and GEORGE, 2009). SHARMA and VANJANI
(1993), report that non-DCS women, who keep buffalos, spend between 3.5h and 4.5h daily
on dairy-related tasks37
. According to this study, the effect of an increasing workload for
37 “One of their first tasks upon waking is to clean the animal shed or area, collect the dung, feed, water, and
milk the animal. These activities take about one and a half hours. Later in the morning, women go to the fields
for the first of two trips to collect fodder. A woman is often one of the two people required to cut the fodder.
Both of these activities take another 2h. Then there remains bathing and watering the buffalo at the village
well in the late afternoon, preparing the evening feed, and milking. This is another hour‟s work.” ( SHARMA
and VANJANI, 1993, P.1386)
67
cooperative members which would be expected due to the larger herd size is compensated
for by the work distribution among household members.
4.4 Comparing Mixed and Single-Gender Cooperatives
Homogeneity of groups in terms of gender is one variable likely to influence the
performance of cooperatives and its impact on women empowerment (AGARWAL, 2000;
PANDOLFELLI, MEINZEN-DICK and DOHRN, 2008). Therefore, in this study two kinds of
cooperatives have been analysed; one mixed-gender cooperative and three pure women
cooperatives.
Table 17: Comparison of DCS and WDCS
Mixed cooperative
(N=1)
Women cooperatives
(N=3)
Number of respondents 15 14
Female members of BOD 2 (quota) all
Respondents who attended meetings 2 all
Respondents who received trainings 3 7
Respondents who are members of
BOD 0 6
Source: Author
It was hard to find any female shareholders of the mixed cooperative because usually men
are shareholders even though there is no formal restriction on women‟s participation. Five
of the 15 respondents are widows who took over their husband‟s share after his death. Two
out of eleven seats in the board of directors are reserved for women. Only two women
stated that they ever attended a meeting of the DCS which is held once a year. Often,
respondents say their husbands or sons would join the meetings. Similarly, only three
women attended a training program offered by the cooperative. In the WDCS, all
respondents attend the meetings either once a year or even monthly, if they are part of the
BOD. Seven women participated in trainings, five of them for three times.
The next table shows some of the economic data on dairy production disaggregated for
members of WDCS and DCS.
68
Table 18: Differences in Economics of Dairy Production between WDCS and DCS
Women-coop Mixed-coop
Indicator Mean S.D. Mean S.D.
Herd size (heads) 5.6 4.6 4.1 2.1
Buffaloes 0.7 1 0.9 0.96
Cross bred cows 2.9 2.3 1.9 1.6
Yield per animal (litres/day) 8.6 2.3 6.6 3.1
Total milk produced (litres/day) 24.9 24.9 13.3 7.97
Avg. price in the cooperative (Rs/litre) 21.14 1.03 22.9 1.3
Cost of dairy production (Rs/day/animal) 33 17.5 38 21.3
Share of milk for home consumption (%) 9.36 6.44 13.67 6.86
Available milk (ml/per household member) 388 187 337 192 Source: Author
The herd size and number of cross breed cows as well as the milk yield per animal is higher
for women in single-sex cooperatives. Nevertheless, women in mixed cooperatives achieve
higher returns per day because they get higher prices in the cooperative. Moreover, four
women in the mixed-cooperative sell a part of the milk informally with prices between
25Rs and 30Rs per litre. A larger sample size would be needed to derive any pattern in the
economic impact of mixed or single-gender cooperatives. The next table shows that women
in mixed-cooperatives constitute the poorest part of the sample in terms of income and land
ownership; therefore dairy income is relatively more important for them. This points to the
fact that the interviewed women participating in the mixed-cooperative belong more often
to female headed households which are in general economically disadvantaged.
Table 19: Economic Indicators of Households by DCS or WDCS Membership
Women-coop Mixed-coop Non-members
Indicator Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D.
Land size (ha) 2.27 2.27 0.77 0.53 1.06 1.0
Gross income (Rs/year) 485,150 492,843 199,070 124,604 178,970 128,902
Herd size (heads) 5.6 4.6 4.1 2.1 3 1.0
Share of gross income
from dairying (%) 37% 21% 45% 15% 27% 26%
Daily gross return from
dairying
(Rs/day/animal)
87 42 72 39 38 39
Source: Author
69
Regarding the empowerment index discussed above and its five domains, the data shows
that women in mixed cooperatives feel more empowered compared to women in single-sex
cooperatives. The difference is especially high for control over use of income, purchase and
sale of assets and ownership of land. For example, most of the women in mixed-gender
DCS control the income from dairying, whereas in single-sex cooperatives men tend to
increase their control over the dairy income.
Figure 19: Control over Dairy Income
Source: Author
Women participating in mixed DCS also participate to a greater extent in decision-making
about the sale and purchase of large livestock, i.e. cattle, buffalo and oxen. Women in
single-sex cooperatives state more often that the husband takes the decision alone.
Figure 20: Decision-Making about the Sale and Purchase of Large Livestock
Source: Author
70
Regarding the ownership of land, none of the members of a single-sex cooperative in this
study owns land in her name whereas three women in the mixed cooperative have
registered land titles.
Table 20: Participation in Major Economic Decisions
Mixed-
cooperative
Women-
cooperative
Non-
member
Who decides about the
use of dairy income?
Female dominated 11 73% 3 21% 19 66%
Jointly 3 20% 5 36% 8 28%
Male dominated 1 7% 6 43% 2 7%
Who decides about the
use of income from
crop farming?
Female dominated 3 21% 0 0% 1 4%
Jointly 7 50% 2 15% 11 46%
Male dominated 4 29% 11 85% 12 50%
Who decides about
minor household
expenditures?
Female dominated 11 73% 5 36% 13 45%
Jointly 3 20% 9 64% 14 48%
Male dominated 1 7% 0 0% 2 7%
Who decides about
large expenditures?
Female dominated 5 33% 0 0% 2 7%
Jointly 7 47% 5 36% 16 55%
Male dominated 3 20% 9 64% 11 38%
Who decides about the
use of (major) credit?
Female dominated 3 23% 1 8% 3 16%
Jointly 7 54% 7 54% 12 63%
Male dominated 3 23% 5 38% 4 21%
Who decides about the
purchase of livestock?
Female dominated 3 20% 0 0% 2 7%
Jointly 10 67% 6 43% 20 69%
Male dominated 2 13% 8 57% 7 24% Source: Author
The results presented in the table above indicate that women in single-sex cooperatives
participate less in economic decision-making at the household level compared to women in
mixed-cooperatives and non-members.
71
4.5 Key Findings
Applying the methodology explained in chapter 3, the data collected on empowerment in
each domain and for the three groups of non-members, mixed-gender and single-gender
cooperative members can be quantified as follows:
Table 21: Key Findings
Domain Average level of empowerment Differences
A. Single
cooperativ
e (N=14)
B. Mixed
cooperative
(N=15)
C. Non-
member
s
(N=29)
D.
(A+B)
Members
(N=29)
A-C B-C B-A D-C
Production
Crop
production 8% 23% 18% 15% -10% 5% -15% -3%
Dairy
production 37% 48% 51% 42% -14% -3% -11% -9%
Resources
Ownership
of land 0% 20% 8% 10% -8% 12% -20% 2%
Purchase
and sale of
assets
23% 48% 40% 36% -17% 8% -25% -4%
Access to
and
decision on
credit
35% 43% 29% 39% 6% 14% -8% 10%
Income
Control
over use of
income
37% 66% 51% 52% -14% 15% -29% 1%
Leadership
Group
member and
speaking in
public
54% 60% 42% 57% 12% 18% -6% 15%
Time
Free and
resting time
(in hours)
10.9 11.8 11.2 11.4 -0.3 0.6 -0.9 0.2
Total 39% 52% 42% 46% -3% 10% -13% 4% Source: Author
72
Overall, there is a positive empowerment effect for women who are cooperative members
in this sample, but looking at the different domains, the impact of cooperative membership
on women empowerment seems to be quite mixed.
A rather negative empowerment outcome for cooperative members is found in terms of
decision-making about dairy production. In fact, with increasing formalized market
transactions and the higher economic importance of dairying in absolute terms, which is
fostered by dairy cooperatives, men tend to control more decisions around dairy production.
At the same time men also participate in dairy-related work tasks which otherwise remain a
largely female responsibility. Similarly, the results indicate that higher incomes derived
from participation in dairy cooperatives do not necessarily translate into higher levels of
control over income for women.
Regarding access to and control over productive resources, especially land, the data doesn‟t
show any major difference between dairy cooperative members and non-members.
