Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Review of Empirical Evidence on Gender Differences in Nonland Agricultural Inputs, Technology, and Services in Developing Countries

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Gender in Agriculture

Abstract

Empirical research on gender dimensions in agricultural inputs has focused on land. This chapter reviews existing microeconomic empirical literature from the past 10 years on gender differences in use, access, and adoption of nonland agricultural inputs in developing countries. The review focuses on three key areas: (1) technological resources, (2) natural resources, and (3) human resources. In general, there has been more empirical research on inorganic fertilizer, seed varieties, and extension services than on tools and mechanization and life-cycle effects, and most of the studies are from Sub-Saharan Africa. A consistent finding is that, across different types of inputs, men generally have higher input measures than women, and that this input gap is responsible for observed productivity differences between men and women; however, this finding is often sensitive to the use of models that control for other background factors, as well as the type of gender indicator implemented in the analysis. The final section presents future directions, opportunities, and recommendations for microeconomic gender analysis of nonland agricultural inputs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Here, gender represents a social construction of what it means to be of the male or female sex, including cultural, ethnic, economic, religious, and ideological influences.

  2. 2.

    We do not use a strict sample size cut-off per se but include only studies that generate descriptive statistics across gender-disaggregated subgroups.

  3. 3.

    Although we attempt to compare and contrast findings, please note that we do not conduct a meta-analysis. Meta-analysis would necessitate a substantial number of studies examining the same types of inputs (and associated outputs), which is not an appropriate analysis because of diversity of inputs.

  4. 4.

    As noted, the regions we compare include Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East (including North Africa), Eastern Europe, and South/Latin America. When we refer to “region-specific” trends, we lump areas of the world into these five regional categories. Throughout the chapter we sometimes refer to subregions within these five categories (for example, South Asia) or within specific countries (for example, the southern region of Zimbabwe); these instances will be specifically noted.

  5. 5.

    We started by reviewing original research on gender inequalities in agriculture, followed by papers that cite these studies. We then conducted online searches using keywords for various inputs in each category (Google Scholar, peer-reviewed journals, and websites of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research) and publication searches of websites of agricultural research organizations. We also conducted “snowball” citation techniques and sent emails to researchers in the field working on gender and agriculture within various institutions.

  6. 6.

    For a detailed presentation of property rights and collective action framework, including measurements, institutional actors, and linkages to poverty reduction, see Di Gregorio et al. (2008); for a review of implementation of this framework in evaluation work, see Mwangi and Markelova (2008).

  7. 7.

    Polygamy exists in Asia, but not to the same extent as in Sub-Saharan Africa.

  8. 8.

    Pesticides may also be organic or organic compounds synthesized in a laboratory.

  9. 9.

    Improved wheat seed is artificially produced by cross-pollination to improve yield, uniformity, and resistance to disease.

  10. 10.

    Stabling is a technological package consisting of a stable, a food supplement, an animal healthcare program, and an improved method of producing manure. A major benefit of stabling is increased milk production.

  11. 11.

    Studies that examine drinking water or domestic use only are therefore not included. However, women might use drinking water for kitchen gardens or small plots for home consumption, even if it is not noted or analyzed in the study. Because the literature on any type of water use is so large, we decided to exclude these studies.

  12. 12.

    Since irrigation often relies on water schemes or centralized infrastructure, there have been more case studies and other institutional analyses since 2000.

  13. 13.

    The varieties in percentages refer to the differences in percentages between different zones surveyed.

  14. 14.

    By definition, a household is considered technically efficient if no other household (or combination of households) produces more output with a similar level of inputs (Paris 1991).

  15. 15.

    However, there is more research on mechanization and technology applied to postharvest labor. See, for example, Mulokozi et al. (2000), Paris et al. (2001), and Singh et al. (1999).

