Bantilan, MCS and Ravula, P and Parthasarathy, D and Gandhi, BVJ (2006): Gender and Social Capital Mediated Technology Adoption. Published in: ICRISAT Impact Series no 12
Download (843kB) | Preview
This study explores gender-differentiated benefits from the social capital buildup in technology uptake, and the decision-making patterns of men and women with respect to production, consumption and household task; and allocation of resources. The background research examined women’s role in developing social capital, and research developed a case study of the groundnut producing areas of Maharashtra in western India, and compared ‘with’ and ‘without’ technology situations, and ‘before’ and ‘after’ situations in relation to the package of groundnut production technology introduced in the region in 1987. The paper addresses three aspects: (1) social networks in technology adoption, (2) the gender-based activity pattern, and (3) build-up of social capital leading to improvements in the welfare of farmers and the farming community with a gender perspective. Available evidence suggests substantial differences in networks of men and women, particularly in composition. The evidence suggests that men belong to more formal networks reflecting their employment or occupation status, while women have more informal networks that are centered on family and kin. Findings show that women who are engaged in agriculture and allied activities develop bonding social capital characterized by strong bonds such as that found among family members or among members of an ethnic group. Men who are engaged in agriculture, on the other hand, develop bridging social capital characterized by weaker, less dense but more crosscutting ties such as with farmers, acquaintances, friends from different ethnic groups and friends of friends. Women’s employment opportunities significantly improved with the introduction of technology. Finally, the study concludes that while technology development and exchange can build upon social capital as a means of empowering women, much more needs to be learned about the approaches that foster build-up of social capital.
|Item Type:||MPRA Paper|
|Original Title:||Gender and Social Capital Mediated Technology Adoption|
|Subjects:||B - History of Economic Thought, Methodology, and Heterodox Approaches > B5 - Current Heterodox Approaches > B52 - Institutional; Evolutionary
C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C9 - Design of Experiments > C92 - Laboratory, Group Behavior
A - General Economics and Teaching > A1 - General Economics > A12 - Relation of Economics to Other Disciplines
Z - Other Special Topics > Z1 - Cultural Economics; Economic Sociology; Economic Anthropology > Z13 - Economic Sociology; Economic Anthropology; Social and Economic Stratification
J - Labor and Demographic Economics > J1 - Demographic Economics > J16 - Economics of Gender; Non-labor Discrimination
A - General Economics and Teaching > A1 - General Economics > A14 - Sociology of Economics
|Depositing User:||Valentine Joseph Gandhi B|
|Date Deposited:||21. Sep 2008 12:04|
|Last Modified:||13. Feb 2013 17:58|
Adato M and Meinzein DR. 2002. Assessing the impact of agricultural research on poverty using the sustainable livelihoods framework. EPTD Discussion paper 89, Washington DC, USA: International Food Policy Research Institute.
Allatt P. 1993. Becoming privileged: the role of family processes. In Youth and Inequality (Bates I and Riseborough G, eds.). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Amato P. 1998. More than money? Men’s contributions to their children’s lives. In Men In Families: When Do They Get Involved? What Difference Does It Make? (Booth A and Creuter A, eds.). New Jersey, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum
Asian Productivity Organization. 2002. Role of rural women in food security in Asia and the Pacific. Proceedings of the Seminar on Role of rural women in food security, 21–25 Aug, 2002, Thailand.Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 102-0093, Japan: APO.
Bourdieu P. 1986. The forms of capital. In Handbook of Theory for Research in the Sociology of Education (Richardson JE, ed.). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Bourdieu P and Wacquant L. 1992. An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Cambridge,UK: Polity Press.
Buvinic M. 1993. Feminisation of poverty: research and policy needs. Washington DC, USA: International Centre for Research on Women.
Buvinic M and Gupta. 1994. Targeting poor women-headed households and women maintained families in developing countries. Washington DC, USA: International Centre for Research on Women.
Coleman JS. 1988a. Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology Supplement 94:95120.
Coleman JS. 1988b. The creation and destruction of social capital: implications for the law. Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics and Public Policy 3:375–404.
Coleman JS. 1990. Foundations of Social Theory, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Coleman JS. 1991. Prologue: constructed social organization. In Social Theory for a Changing Society (Bourdieu P and Coleman JS, eds.). Oxford, UK: Westview Press.
Devine F and Roberts JM. 2003. Alternative approaches to researching social capital: a comment on Van Deth’s “Measuring social capital”. The International Journal of Social Research Methodology: Theory and Practice 6(1):93–100.
Doss CR and Morris ML. 2001. How does gender affect the adoption of agricultural innovations? The case of improved maize technology in Ghana. Agricultural Economics 25(1):27–39.