According to this data, dairy cooperatives have a positive empowerment effect in terms of
leadership. The participative approach of the cooperative model seems to offer
opportunities for women to increase their self-confidence and enhance their leadership
abilities. Since cooperative members are more often also members of Stree Shakti groups,
they have more independent access to and control over credits.
Comparing respondents according to their membership in single-gender or mixed
cooperatives, it looks like female shareholders in mixed cooperatives feel more empowered
across all five domains of the women empowerment index. Women in single-sex
cooperatives are even less empowered compared to non-members in all domains except for
access to and control over credits and leadership. There is a large gap between
empowerment outcomes for women in mixed and in single-sex cooperatives.
In this chapter, the empirical data of the field study regarding economic dimensions of
dairy cooperative membership as well as empowerment indicators is presented. It is found
that there are economic gains for women participating in dairy cooperatives. However, the
outcomes for women‟s empowerment according to the WEAI are ambiguous and differ
between members of single-gender and mixed-gender dairy cooperatives. In the next part I
will discuss these findings taking into account other research.
73
5 Discussion
In this chapter I try to give possible explanations for the results presented above. First,
economic dimensions of DCS membership are discussed. Consequently, differences in
certain domains of empowerment between members and non-members are considered.
Finally, possible reasons for differences in empowerment outcomes between members of
mixed and single-gender dairy cooperatives are highlighted.
5.1 Economic Advancement
Looking at economic aspects, dairy cooperatives are clearly beneficial to their members.
Member households shift from traditional to more intensive dairy production systems.
Buffalos and local cows that are fed on pasture and field residuals are replaced by cross-
breed cows, fed additionally with concentrated feed stuff. Dairying turns form a subsistence
activity into a more market-oriented business and becomes more important for the
household economy on the whole.
As discussed by other researcher (KURUP, 2001, CANDLER and KUMAR, 1998) income from
dairying is found to be relatively more important to landless, small and marginal rural
households. Hence dairy cooperatives provide an opportunity to tackle rural poverty. On
the other hand, households that own more land can also keep more dairy animals and
benefit more from DCS in absolute terms because of the availability of fodder from their
own fields. Moreover, intensifying dairy production requires investments that often make
access to credits a precondition for participating in dairy cooperatives.38
Poor households
may be restricted in their access to credit and may also avoid taking the risk of a future
investment. In case of loss of an animal and failure to repay loans they are more vulnerable.
In addition to economic gains in terms of cash income, there are nutritional benefits for
member households due to higher milk availability per capita. SHUKLAR and
BRAHAMANKAR in 1999 (cited in KURUP, 2001), conclude that milk consumption levels in
1995-96 in South India were 309 gr per person per day for member and 279 gr for non-
member household. According to the data used in this study the advantage of members over
non-members is even larger. It is suggested that women are more likely to spend extra
38
Currently a bred cow costs around 30,000Rs.
74
income on nutrition and family maintenance (QUISUMBING et al., 1995, MENCHER, 1988).39
Hence it is possible to argue that women who are in charge of dairying will probably keep a
higher amount of milk for family consumption. In other words, an increase in women‟s
autonomy in the sale of milk and the use of income may result in increased nutritional
status of the family. However, the increase of milk availability may not translate into equal
benefits for male and female household members. “Even where the nutritional status of the
family may undergo a change for the better, that of women and female children may be
slight because of the gender differentiation in access to milk and milk products.” (SHARMA
and VANJANI, 1993)
5.2 Power and Agency
It is hypothesized that economic gains for women will eventually translate into greater
gender equality within the household and women‟s improved agency in intra-household
decision-making. But, looking it the dimensions of productive decisions and control over
income as well as access to and control over resources, this hypothesis has to be rejected.
In the sample, women who are cooperative members are less empowered to take
independent decisions about dairy production as compared to the non-members. The higher
economic relevance of dairy farming in absolute terms and the requirement to incur higher
expenses, e.g. for the purchase of cross breed cows and improved feeding, may explain the
higher involvement of men in member households. When dairying converts from a side-
activity, focused on subsistence needs, into a real market activity and economic
opportunity, men tend to increase their participation in this traditionally female task. On the
one hand, this development may be a chance to renegotiate gender-based roles and work
distributions within the household. On the other hand, it brings the risk of further
marginalizing women‟s contribution to the household and village economy. The increased
male participation in dairy production doesn‟t translate into a more equal decision-making
about the household and farm economy as a whole, since control over crop production for
women remains low in member households. This relates to MAYOUX‟ (1995) findings: ”In
many cases women‟s participation has not led to significant change in gender inequality.
Women‟s involvement in participatory activities is generally greater in activities which
present the least threat to men.” (MAYOUX, 1995, p.251) Or, in this case, if dairying
39
See MALAPIT et al. (2013) for a detailed study on the effects of women‟s empowerment on child nutrition.
75
becomes so important that it might impose a threat to men‟s economic dominance, men will
generally take more control over this activity.
Considering the control over income, the economic gains from dairy cooperative
membership don‟t translate into increased income control for women. In fact, the levels of
control over dairy income are lower for cooperative members. There are two major
arguments to explain this:
a) Women‟s traditional role prevents them from market activities outside the household
and hence from receiving payments at the cooperative. These social norms, based on the
concept of female as belonging to the “inside”, cannot be expected to change overnight
when women become members of dairy cooperatives. The formalization of milk sales
through the cooperative, doesn`t seem to alter existing social restrictions but rather to
reproduce them, at least in the short run (see BENNETT, 1993). This is in line with
findings from Punjab dairy cooperatives, where it was observed that men receive the
payments for milk in most of the cases (KAUR, 2010).
b) The increasing economic importance of dairying through a cooperative leads to higher
male involvement. When dairying turns from a subsistence-oriented into a market-
oriented activity, men will generally take more control over this activity (see MAYOUX,
1995). KANTOR (2003) comes to a similar conclusion when analysing women`s
empowerment through home-based work in India. She finds that high levels of control
over income are found for female producers with low levels of earnings, “when the
producer`s income increased, they become far more likely to lose control of it.”
(KANTOR, 2003, pp.442)
One of the factors that prevent women cooperative members from taking full control over
dairy activities and incomes generated is their socially restricted access to the formal
market, a problem prevalent all over India (see HUNT and KASYNATHAN, 2001).
Regarding the access to and control over assets, there are no visible improvements for
cooperative members. Existing patterns of ownership and inheritance cannot be expected to
change by simply implementing a cooperative marketing organization. The unequal access
to assets in turn mediates women‟s gains from cooperative participation.
What is probably more important for women‟s autonomy in decision-making than
cooperative membership is the economic status of the household. As BENNETT (1993)
76
points out: “There is an inverse correlation between household economic status on the one
hand and women's labor force participation and their proportional contribution to total
family income on the other.”(BENNETT, 1993, p.2) As a social norm, a woman who is
working outside the house is associated to a household‟s low social status. Similarly, HUNT
and KASYNATHAN (2001) observe that: “Women who have very few life choices appear to
be more likely than others to challenge the social norms of purdah (seclusion) regarding
visits to the marketplace, traditionally an exclusively male domain, whether or not they are
involved in the activities of NGOs.” (HUNT and KASYNATHAN, 2001, p.47)
In the sample, women who are cooperative members have notably higher levels of
empowerment regarding leadership and access to and control over credits. In the studied
area, leadership measured in terms of group participation is clearly related to women‟s
access to credit, because the most wide-spread groups are WSHGs that provide loans to its
members.
Most of the dairy cooperative members live in villages with functioning women SHGs and
hence have a possibility to participate and access credits. On the other hand, in villages
without dairy cooperatives there is a lack of Stree Shakti women SHGs.
Probably there are some synergetic effects between these two groups. Women who have
access to credit through Stree Shakti may purchase livestock on their own and join a
cooperative; and women who increase their income through a dairy cooperative may keep
savings in a Stree Shakti group. At the same time the communication and exchange among
women may increase their confidence to involve in other kinds of social and economic
organizations. Findings by other researcher point in the same direction. Pre-existing formal
or informal social networks facilitate the establishment of other groups with related
objectives (LAHIRI-DUTT and SAMANTA, 2006), or as MARKELOVA et al. (2009) put it:
“Marketing organizations that build upon pre-existing social groups have an advantage
because they can build on local norms and trust.” (MARKELOVA et al., 2009, p.3)
AGARWAL (2000) states that: “Moreover, all-women groups could be built more easily on
the foundations of women‟s pre-existing social networks and relationships of trust and
reciprocity […]” (AGARWAL, 2000, p.303) So, the existence of a SHG can facilitate the
77
establishment of a WDCS.40
On the individual level, a woman who is in either group may
be more likely to join the other group as well since she has access to information and social
network.