References

  • Adesina AA, Mbila D, Nkamleu GB, Endamana D (2000) Econometric analysis of the determinants of adoption of alley farming by farmers in the forest zone of southwest Cameroon. Agric Ecosyst Environ 80(3):255–265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashby J (1985) Women and agricultural technology in Latin America and the Caribbean. In: Ashby J, Gomez S (eds) Women, agriculture, and rural development in Latin America. International Fertilizer Development Center/Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical, Cali, pp 1–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Atreya K (2007) Pesticide use, knowledge, and practices: a gender differences in Nepal. Environ Res 104(2):305–311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Babatunde RO, Omotesho OA, Olorunsanya EO, Owotoki GM (2008) Gender differences in resources allocation among rural households in Nigeria: implications for food security and living standard. Eur J Soc Sci 5(4):160–172

    Google Scholar 

  • Boserup E (1970) Woman’s role in economic development. St. Martin’s Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourdillon M, Hebinck P, Hoddinott J, Kinsey B, Marondo J, Mudege N, Owens T (2002) Assessing the impact of HYV maize in resettlement areas of Zimbabwe. Summary report. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Chirwa EW (2005) Adoption of fertilizer and hybrid seeds by smallholder maize farmers in southern Malawi. Dev S Afr 22(1):1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis K, Ekboir J, Mekasha W, Ochieng CMO, Spielman DJ, Zerfu E (2007) Strengthening agricultural education and training in Sub-Saharan Africa from an innovation systems perspective: case studies of Ethiopia and Mozambique. IFPRI discussion paper 00736. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis K, Nkonya E, Kato E, Ayalew Mekonnen D, Odendo M, Miiro R, Nkuba J (2010) Impact of farmer field schools on agricultural productivity and poverty in East Africa. IFPRI discussion paper 00992. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • de Brauw A, Li Q, Liu C, Rozelle S, Zhang L (2008) Feminization of agriculture in China? Myths surrounding women’s participation in farming. China Q 194(June):327–348

    Google Scholar 

  • Deere CD, León M (1987) Introduction. In: Deere CD, León M (eds) Rural women and state policy: feminist perspectives on Latin American agricultural development. Westview, Boulder, pp 1–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Deere CD, Alvarado GE, Twyman J (2010) Poverty, headship, and gender inequality in asset ownership in Latin America. Working paper 296. Center for Gender in Global Context, Michigan State University, East Lansing

    Google Scholar 

  • Dey J (1985) Women in African rice farming systems. In: International Rice Research Institute (ed) Women in rice farming: proceedings of a conference on women in rice farming systems. Gower Publishers, Brookfield, pp 419–444

    Google Scholar 

  • Di Gregorio M, Hagedorn K, Kirk M, Korf B, McCarthy N, Meinzen-Dick R, Swallow B (2008) Property rights, collective action, and poverty: the role of institutions for poverty reduction. CAPRi working paper 81. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Doss CR (1999) Twenty-five years of research on women farmers in Africa: lessons and implications for agricultural research institutions; with an annotated bibliography. Economics program paper 99-02. Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maiz y Trigo, Mexico City

    Google Scholar 

  • Doss C (2002) Men’s crops? Women’s crops? The gender patterns of cropping in Ghana. World Dev 30(11):1987–2000

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doss CR, Morris ML (2001) How does gender affect the adoption of agricultural innovations? The case of improved maize technology in Ghana. Agric Econ 25(1):27–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Enete AA, Nweke FI, Achike AI, Tollens E (2001) Differentiated gender ownership of cassava fields and implications for root yield variations in smallholder agriculture of South Nigeria. Tropicultura 19(3):105–109

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher MG, Warner RL, Masters WA (2000) Gender and agricultural change: crop-livestock integration in Senegal. Soc Nat Resour 13(3):203–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fletschner D (2008) Women’s access to credit: does it matter for household efficiency? Am J Agric Econ 90(3):669–683

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman AH, Omiti JM (2003) Fertilizer use in semi-arid areas of Kenya: analysis of smallholder farmers’ adoption behavior under liberalized markets. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst 66(1):23–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert RA, Sakala WD, Benson TD (2002) Gender analysis of a nationwide cropping system trial survey in Malawi. Afr Stud Q 6(1 & 2):223–243. http://web.africa.ufl.edu/asq/v6/v6i1a9.htm. Accessed 7 Sept 2009

  • Goldman A, Heldenbrand, K (2001) Gender and soil fertility management in Mbale District, Southeastern Uganda. Afr Stud Q 6(1 & 2):45–76. http://www.africa.ufl.edu/asq/v6/v6i1a3.htm. Accessed 21 Apr 2010