Durlauf SN. 1999. The case against social capital. Focus 20(3):1–5.
FAO. 2002. Gender and sustainable development of drylands – An analysis of field experiences. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Furstenburg FF and Hughes ME. 1995. Social capital and successful development among at-risk youth. Journal of Marriage and the Family 57:580–592.
Haddad L, Hoddinott J and Alderman H. 1997. Intrahousehold resource allocation in developing countries. Washington DC, USA: International Food Policy Research Institute.
Heyzer N. 1995. Gender population and environment in the context of deforestation:a Malaysian case study. IDS Bulletin. Gender Relations and Environmental Change 26(1).
IFPRI. 2005. Women Still the Key to Food and Nutrition Security. Washington DC, USA: International Food Policy Research Institute.
Jackson C.1995. Rescuing gender from the poverty trap. Gender Analysis in Development Series. University of East Anglia.
Kabeer N. 1995. Targeting Women or transforming institutions? Development in Practice 5(2).
Kabeer N. 1996. Agency, well-being and inequality: reflections on the gender dimensions of poverty. IDS Bulletin 27(1):11–22.
Kerr J and Kolavalli S. 1999. Impact of agricultural research on poverty alleviation: Conceptual framework with illustrations from the literature. EPTD Discussion paper 56. Washington DC, USA: International Food Policy Research Institute.
Kolli RD and Bantilan MCS. 1997. Gender-related impacts of improved agricultural technologies: identification of indicators from a case study. Gender and Development 1(3):371–393.
Leigh AK and Putnam RD. 2002. Reviving community: What policy-makers can do to build social capital in Britain and America, Renewal 10(2):15–20.
Levi M. 1996. Social and unsocial capital: a review essay of Robert Putnam’s Making Democracy Work, Politics and Society 24(1):45–55.
Lockwood M. 1995. Beyond the feminisation of poverty: gender-aware poverty reduction.BRIDGE Issue 2. Brighton, United Kingdom: University of Sussex. http://www.bridge.ids.ac.uk/dgb2.html.
Molinas JR. 1998. The impact of inequality, gender, external assistance and social capitalon local-level cooperation. World Development 26:413–431.
Molyneux M. 2001. Social capital: a post-transition concept? Questions of context and gender from a Latin American perspective. In An Appropriate Capital-isation? Questioning Social Capital (Morrow V, ed.). London: Gender Institute, London School of Economics.
Moore G. 1990. Structural determinants of men’s and women’s personal networks. American Sociological Review 55:726–35.
North DC. 1990. Institutions, institutional change, and economic performance. New York, USA: Cambridge University Press.
Olson M. 1982. The rise and fall of nations. New Haven, CT, USA: Yale University Press. Pantoja E. 2000. Exploring the concept of social capital and its relevance for communitybased development: the case of coal mining areas in Orissa, India. Social Capital Initiative Working Paper No. 18. Washington, DC 20433, USA: The World Bank.
Parthasarathy D and Chopde VK. 2000. Building social capital: collective action, adoption of agricultural innovations, and poverty reduction in the Indian semi-arid tropics:Paper presented at the Second global development network conference, 11-13 Dec 2000,Tokyo, Japan. Patancheru 502 324, Andhra Pradesh, India: International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics. 18 pp. (Limited distribution).
Portes A. 1998. Social capital: its origins and applications in modern sociology, Annual Review of Sociology 24(1):1–24.
Putnam RD. 1993. The prosperous community: social capital and public life. The American Prospect 4(13):11–18.
Putnam RD. 1995. Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Journal of Democracy 6(1):65–78.
Putnam RD. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community.New York, USA: Simon and Schuster.
Quisumbing AR. 1994. Gender differences in agricultural productivity: a survey of empirical evidence. Education and Social Policy Department Discussion Paper SeriesNo. 36. Washington DC, USA: The World Bank.
Reay D. 2000. A useful extension of Bourdieu’s conceptual framework?: Emotional capital as a way of understanding mother’s involvement in their children’s education.Sociological Review 48(4):568–585.
Schuller T. 2001. The complimentary roles of human and social capital. Canadian Journal of Policy Research 2(1):18–24.
Schuller T, Baron S and Field J. 2000. Social capital: a review and critique. in Social Capital: Critical Perspectives (Baron S, Field J and Schuller T, eds.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Skeggs B. 1997. Formations of Class and Gender. London, UK: Sage.
van Deth J. 2003. Measuring social capital: Orthodoxies and continuing controversies.The International Journal of Social Research Methodology: Theory and Practice 6 (1):79–92.
Woolcock M. 2001. The place of social capital in understanding social and economic outcomes. Canadian Journal of Policy Research 2(1):11–17.