At the same time, credits channelled through a WSHG increase women`s control over the
use of credit and improve other empowerment outcomes (HASHEMI, SCHULER and RILEY,
1996). HOLVOET (2005) analyses women‟s control over credits in different micro-credit
programs in South India. She points out that a wider change in patterns of household
decision-making can only be expected if there is social interaction among women groups.
The empowerment effects become more striking with higher intensity of group interaction
and with an increasing duration of membership. If loans are provided individually, the
empowerment effect for women is reduced. “Women gain a higher stake in matters directly
related to the loan use, but they are not able to translate this into a more substantial
involvement in other domains of household decision-making. When loans are channelled
through women‟s groups and combined with more investment in social intermediation,
substantial shifts in decision making patterns do emerge.” (HOLVOET, 2005, p.97)
Overall the findings support the hypothesis that cooperative membership provides
opportunities for women to participate in organizations at the village level and increase
their access to and control over credit.
There are reasons to believe that a woman‟s participation in group activities may even have
inverse effects on her psychological well-being as conflict within the household is likely to
increase. “[…] the potential stress for women from male opposition if the cooperative and
their involvement become a reality. The greater their attempted involvement, the greater
the obstacles and conflict that will arise.” (SHARMA and VANJANI, 1993, p.1387) Looking
at the planned establishment of a WDCS, the same authors anticipate: “tremendous
opposition should the women really try to implement the goals of organizing and running a
cooperative and attempting to achieve a measure of independence from their husbands.”
(SHARMA and VANJANI, 1993, p.1387)
In the context of women‟s micro-credit SHGs in rural Bangladesh cases of increased
violence against women are found: “In some cases, however, providing resources to
women and encouraging them to maintain control over these resources may provoke
40
It is probably not the other way round in the studied villages, because Stree Shakti SHGs have been
generally established earlier than WDCS.
78
violent behaviour in men, because they see their authority over their wives being
undermined.” (SCHULER, HASHEMI and BADAL, 1998, p.155)
AHMED, CHOWDHURY and BHUIYA (2001) argue that the emotional well-being of women is
negatively affected when participating in a micro-credit program, at least in an early stage.
“By breaking the barriers of traditional norms and behaviors ascribed to women by
patriarchal society, micro-credit may generate anxiety and tension among its recipients
[...].” (AHMED, CHOWDHURY and BHUIYA, 2001, p.1964)
Having said this, it cannot be assumed that economic gains which may be achieved through
WSHGs result in higher emotional well-being of the beneficiaries. It is possible that women
who try to gain economic independence at the household or village level face considerable
opposition, and experience higher levels of stress and tension. Research indicates that
strong women‟s groups may provide a way to tackle male violence (HUNT and
KASYNATHAN, 2001).
5.3 Mixed and Single-Gender Cooperatives
It has been suggested by other researchers that exclusively female groups are advantageous
in terms of women empowerment. In environments, where cultural barriers to men and
women working together are quite high, single-sex groups may be the most feasible way to
target women‟s needs (PANDOLFELLI, MEINZEN-DICK and DOHRN, 2008). AGARWAL (2000)
observes for forest management cooperatives that “in such groups [single-sex groups]
village women are found to be more comfortable and vocal and feel they have a greater
chance of being heard than in mixed ones.[…]Here the notion of „critical mass‟ also has
relevance. Women, if few in number, are often reluctant to speak up at meetings. Most feel
that they cannot change procedures individually, and would be better able to represent
their concerns if present in sufficient numbers.” (AGARWAL, 2000, pp.303)
Although a positive effect on women‟s participation in single-sex groups can be supported
by the data presented above, there seems to be a rather negative effect on broader
empowerment outcomes. Women, who are shareholders in a mixed cooperative, are more
empowered (53%) than those who are shareholders in purely women cooperatives (39%),
especially in the domains of income control (+29%), control over assets (+25%) and land
ownership (+20%).
79
These findings are similar to those of HOLVOET (2005) comparing female participants in
micro-credit programs that distribute loans either to men and women or solely to women.
She observes that women taking out a loan in the mixed-gender program have more often
access to independent income, they have less land but it is more frequently registered in
their name and they are more likely to work outside the household, already before the start
of the program. In other words, a woman has to be empowered already to take out a loan in
a mixed program, where she has to compete with male household members. The same
seems to be true for women becoming shareholders in a mixed dairy cooperative. At least
in five cases, women in the mixed cooperatives are heads of the household. The absence of
a husband due to death, abandonment or long-term migration appears to be among the most
important individual factors that increase women‟s control over economic decisions (HUNT
and KASYNATHAN, 2001).
On the contrary, in pure women cooperatives even women who are not empowered within
their households are likely to become shareholders. In a WDCS there is no option for men
to become shareholders, hence if a households wants to use the service of the cooperative,
female household members have to become shareholders. At the village level, men have to
“use” women to get market access through the cooperative in order to increase their
incomes. At the household level, men may force women to become members41
(see KAUR,
2010). Again Holvoet‟s research yields similar results for female participants in women
credit programs: “[…] the majority of the TNWDP beneficiaries [women‟s credit program]
did not decide for themselves to become a member of a women‟s group: most of them had
actually been „forced‟ by their husbands who had been attracted themselves by the selective
incentive of future credit receipt” (HOLVOET, 2005, p.86, own note)
Women in single-sex groups are not just less empowered compared to women in mixed
groups, but also less empowered compared to non-members. They show higher levels of
empowerment only for access to and control over credit and leadership which is related to
the presence of WSHGs. This may be explained by the specific problems arising from the
characteristics of WDCs in rural Karnataka that limit or even reverse its emancipatory
ideal.
41
Here it would be interesting to examine the problem of non-voluntary cooperation, however the data
gathered in this study doesn‟t provide any information about the issue.
80
5.3.1 Conflict within the Household
Intra-household decision-making and allocation of resources is characterized by dynamics
of cooperation and conflict.42
Women empowerment can be understood as a process by
which women gain a stronger bargaining position within the household. Hence, women‟s
empowerment depends on the cooperation with other (male) household members. For
example, a precondition for a woman to participate in a dairy cooperative or a WSHG is
usually the agreement by her husband.43
According to MAKITA (2009) the visibility and extent of women‟s work influences
substantially women‟s decision-making power within the household. “A family member‟s
work is visible when his or her work is regarded as a significant and indispensable income
source by other family members; other minor income sources are invisible.” (MAKITA,
2009, p.380). WDCS can be understood as an intent to make women`s home-based dairy
work more visible by including women explicitly in a formal marketing organization.
However, if programs intended to empower women provide income-earning opportunities
only for women, men may feel threatened in their dominant position and oppose the project
or take it over. This is so especially, if men participate in and are affected by these activities
within the household. “[…] husbands who could not be adequate breadwinners felt
threatened by their wives‟ income-earning ability; men‟s response was to take over
women‟s project activities or control women‟s income.” (MAKITA, 2009, p.379) Since rural
India is characterized by poverty and a lack of employment opportunities outside of
agriculture, men lack possibilities for income generation to maintain their higher status in
the household. “It appears that in situations where resources and opportunities are
extremely scarce, men are more likely to appropriate women‟s loans and incomes.”
(HASHEMI, SCHULER and RILEY, 1996, p.647)
42
„„The members of household face two different types of problems simultaneously, one involving cooperation
(adding to total availabilities) and the other conflict (dividing the total availabilities among the members of
the household).‟‟ (SEN 1990, P. 129, cited in MAKITA, 2009) 43
LAHIRI-DUTT and SAMANTA (2006) analyze the failure of some WSHGs in Burdwan (North-East India) and
observe that: “The control of women‟s involvement in the public sphere is often strongest at the family level:
husbands prevent women from going out of the home; they use domestic quarrels, violence and other forms of
intimidating behaviour, and try to spend women‟s savings so that their payments in group formation becomes
irregular.”( LAHIRI-DUTT and SAMANTA, 2006, p.292)
81
Considering this, it is actually not surprising that men tend to take over activities and
control income generated in WDCS even though or rather because they are formally
excluded from participation.
5.3.2 Top-Down Policy
The village cooperatives encountered in this study are the product of a top-down approach
implemented by KMF and the government authorities rather than from part of the villagers.
Due to requirements implemented externally by KMF, women are encouraged to establish a
cooperative, in order to open up a new market for the whole village. Once the cooperatives
are set-up, they have to follow externally imposed rules and standards regarding milk
quality and hygiene. As it has been pointed out by KAUR (2010), officials lack awareness of
gender issues and perceive the implementation of WDCS as a way to improve the
profitability of dairy cooperatives. At the higher managerial level most positions are
occupied by men, e.g. all members of the board of directors are male (see KMF, 2014).