  • GSMA Development Fund (2010) Women and mobile: a global opportunity: A study on the mobile phone gender gap in low and middle income countries. Global System Mobile Association. http://www.gsma.com/mobilefordevelopment/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/GSMA_Women_and_Mobile-A_Global_Opportunity.pdf. Accessed 18 Mar 2010

  • Guyer JI (1991) Female farming in anthropology and African history. In: di Leonardo M (ed) Gender at the crossroads of knowledge: feminist anthropology in the postmodern era. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp 257–277

    Google Scholar 

  • Hope RA, Dixon P-J, von Maltitz G (2003) The role of improved domestic water supply in livelihoods and poverty reduction in Limpopo Province, South Africa. In: International symposium on water, poverty and productive uses of water at the household level, Muldersdrift, South Africa, 21–23 January. www.irc.nl/page/8060. Accessed 1 Aug 2009

  • Horrell S, Krishnan P (2007) Poverty and productivity in female-headed households in Zimbabwe. J Dev Stud 43(8):1351–1380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IFAD (International Fund for Agricultural Development) (2003) Mainstreaming a gender perspective in IFAD’s operations: plan of action 2003–2006. IFAD (International Fund for Agricultural Development), Rome

    Google Scholar 

  • IFPRI (International Food Policy Research Institute) (2007) Proceedings of the consultation on strengthening women’s control of assets for better development outcomes. IFPRI (International Food Policy Research Institute), Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • ILO (International Labor Organization) (2009) Global employment trends for women. Geneva. http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/@dgreports/@dcomm/documents/publication/wcms_103456.pdf. Accessed 5 Aug 2009

  • Jagger P, Pender J (2006) Influences of programs and organizations on the adoption of sustainable land management technologies in Uganda. In: Pender J, Place F, Ehui S (eds) Strategies for sustainable land management in the East African Highlands. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC, pp 277–308

    Google Scholar 

  • Kasante D, Lockwood M, Vivian J, Whitehead A (2001) Gender and the expansion of nontraditional agricultural exports in Uganda. In: Razavi S (ed) Shifting burdens: gender and agrarian change under neo-liberalism. Kumarian, Bloomfield, pp 35–66

    Google Scholar 

  • Katungi E, Edmeades S, Smale M (2008) Gender, social capital, and information exchange in rural Uganda. J Int Dev 20(1):35–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kazianga H, Masters WA (2002) Investing in soils: field bunds and microcatchments in Burkina Faso. Environ Dev Econ 7(3):571–591

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kevane M (2004) Women and development in Africa: how gender works. Lynne Rienner, Boulder/London

    Google Scholar 

  • Kinkingninhoun-Mêdagbé FM, Diagne A, Simtowe F, Agboh-Noameshie AR, Adegbola PY (2008) Gender discrimination and its impact on income, productivity, and technical efficiency: evidence from Benin. Agric Hum Values 27(1):57–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lastarria-Cornhiel S (1997) Impact of privatization on gender and property rights in Africa. World Dev 25(8):1317–1333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mehra R, Hill Rojas M (2009) Food security and agriculture in a global marketplace: a significant shift. International Center for Research on Women, Washington, DC. www.icrw.org/docs/2008/a-significant-shift-women-food%20security-and-agriculture%20FINAL.pdf. Accessed 2 Aug 2009

  • Moore KM, Hamilton S, Sarr P, Thiongane S (2001) Access to technical information and gendered NRM practices: men and women in rural Senegal. Agric Hum Values 18(1):95–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Motzafi-Haller P (ed) (2005) Women in agriculture in the Middle East. Ashgate Publishing, Burlington

    Google Scholar 

  • Mulokozi G, Mselle L, Mgoba C, Mugyabuso JKL, Ndossi GD (2000) Improved solar drying of vitamin A-rich foods by women’s groups in the Singida District of Tanzania. Research report series 5. International Center for Research on Women, Washington, DC. http://www.icrw.org/files/publications/Improved-Solar-Drying-of-Vitamin-A-rich-Foods-by-Womens-Groups-in-the-Singida-District-of-Tanzania.pdf. Accessed 6 Aug 2009

  • Mwangi E, Markelova H (2008) Collective action and property rights for poverty reduction: a review of methods and approaches. CAPRi working paper 82. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Nkedi-Kizza P, Aniku J, Awuma K, Gladwin C (2002) Gender and soil fertility in Uganda: a comparison of soil fertility indicators for women and men’s agricultural plots. Afr Stud Q 6(1):27–43. http://web.africa.ufl.edu/asq/v6/v6i1a2.htm. Accessed 6 Aug 2009