Hence, it has to be critically assessed in how far gender roles can be expected to change in
favour of women by the implementation of policies designed by men. LAHIRI-DUTT and
SAMANTA (2006) criticize: “The problem with „self-help‟ schemes for women is the way
they problematise the „self‟, mostly in the mould of the bureaucrat‟s own image, rather
than the women for whom these schemes are made. The act of government officials
„determining‟ what kind of activities women should engage in, invariably leads to
replication of existing power structures within the society such as caste.” (SAMANTA, 2006,
p.292).
MAYOUX‟ (1995a) analysis of different women producer cooperatives points in a similar
direction. “Cooperative organization was thus largely a form of „imposed participation‟.
Outside agencies had decided on a particular model and organizational framework […].”
(MAYOUX, 1995a, p.218)
From this perspective, there is a lack of participation of women not only at the
implementation level but also in planning and evaluation of the work of dairy cooperatives.
5.3.3 Education and Training
The successful management of a cooperative clearly requires a lot of skills and time
resources. In the WDCS studied many women lack education and have never received
82
training from part of the cooperative. “In many cases, the team leader has received little
more education than other group members, creating problems for the group in turn.
Sometimes the husband of the team leader became the virtual leader of the group. Thus, we
noted the range of problems included first the additional burden of keeping accounts, a task
which the team leader may be ill-equipped to perform; and second, the subtler question of
the leader being among equals [...]” (LAHIRI-DUTT and SAMANTA, 2006, p.291)
Moreover, women may take over leadership roles within the cooperative in the beginning
as proxies for their male relatives and due to their higher status within the village. MAYOUX
(1995a) observes that “the women who tended to be elected to positions of power within the
cooperative were people with power outside it.” (MAYOUX, 1995a, p.219)
From the analysis and discussion of the empirical results, it becomes clear that there is a
need to explicitly tackle gender relations within dairy cooperatives and in the wider society,
if women empowerment shall be achieved. The provision of independent income for
women alone is not sufficient to introduce broader changes in gender relations that are
based on social norms.
“At the same time, if cooperative working is to have a significant impact on the gender
inequalities constraining women‟s ability to earn and control income, then these need more
explicit attention. The mere introduction of cooperative production would not appear in
itself to lead to any greater changes in women‟s position than employment in private
industry, even where it provides a regular income. Issues such as women‟s access to
resources, their freedom of movement outside the home and their burden of unpaid
domestic work need to be addressed. Although they may not be aware of all the possible
options, ultimately women themselves are likely to be the best judges of how this might be
done.” (MAYOUX 1995a, p.226)
In this chapter the economic benefits small rural producers can derive from participation
in a dairy cooperative are discussed. Moreover, arguments why these economic gains don‟t
lead automatically to the desired empowerment outcomes for women are presented. The
focus is particularly on women cooperatives and on problems women might face in this
kind of cooperatives. In the last chapter I will sum up the course of the study and its major
results and give suggestions for further research on the issue.
83
6 Conclusions
Dating back to the 1960s, the dairy cooperative movement, promoted through Operation
Flood, is one of the most famous examples of the Indian cooperative system. Village milk
collection points became an important way of providing market access and regular cash
incomes for millions of rural households all over India. As milk production increased
rapidly, India turned from an importer of dairy products into one of the largest producers
worldwide. Most of the cooperatives‟ members-producers are small and marginal farmers
with less than two hectares of land. Additional cash income is essential for them to
maintain the household and farming economy.
Even though women are traditionally responsible for dairy farming and provide most of the
labour force for dairy production, gender aspects were largely ignored by policy-makers
when establishing dairy cooperatives. Up to today, village dairy cooperatives are mostly
managed and controlled by men, reflecting the patriarchal structure of the society.
Women‟s role is generally limited to the domestic sphere and women‟s participation in
economic activities is restricted. With growing interest in the promotion of women‟s
economic autonomy by NGOs, donor agencies and governments, in the last two decades
attention is focused increasingly on women‟s participation in dairy cooperative societies
(DCS). It is argued that dairy cooperatives have a potential to provide independent incomes
for poor rural women enhancing the well-being of the whole family and gradually changing
patriarchal norms. Considering this, women dairy cooperative societies (WDCS) have been
established instead of conventional mixed-gender cooperatives, with the idea that these
would be more effective in promoting gender equality. The state government of Karnataka
and the Karnataka Milk Federation have provide funds for the establishment of such
women cooperatives.
The literature review shows that there is a lack of systematic assessment of the performance
of women dairy cooperatives and of the situation of women in single- and mixed-gender
dairy cooperatives. Studies on the impact of Operation Flood and dairy cooperatives
usually don‟t take into account gender dimensions. Studies focusing on women in
cooperatives often fail to quantify the various aspects of women‟s empowerment. My study
addresses this gap by comparing different dimensions of economic empowerment among
three groups of women: members of mixed-gender DCS, members of single-gender DCS
and non-members. The aim of this study is to contribute to the understanding of the impact
84
of membership in a dairy cooperative on women‟s empowerment, in the context of a rural
area in South India.
For this purpose, I collected primary data in Mandya and Chickballapur district, located in
the Southern and Eastern dry zone of Karnataka. Dairy cooperatives, including WDCS, are
prominent in both regions. Crop and livestock farming are the main source of income
among the rural population.
Regarding the question of how to measure and quantify the rather complex concept of
women‟s empowerment, the Women Empowerment in Agriculture Index (WEAI)
developed by IFPRI has been chosen as a methodological framework. The index provides a
suitable tool since this study focuses on economic empowerment in the context of farm
households. I had to be adjusted to fit the specific requirements of the research question
within the given project frame. The index is constructed as an aggregated measure of five
domains, including decision-making regarding agriculture production, the control over the
use of income, the respondent‟s access to and control over resources and credits, her
leadership in the community and the allocation of time. The underlying assumption of
assessing economic empowerment at the individual rather than at the household or
community level is that much of women‟s subordination arises within the household.
Gender often determines the intra-household allocation of resources and a person‟s
participation in decision-making.
Interviews were conducted individually with farm women, using a structured questionnaire
designed for this purpose. It includes questions about socio-economic characteristics of the
respondents, characteristics of the household, crop production, dairy production and the
dairy cooperative membership as well as questions derived from the WEAI. The
questionnaire was pre-tested with fourteen respondents.
During the field study 58 farm women in eight villages have been interviewed. Fourteen of
them are members in women dairy cooperatives, fifteen are members in mixed-gender DCS
and 29 women are non-members, selling at the private market. Purposive snowball
sampling was applied given the non-availability of a list of the population. All interviews
were conducted with the help of local female translators. If possible, interviews were
realized in the absence of male family members to minimize bias.
The major limitations of the primary data are the lack of a random sample as well as the
lack of time series data.
85
First, I looked at the economic dimensions of membership in a DCS at the household level.
The data indicates that households who sell through dairy cooperatives produce larger
amounts of milk per day and achieve higher returns per day from dairying. This is due to a
larger number of animals as well as a higher productivity per animal. Members tend to
operate dairy production more intensively with high yielding cross breed cows and changes
in feeding management. The share of dairy income is relatively higher for member
households, especially, for small and marginal farmers. Apart from cash income, there are
nutritional benefits for members in the form of higher milk availability per person. At the
private market higher prices can usually be achieved than at the cooperative and the
revenue is immediately received. However, members prefer the security of a stable market
with fixed prices. They also benefit from the provision of feed stuff and veterinary services
at low cost.
Next, I compared women‟s empowerment among members and non-members across the
five domains. Members feel on average more empowered in terms of access to and control
over credit and in the domain of leadership, including the participation in groups and the
ability to express one‟s opinion in public. In the studied area, leadership is related to
women‟s access to credit, because the groups, in which most women participate, are self-
help groups (SHGs) that provide loans to women members. Villages with dairy
cooperatives also have functioning women‟s SHGs, whereas in villages without
cooperative there is a lack of such groups. One reason might be synergetic effects between
SHGs and dairy cooperatives, so that the existence of one group makes the establishment of
the other more likely, e.g. by creating networks among women.
In contrast to what has been expected, women members of cooperatives ranked their
empowerment status to take decisions about dairy production compared to non-members
lower. With cooperative membership the increasing commercialization and higher
economic relevance of dairy farming for the household economy seem to lead to higher
involvement of men in dairy production activities and related decision-making.
Levels of empowerment in other domains, including income control, are not notably
different between members and non-members. The income derived from participation in
dairy cooperatives is not necessarily received or controlled by women nor does dairy
income contribute to higher levels of female control over the total household income. In
86
fact, women who participate in dairy cooperatives are less likely to receive payments
themselves and hence may even lose part of control over the use of the income.
Then I explored the reasons for these observations more in detail. I looked at differences in
women‟s statements between women members of single- and mixed-gender cooperatives.
Here, women in mixed-gender cooperatives seem to feel notably more empowered than
women in single-sex cooperatives in all of the five dimensions we have explored. The
difference is especially important in the domains of income control, purchase and sale of
assets and ownership of land. More interestingly, members of WDCS feel less empowered
than non-members in all domains with two exceptions. In the domains of leadership and
access to credit women in single-sex cooperatives feel more empowered than women in the
control group, but still less empowered then women in mixed-gender cooperatives. These
somewhat puzzling results may partly be explained by a selection bias, resulting from the
circumstance that generally women can only become member-shareholders in a mixed-
cooperative, if they are considered to be “heads of the household”. This means that they are
more likely to have land registered in their name and take decisions related to the
household and farm economy on their own. This is the case usually if a husband died or
abandoned the family.
However, this selection effect cannot explain, why women in single-sex cooperative
indicate even lower levels of empowerment compared to non-members. Looking at studies
about other single-sex groups with similar findings, the following arguments could be
supported. Firstly, women in single-sex cooperatives may be „forced‟ by men to participate
in an income-generating program since it is the only option to access its benefits. Secondly,
men may feel threatened to lose their dominant position within the household or village, if
income-generating activities are only provided to women. This politically driven effect
leads frequently to an increased control of men over women‟s activities and incomes,
especially under conditions characterised by a lack of employment and resources.
Participation in women‟s cooperatives may thus increase conflicts within the household to
the point of physical violence, clearly defeating the ultimate goal of women‟s increased
well-being. Thirdly, women dairy cooperatives are established with a top-down approach,
lacking the participation of women in the planning and evaluation process and with very
few women involved at the management levels of the implementation agencies. Finally,
women who are supposed to manage the cooperatives at the village level often lack
87
adequate education and training. Therefore, they may easily be become shadow managers
with actual decisions made by their men leading to a situation where WDCS are only
formally managed by women explaining the results of our survey.
It is important to point out that women‟s participation in DCS in general and in WDCS in
particular doesn‟t automatically lead to their greater economic autonomy. It cannot be
simply assumed that female shareholders will take control over additional incomes, which
is one of the most important concerns for development programs. To achieve any changes
in women‟s position within the household and the community, measures accompanying the
establishment of DCS have to be taken, such as education and training for women and
awareness-building programs for women and men.
It is questionable whether the top-down implementation of WDCS in South Indian villages
actually presents an effective way to promote gender equality. If dairy cooperatives are to
be implemented, to allow women to generate and control their own incomes, the role of
men in the process has to be considered as well.
I suggest exploring the possibility of a third kind of dairy cooperatives in form of a „gender-
sensitive‟ cooperative. Women and men can become shareholders in these cooperatives, but
women are especially encouraged to participate and get special support, e.g. trainings.
There could be agreements among women and men in the community about how to
distribute work responsibilities, benefits and decision-making. This probably requires a lot
of efforts by an outside group, such as a NGO and by the members themselves. How such
a concept could look like and how it could be implemented, may be best known by the
women and men involved. Therefore, a more participatory approach is needed in the
planning, implementation and evaluation of DCS.
This study does neither claim that single-sex dairy cooperative are bad for women
empowerment nor that mixed-gender cooperatives do in general better. If women‟s
empowerment is to be achieved within already existing mixed-cooperatives, it will be
important to gradually transform these traditional DCS institutions. More shares have to be
issued to women and women have to be encouraged to actively participate in meetings and
committees. Women‟s participation has to go beyond the formal reservations of seats at the
village level. The long-term goal should be the equal participation of women as
shareholders and directors of the cooperative. As far as single gender cooperatives are
concerned, more emphasis should be given to the economic and cultural environment in
88
which such organizations are founded. In other words, the wants, beliefs and needs of the
men necessarily accompanying the foundation process will have to be taken into account in
training and awareness generation.
Collaboration between WSHGs and dairy cooperatives could be a way to promote women‟s
participation in DCS. Accessing more informal WSHGs is often easier for women and
could be a first step in enabling them to participate in dairy cooperatives as well. Women
could be encouraged to access loans to purchase milk cows. They could be trained in book
keeping and business planning and build-up networks.
Moreover, women should be involved in the dairy cooperative organizations not only at the
village but also at the district and state level. Women in higher positions may be more
successful in advocating for women‟s rights and in the development and implementation of
programs designed for women. For example, there is a lack of female experts to train
women in dairy farming and veterinary issues. The interaction and the information flow
between officials and rural women are also likely to improve if female officers are in place.
Another important aspect is to implement tools for gender-sensitive policy evaluation.
There is a need to come to a quantifiable and standardized measure of women‟s
empowerment allowing the comparison of different policies. In my view such a tool is
necessary, because, once it becomes part of program assessments, it will be easier to
monitor, if policies effectively improve the situation of women. It is therefore an important
task for future research to improve tools to measure women‟s empowerment and to try to
implement them in monitoring and evaluation practices.
The results of this thesis surely have a limited generalizability because of the small sample
size. In future research a larger sample size is needed to reduce or better explore the effects
of the mentioned selection bias and control for the influence of other exogenous variables,
such as age, education or social status as well as economic and cultural variables of the
environment in which cooperatives operate. In this study I have shown that gathering data
of all women in one village, including cooperative members and non-members will provide
a better understanding of the determinants of women empowerment. In a future study
design, women may be interviewed before and after joining a cooperative to observe the
development over time. It also seems very promising to combine quantitative data from a
larger sample with qualitative information on women‟s personal motivations, goals, and
89
problems. Comparisons of smaller samples of similar cases may inform the set-up and
design of quantitative studies.
Another limitation of this research was the difficulty to measure and quantify
empowerment since empowerment is a multidimensional concept including economic as
well as psychological and social aspects. Using the WEAI as a framework I focused on
dimensions that are relatively easily quantifiable, mostly ignoring the psychological and
emotional dimension. Further research on the issue of women‟s empowerment and
participation in groups, be it SHGs or dairy cooperatives, should in particular take into
account the dimension of emotional well-being, including violence against women leading
to a more holistic assessment of empowerment as it was possible in this study.
Moreover, the understanding of goals and measures of empowerment is largely influenced
by the cultural background of any researcher. For example concepts such as individual
property or gender equality may not be meaningful to some societies. Taking into account
that the framework to assess women empowerment has been developed by “western”
researchers, it may not adequately reflect the situation of women in a different cultural
setting. In other words, the perception of what is a desirable outcome of an empowerment
process may differ between researcher and study participants. A more participatory and
learning approach to assess women‟s empowerment may be used in future research.
New questions arise in the course of this study, which require further attention. Why do
women in single-sex groups feel less empowered compared to non-organized or mixed
gender cooperatives? How could their situation be improved? Under which conditions does
participation in women‟s groups increase or reduce women‟s autonomy? How could men
be successfully involved in activities for women‟s empowerment? How would the women
themselves evaluate their empowerment? How are dynamics of conflict and cooperation
within the household affected by women‟s participation in groups?
It is my conviction that the future investigation of precisely these questions will result in
important contributions to improve gender policies in India and elsewhere, taking into
account the importance of women‟s empowerment in the broader framework of
development objectives.
90
References
Agarwal, B. (1994): A field of one‟s own: Gender and land rights in South Asia.
Cambridge University Press.
Agarwal, B. (2000): Conceptualising environmental collective action: why gender matters.
Cambridge Journal of Economics, 24: 283-310
Agarwal, B. (2007): Gender inequality, cooperation and environmental sustainability. In
Baland, J.-M., Bardhan, P., Bowles, S. (ed.): Inequality, Cooperation, and environmental
sustainability. Princeton University Press.
Ahmed, S.M, Chowdhury, M., Bhuiya, A. (2001): Micro-credit and emotional well-being:
Experience of poor rural women from Matlab, Bangladesh. World Development Vol. 29,
No. 11: 1957-1966
Alderman, H (1987): Cooperative Dairy Development in Karnataka, India: An Assessment.
International Food Policy Research Institute.
Alkire, S., Meinzen-Dick, R., Peterman, A., Quisumbing, A.R., Seymour, G., Vez, A.
(2012): The Women‟s Empowerment in Agriculture Index. IFPRI Discussion Paper 01240.
Alsop, R., Bertelsen, M.F., Holland, J. (2006): Empowerment in Practice. From Analysis to
Implementation. Directions in Development. The World Bank.
Anderson, S. (2007): The economics of dowry and bride price. Journal of Economic
Perspectives. Volume 21, No 4: 151-174
Atkinson, R; Flint, J. (2001): Accessing Hidden and Hard-to-Reach Populations: Snowball
Research Strategies. Issue 33. Social Research Update. Department of Sociology,
University of Surrey, Guildford.
Basu, P., Chakraborty, J. (2008): Land, Labor and Rural Development: Analyzing partici-
pation in India‟s village dairy cooperatives. The Professional Geographer, 60:3: 299-313.
Benería, L; Sen, G. (1981): Accumulation, Reproduction and “Women‟s role in economic
development”: Boserup revisited. Signs, Vol. 7, No.2, Development and the Sexual
Division of Labor, pp. 279-298. The University of Chicago Press.
Benett, L., Behal, M., Chakraverti, M., Chatterjee, M., Kaur, R., Kurrien, J., Mitra, M.,
Mahajan, V., Hemawasam, I., Das, M., Mody, G., Mukhopadhyay, S., Satyanarayana, K.
(1991): Gender and Poverty in India. A World Bank Country Study.
91
Bennett, L. (1993): Women, Poverty and Productivity in India. Economic Development
Institute of The World Bank.
Birchall, J. (2004): Cooperatives and the Millennium Development Goals. International
Labour Office. Geneva.
Burchi, F. (2013): Women‟s political role and poverty in the educational dimension. A
District-level analysis in India. Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik. Discussion
Paper 23/2013
Burchi, F., Vicari, S. (2014): To be or not to be a member of a primary cooperative in
Brazil: Any differences in household decision-making and gender equality? Oxford
Development Studies: 1-22
Candler, W., Kumar, N. (1998): India: The Dairy Revolution. The impact of dairy
development in India and the World Bank‟s Contribution. The World Bank, Washington,
D.C.
Chickballpur District Administration (2014): Chickballapur Profile. Accessible at:
http://www.chikballapur.nic.in/dprofile.htm (accessed 10th
June, 2014)
Cunningham, K. (2009): Rural and Urban Linkages. Operation Flood‟s Role in India‟s
Dairy Development. International Food Policy Research Institute. Discussion Paper 00924
Datta, P.B., Gailey, R. (2012): Empowering women through social entrepreneurship: Case
study of a women‟s cooperative in India. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. May
2012.
Dawes, J. (2008): Do data characteristics change according to the number of scale points
used? An experiment using 5 point, 7 point and 10 point scales. International Journal of
Market Research, Vol 50, No.1
Deere, C.D., Doss, C.R. (2006): The gender asset gap: What do we know and why does it
matter? Feminist Economics 12 (1-2), January/April 2006: 1-50
Department of Agriculture and Co-operation (2006): Agriculture Census 2005-06. Ministry
of Agriculture, Government of India. Accessible at: http://agcensus.nic.in/
document/agcensus2005/agcen2005rep.htm (accessed 10th
June, 2014)
Department of Agriculture and Co-operation (2014)a: Agriculture Contingency Plan for
District: Chickballapur District. Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India. Accessible
at: http://agricoop.nic.in/acp.html (accessed 10th
June, 2014)
92
Department of Agriculture and Co-operation (2014)b: Agriculture Contingency Plan for
District: Mandya District. Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India. Accessible at:
http://agricoop.nic.in/acp.html (accessed 15th
June, 2014)
Frederick, D.A. (2012): Co-ops 101. An introduction to cooperatives. Cooperative
Information Report 55. USDA.
Ghissassim, Johnson, de Sentenac (2005): In Three case studies of time use survey
application in lower and middle-income countries. The United Nations Development
Programme. Institute of political studies of Paris.
Golla, A.M., Malhotra, A., Nanda, P., Mehra, R.(2011): Understanding and Measuring
Women‟s economic empowerment. Definition, Framework and Indicators. The
International Centre for Research on Women (ICRW).
Gosh, A.K., Maharjan, K.L. (2001): Impacts of Dairy Cooperative on rural income
generation in Bangladesh. Journal of International Development and Cooperation, Vol.8,
No.1: 91-105
Government of India (2013): Press note on poverty estimates, 2011-12. Planning
Commission. July 2013.
Government of Karnataka (2005): Karnataka Human Development Report 2005. Investing
in Human Development.
Government of Karnataka (2009): Mandya District Gazetteer (2009). Chapter IV.
Agricultur and Irrigation. Accessible at: https://www.karnataka.gov.in/gazetteer/
pages/handbooks.aspx (accessed 8th
May, 2014)
Government of Karnatka (2013): Men and Women in Karnataka. Publication, Training and
Coordination Division, Directorate of Economics and Statistics. Bangalore
Hashemi, M.S., Schuler, S.R., Riley, A.P. (1996): Rural credit programs and women‟s
empowerment in Bangladesh. World Development, Vol.24, No.4: 635-653
Holvoet, N. (2005): The impact of microfinance on decision-making agency: Evidence
from South India. Development and Change 36(1): 75-102.
Hunt, J., Kasynathan, N. (2001): Pathways to Empowerment? Reflections on Microfinance
and Transformation in Gender Relations in South Asia. Gender and Development, Vol. 9,
No. 1: 42-52
93
International Food Policy Research Institute (2012): Women`s empowerment in agriculture
index. Accessible at: http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/weai_brochure.pdf
International Food Policy Research Institute (2013): Supporting Documents: Household
Data. Bangladesh Policy Research and Strategy Support Program (PRSSP) Bangladesh
Integrated Household Survey Questionnaire (BIHS) (2011-2012). p.124-144 Accessible at:
http://thedata.harvard.edu/dvn/dv/IFPRI/faces/study/StudyPage.xhtml?globalId=hdl:1902.1
/21266&tab=files&studyListingIndex=0_6a055b6033e5716c115f2e9d8782
Jones, E., Smith, S., Wills, C. (2012): Women producers and the benefits of collective
forms of enterprise, Gender & Development, 20:1: 13-32,
Kabeer (1999): Resources, agency, achievements: reflections on the measurement of
women‟s empowerment. Development and Change, 30 (3): 435-464.
Kantor, P. (2003): Women`s empowerment through home-based work: Evidence from
India. Development and Change 34(3): 425-445.
Kaur, R. (2010): Institutional structure and Women Empowerment. Asia-Pacific Journal of
Rural Development Vol. XX, No.2: 103-124
Kishor, S., Gupta, K. (2009): Gender equality and women‟s empowerment in India.
National Family Health Survey India. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government
of India.
KMF 2014: About us. Accessible at: http://www.kmfnandini.coop/index.php?option=com_
content&view =article&id=47&Itemid=60 (accessed 20th
June, 2014)
Kumar, N. (1997): Operation Flood: Literature review and reconciliation. Institute of rural
management Anand.
Kurup, M.P.G. (2001): Smallholder dairy production and marketing in India: Constraints
and opportunities, National Dairy Development Board. In: Ranegar, D., Thorpe, W.(ed.):
Smallholder dairy production and marketing: Constraints and opportunities. ILRI
Proceedings
Lahiri-Dutt, K., Samanta, G. (2006): Constructing Social Capital: Self-Help Groups and
Rural Women`s Development in India. Geographical Research, 44(3): 285-295.
Lahota, S.R., Chole, S.R., Rathi, N.S. (2012): Role of women in dairy farming. Dept. of
dairy science, Yogeshwari Mahavidyalaya, Ambajogai.
94
Makita, R. (2009): The visibility of women‟s work for poverty reduction: implications from
non-crop agricultural income-generating programs in Bangladesh. Agriculture and Human
Values 26:379-390
Malapit, H.J.L., Kadiyala, S., Quisumbin, A.R., Cunningham, K., Tyagi, P. (2013):
Women‟s empowerment in agriculture, production diversity and nutrition. Evidence from
Nepal. IFPRI Discussion Paper 01313. Poverty, Health and Nutrition Division.
Malhotra (2006): Questionnaire Design and Scale Development. In Grover, R., Vriens, M
(ed.): The Handbook of Marketing Research. Sage.
Malhotra, A., Schuler, S.R., Boender, C. (2002): Measuring Women‟s empowerment as a
variable in international development. Gender and Development Group of the World Bank.
Mapsofindia.com (2014): Karnataka district map. Accessible at: http://www.mapsofindia.
com/maps/karnataka/karnataka.htm
Markelova, H., Meinzen-Dick, R., Hellin, J., Dohm, S. (2009): Collective action for
smallholder market access. Food Policy 34: 1-7.
Mayoux, L. (1995): Beyond Naivety: Women, Gender Inequality and Participatory
Development. Development and Change. Vol.26: 235-258.
Mayoux, L. (1995)a: Alternative vision or utopian fantasy?: Cooperation, Empowerment
and women‟s cooperative development in India. Journal of International Development:
Vol.7, No.2: 211-228
Mayoux, L. (2000): Micro-finance and the empowerment of women. A review of the key
issues. Working paper. Accessible at: http://www.ilo.org/employment/Whatwedo/
Publications/WCMS_117993/lang--en/index.htm
Mayoux, L. (2001): Tackling the Down Side: Social Capital, Women`s empowerment and
Micro-finance in Cameroon. Development and Change, Vol. 32: 435-465.
Mayoux, L., Anand, S. (1995): Gender inequality, ROSCAs and sectoral employment
strategies: Questions from the South Indian Silk industry. In Ardener, S. and Burman, S.
(ed.): Money-Go-Rounds. The importance of rotating savings and credit associations for
women. Berg.
Meera,M., Krishne Gowda (2013): Towards economic empowerment: Study of rural
women in dairy cooperatives of Heggada Devana Kote Taluk in Mysore District. Journal of
Media and Social Development, Vol. 1, Issue 1: 17-36
95
Mencher, J.P.(1988): Women`s work and poverty: Women`s contribution to household
maintenance in South India. In Dwyer, D., Bruce, J. (ed.): A home divided. Women and
income in the third world. Stanford University Press.
Mosedal, S. (2005): Policy Arena. Assessing women‟s empowerment: Towards a
conceptual framework. Journal of International Development. 17: 243-257
Narayan, D. (2002): Empowerment and poverty reduction: A Sourcebook. World Bank.
Washington, D.C. Accessed at: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTEMPOWERMENT/
Resources/486312-1095094954594/draft2.pdf
Okali, C. (2011): Searching for new pathways towards achieving gender equity. Beyond
Boserup and “Women‟s role in economic development”. ESA Working Paper No. 11-09,
FAO
Oxaal, Z., Baden, S. (1997): Gender and empowerment: definitions, approaches and
implications for policy. BRIDGE (development-gender). Institute of Development Studies,
University of Sussex, UK.
Pandolfelli, L., Meinzen-Dick, R., Dohrn, S. (2008): Introduction. Gender and collective
action: motivations, effectiveness and impact. Journal of International Development 20: 1-
11
Pierce, J.L., Kostova, T., Dirks, K.T. (2001): Toward a theory of psychological ownership
in organizations. The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26, No.2: 298-310.
Quisumbing, A.R., Brown, L.R., Feldstein, H.S., Haddad, L., Pena, C. (1995): Women the
key to food security. Food Policy Report. The International Food Policy Research Institute.
Washington, D.C.
Rajendran, K., Mohanty, S. (2004): Dairy cooperatives and milk marketing in India:
Constraints and Opportunities. Journal of Food Distribution Research 35 (2): 34-41
Razavi, S; Miller, C. (1995): From WID to GAD: conceptual shifts in the women and
development discourse. Occasional Paper1. United Nations Research Institute for Social
Development. United Nations Development Programme.
Rowlands, Jo (1997): Questioning empowerment. Working with women in Honduras.
Oxfam
Samman, E., Sanots, M.E. (2009): Agency and empowerment: A review of concepts,
indicators and empirical evidence. Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative.
University of Oxford.
96
Schuler, S.R., Hashemi, M.S., Badal, S.H. (1998): Men‟s violence against women in rural
Bangladesh: undermined or exacerbated by microcredit programmes?. Development in
Practice. Vol.8, Number 2: 148-157
Sharma, M., Vanjani, U. (1993): When more means less: Assessing the impact of dairy
„development‟ on the lives and health of women in rural Rajasthan (India). Social Science
and Medicine Vol. 37, No. 11: 1377-1389
Singh, K., Pundir, R.S. (2000): Co-operatives and Rural Development in India. Institute of
rural management, Anand
Snell, W.E., Miller, R.S., Belk, S., Garcia-Falconi, R. and Hernandez-Sanchez, J.E. (1989):
Men‟s and Women‟s emotional disclosures: The impact of disclosure recipient, culture and
the masculine role. Sex roles, Vol. 21, Nos. 7/8
Squicciarini, M.P., Vandeplas, A., Swinnen, J. (2013): Dairy production in India: A way
out of poverty? LICOS Centre for Institutions and Economic Performance & Department of
Economics, University of Leuven.
Srinivasan, S. (2005): Daughters or Dowries? The changing nature of dowry practices in
South India. World Development Vol 33, No 4: 593-615
Subhadra, M.R., Suresh, K.A., George, P.R. (2009): Gender dimensions in mixed farming
among the members of selected milk cooperatives in Kerala. Journal of Dairying, Foods &
Home Sciences., 28 (2): 142-145
Tamil Nadu University of Agriculture, 2014: Frequently asked questions.
Cooperation/Cooperative Societies. Accessible at: http://agritech.tnau.ac.in/agricultural
_marketing/agrimark_FAQs.html (accessed 7th
May, 2014)
The Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959. Accessible at:
http://dpal.kar.nic.in/.%5C11%20of%201959%20(E).pdf (accessed 18th
May, 2014)
The World Bank (2011): Gender Equality and Development. World Development Report
2012.
United Nations (1997): General assembly. REPORT OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL
COUNCIL FOR 1997. Chapter IV. Accessible at: http://www.un.org/
documents/ga/docs/52/plenary/a52-3.htm
United Nations Development Programme (2013): Human Development Report 2013. The
Rise of the South. Human Progress in a Diverse World. Explanatory note on 2013 HDR
composite indices. India.
97
Uotila, M., Dhanapala, S.B. (1994): Dairy development through cooperative structure. In
Chopin, D. (ed.): Experiences in dairy Development – 79, 1994/2. FAO. Accessible at:
http://www.fao.org/docrep/t3080t/t3080T0a.htm
Verhagen, M. (1990): Operation Flood and the rural poor. In Resources, institution and
strategies: Dornboos, M., Nair, K.N. (ed.): Operation Flood in Indian Dairying. Sage
Publications.
Yadav, P.K., Grover, I. (2009): Participation and time spent in dairy activities by members
of dairy cooperatives. Asian Journal of Home Science (December 2009 to May 2010) Vol.4
No.2: 317-321
Databases
Anonymous (2014): Census 2011, Karnataka Population Census data 2011. Accessible at:
http://www.census2011.co.in/census/state/karnataka.html
Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fishery (2014): Estimates of Production
and Per Capita Availability of Milk since 1950-51 to 2011-12. Accessible at:
http://data.gov.in/catalogs/ministry_department/department-animal-husbandry-dairying-
and-fisheries#path=group_name/milk-production-14179/ministry_department/department-
animal-husbandry-dairying-and-fisheries
FAOstat (2014): Compare Data. Group: Production. Domain: Livestock Primary. Area:
India. Item: Milk, Total. Element: Yield. Accessible at: http://faostat3.fao.org/faostat-
gateway/go/to/compare/Q/QC/E
The World Bank, 2013: Poverty headcount ratio at $ 1.25 per day. Accessible at:
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.DDAY/countries/IN?display=graph
98
A Appendices
A.1 Questionnaire
Household identification Interview details
A1 Household number A4 Date
A2 Village A5 Completed?
A3 Dairy cooperative member? A6 Present during interview?
Household members
No. 1 2 3 4 5
Male adults
Age
Main occupation
Income/year
Female adults
Age
Main occupation
Income/year
Girls under 16 Number
Boys under 16 Number
Children outside hh
Is your family beneficiary of any government programs?
Basic information on respondent
B1 Age
B2 Illiterate
B3 Years of schooling
B4 Marital status Married Never married Widow Divorced
B5 Religion Hindu Muslim Christian Other
B6 Caste (if applicable) General caste Backward caste Scheduled caste/tribe
B7 Land area owned (acre) Irrigated Dry land Garden/orchard
B8 Leased area (acre)
99
Cropping pattern
Kharif (April-Sept.) Rabi (Sept.-Dec.)
Crop Area (acre)
Output Qty. Sold Price (Rs) Crop Area (acre)
Output Qty. Sold Price (Rs)
Summer (Jan.-March) Annual
Crop Area (acre)
Output Qty. Sold Price (Rs) Crop Area (acre)
Output Qty. Sold Price (Rs)
Dairy cooperative membership
For members only:
C1 Which household member(s) is/are shareholders?
C2 Year of membership in Cooperative:
C3 Who gave you information regarding dairy cooperative? Family members Dairy co-operation Others
Neighbors Nobody
C4 Did you ever attend a Dairy co-operative meeting? If yes, how often?
C5 Which benefits do you get from co-operative membership, if any?
Higher Price Input supply Processing Veterinary services
Credit Marketing Training Others
C6 How many times did you attend a dairy training?
C7 Which problems do you face regarding your cooperative membership, if any?
Delayed payment Low price
Increased workload for yourself Too strict controls for quality
Difficulties to attend meetings Others
C8 How did your economic situation change since you entered the co-operative?
worse same better
For non-members only:
C9 Have you ever been member in a dairy co-operative?
C10 If yes, when left it?
C11 Why you left it?
C12 Would you like to join a dairy co-operative?
C13 If yes, why you didn’t join so far?
100
C14 If not, why not?
C15 Do you think your husband/family would support you in joining the co-operative if you wish to?
Milk production
D1 Number of cows/she-buffalos Cross breed Calve
Local breed Calve
Buffalo Buffalo calve
Total
D2 Lactating cows
D3 Year of start of your dairy activity
D4 What is the major challenge you face in dairy production? Fodder shortage Labor shortage
Hygiene management
Low milk price
High investment for cattle
Diseases Low productivity Other (specify)
D5 How do you milk the cows? Manual own machine in dairy community center
D6 Who is mainly carrying out:
A - milking the cow(s)
B -feeding the cow(s)
C -grazing the cow(s)
D -taking care of calve(s)
E -taking the milk to the dairy
F - shed and animal cleaning
G - receiving weekly payment (in case of members)
H - realizing sale for private people (in case of non-mebers)
Dairy Production/Income
D7 Quantity of milk in liters for all cows Morning Evening
D8 Home consumption in liters
D9 Quantity used for butter production (or other processing)
D10 Quantity of butter sold per day (gr)
D11 Quantity sold to cooperative per day in liters
D12 Quantity sold to private dairy in liters
D13 Price for a liter of milk (Rs) At the cooperative At private sale
D14 Price for unit of butter/other produce (Rs)
D15 How often do you take milk to dairy / sell it to private people? Twice a day once a day every 2days fewer
Dairy Expenses (for all cattle)
D16 Feed for cows per month
101
D17 Medicine and veterinary service per year
D18 Labor per month
D19 Other costs (specify)
Control over and use of income
E1 Do you have a bank account?
E2 Do you alone have any money you can decide what to spend on?
E3 Do you have your own savings?
E4 Do you keep record of your income and expenses? If yes, show the record of income and expenditure (take quick picture)
Did you participate in the activity in the last 12 month?
Who takes decisions about the activity? SCALE1 -5
How much did your household earn by this activity in the last 12 month?
Who takes decisions about the use of income from (activity): SCALE1- 5
A B C D
E5 Crop farming: E.g. what crops to plant this year, in which plots to plant, which
seed, fertilizer or other inputs to buy
E6 Non-farm economic activities: small business, self-employment E.g. purchases made for small business or sale of goods
E7 Wages and salary employment: in-kind or monetary work in agriculture or other E.g. if you or other household members would work outside
of household
Who takes decisions about: SCALE1-5
E8 - Minor household expenditures (e.g. food, cloth, cooking utensils, ornaments)
E9 - Large household expenditures (e.g. furniture, bike, ceremonies)
Input in productive decisions
Livestock raising
E10 -construction of cattle shed (e.g. whether to construct, how and where)
E11 - selection of breeds
E12 - management of fodder (e.g. variety of fodder, silage preparation, purchase of concentrate)
E13 - health care of animals (e.g. when to take animals to the veterinary center for vaccination, insemination, deworming)
E14 - sale of the milk (if not cooperative)
E15 - the use of income from milk
E16 For what do you spend the income from dairy?
102
Agriculture production
E17 - which inputs to buy (e.g. seeds, fertilizer, pesticides)
E18 - which crops to grow
E19 - when and who takes crops to market / realizing transaction with middleman coming to the house
Ownership of assets / Purchase, Sale or transfer of assets
How many of (item) does your household own?
How many of (item) do you own yourself alone?
How many of (item) does your husband own alone?
Who can decide whether to sell/give away the item?SCALE1-5
Who can decide whether to do new purchase of the item?SCALE1-5
A B C D E
E20 Agricultural land Above
E21 Large livestock (cattle buffalo)
E22 Small livestock (goat, sheep, pig)
E23 Poultry
E24 Farm equipment
E25 Means of transportation (bike, car, cycle, truck, bullock cart)
E26 Cellphone - - -
Access to and decisions about credit
Has anybody in your household taken any loans or borrowed cash/in-kind from (source) in the last 12 month?
Purpose of the loan How much did you borrow from (source)?
Who made decision to borrow from (source)? SCALE1-5
Who made the decision what to do with the money from (source)? SCALE1-5
E32 Agency? E27 E28 E29 E30 E31
A NGO
B Informal lender
C Formal lender (Bank/Institution)
D Friends, relatives
E Micro credit SHG
F Dairy Cooperative
G Other source (specify)
E33 If your household didn’t take any credit, why not?
103
Group member
Are you active member in any groups/association:
Have you ever had a leadership role in this group?
E34 E35
A - producer/marketing group (not dairy co-operative)
B - water user’s group
C - forest user’s group
D - credit or microfinance group
E - mutual help or insurance group
F - trade and business association
G - civic/charitable group
H - local government (Panchayat)
I - religious group
J - women’s group (- MahilaMandal, shtree Shakti, other)
K - other group (specify)
E36 If not member in any group, why not?
Speaking in public
Do you feel comfortable speaking up in public, e.g. if you don’t agree with a decision or you have a suggestion
E37 -if only women are present?
E38 - if also men are present
Leisure
E39 Are you satisfied with your time available for leisure activities such as visiting friends, watching TV, joining festivities, going to temple?
E40 Would you ever like to have more help from your husband in the house/farming activities?
Workload E41 Please describe what you did yesterday TIMETABLE
104
Activity 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Activity
A Sleeping and resting Sleeping and resting
B Eating and drinking Eating and drinking
C Personal care Personal care
D School (also homework)
School (also homework)
E Work as employed Work as employed
F Own business work Own business work
G Crop Farming Crop Farming
a Milking the cow(s) Milking the cow(s)
b Feeding the cow(s) Feeding the cow(s)
c Grazing the cow(s) Grazing the cow(s)
d Taking care of calve(s) Taking care of calve(s)
e Taking the milk to the dairy
Taking the milk to the dairy
f Shed and animal cleaning
Shed and animal cleaning
H Construction Construction
I Fishing Fishing
J Shopping/getting service
Shopping/getting service
K Weaving, sewing, textile care
Weaving, sewing, textile care
L Cooking and serving Cooking and serving
M
Domestic work Domestic work
N Care for children/adults/elderly
Care for children/adults/elderly
O Commuting Commuting
P Travelling Travelling
Q Watching TV/listening to radio
Watching TV/listening to radio
R Reading Reading
S Sitting with family Sitting with family
T Exercising Exercising
U Social activities Social activities
V Practicing hobbies Practicing hobbies
W
Religious activities Religious activities
X Other, specify… Other, specify…
105
Activity 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 2 3 Activity
A Sleeping and resting Sleeping and resting
B Eating and drinking Eating and drinking
C Personal care Personal care
D School (also homework)
School (also homework)
E Work as employed Work as employed
F Own business work Own business work
G Crop Farming Crop Farming
a Milking the cow(s) Milking the cow(s)
b Feeding the cow(s) Feeding the cow(s)
c Grazing the cow(s) Grazing the cow(s)
d Taking care of calve(s) Taking care of calve(s)
e Taking the milk to the dairy
Taking the milk to the dairy
f Shed and animal cleaning
Shed and animal cleaning
H Construction Construction
I Fishing Fishing
J Shopping/getting service
Shopping/getting service
K Weaving, sewing, textile care
Weaving, sewing, textile care
L Cooking and serving Cooking and serving
M
Domestic work Domestic work
N Care for children/adults/elderly
Care for children/adults/elderly
O Commuting Commuting
P Travelling Travelling
Q Watching TV/listening to radio
Watching TV/listening to radio
R Reading Reading
S Sitting with family Sitting with family
T Exercising Exercising
U Social activities Social activities
V Practicing hobbies Practicing hobbies
W
Religious activities Religious activities
X Other, specify… Other, specify…
106
A.2 Photos
Women milking a cow
Transport of milk cans from the collection point
to the processing unit
Women Dairy Cooperative building Buffalo in its stable