  • Oladeebo JO, Fajuyigbe AA (2007) Technical efficiency of men and women upland rice farmers in Osun State, Nigeria. J Hum Ecol 22(2):93–100

    Google Scholar 

  • Oladele O, Monkhei M (2008) Gender ownership patterns of livestock in Botswana. Livest Res Rural Dev 20(10). www.lrrd.org/lrrd20/10/olad20156.htm. Accessed 11 Aug 2009

  • Ouma JO, Murithi FM, Mwangi W, Verkuijl H, Gethi M, de Groote H (2002) Adoption of maize seed and fertilizer technologies in Embu District, Kenya. Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maiz y Trigo, Mexico. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:7dQsu-A6z2AJ:www.researchgate.net/publication/237629169_Adoption_of_Maize_Seed_and_Fertilizer_Technologies_in/file/60b7d524bc93f2b408.pdf+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us. Accessed 27 Sept 2009

  • Paolisso M, Hallman K, Haddad L, Regmi S (2002) Does cash crop adoption detract from childcare provision? Evidence from rural Nepal. Econ Dev Cult Change 50(2):313–337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paris Q (1991) An economic interpretation of linear programming. Iowa State University Press, Ames

    Google Scholar 

  • Paris T, Feldstein HS, Duron G (2001) Technology. In: Quisumbing AR, Meinzen-Dick RS (eds) Empowering women to achieve food security. 2020 Focus 6. Policy brief No. 5. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Pender J, Gebremedhin B (2006) Land management, crop production and household income in the Highlands of Tigray, Northern Ethiopia: an econometric analysis. In: Pender J, Place F, Ehui S (eds) Strategies for sustainable land management in the East African Highlands. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC, pp 107–140

    Google Scholar 

  • Phiri D, Franzel S, Mafongoya P, Jere I, Katanga R, Phiri S (2004) Who is using the new technology? the association of wealth status and gender with the planting of improved tree fallows in Eastern Province, Zambia. Agr Syst 79(2):131–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quisumbing AR (1994) Improving women’s agricultural productivity as farmers and workers. Education and Social Policy Department discussion paper series 37. World Bank, Washington, DC. http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2001/03/20/000094946_0103030540312/Rendered/PDF/multi_page.pdf. Accessed 28 Aug 2009

  • Quisumbing A (1996) Male-female differences in agricultural productivity: methodological issues and empirical evidence. World Dev 24(10):1579–1595

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quisumbing AR, McClafferty B (2006) Using gender research in development. Food security in practice technical guide series 2. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Quisumbing AR, Pandolfelli L (2010) Promising approaches to address the needs of poor female farmers: resources, constraints, and interventions. World Dev 38(4):581–592

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quisumbing AR, Yohannes Y (2004) How fair is workfare? Gender, public works, and employment in rural Ethiopia. Policy research working paper 0-3039. World Bank, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Quisumbing AR, Payongayong E, Aidoo JB, Otsuka K (2001) Women’s land rights in the transition to individualized ownership: implications for the management of tree resources in Western Ghana. Econ Dev Cult Change 50(1):157–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rola AC, Jamias SB, Quizon JB (2002) Do farmer field school graduates retain and share what they learn? An investigation in Iloilo, Philippines. J Int Agric Ext Educ 9(1):65–76

    Google Scholar 

  • Saito K, Mekonnen H, Spurling D (1994) Raising the productivity of women farmers in Sub-Saharan Africa. Africa technical department series No. 230. World Bank, Washington, DC

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sanginga PC, Adesina AA, Manyong VM, Otite O, Dashiell KE (2007) Social impact of soybean in Nigeria’s southern Guinea savanna. International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Ibadan, Nigeria. http://www.hubrural.org/IMG/pdf/iita_soybean.pdf. Accessed 27 Sept 2009

  • Schultz TP (2001) Women’s role in the agricultural household: bargaining and human capital investments. In: Gardner B, Rausser G (eds) Agricultural and resource economics handbook, vol 1. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 383–456

    Google Scholar 

  • Shankar B, Thirtle C (2005) Pesticide productivity and transgenic cotton technology: the South African smallholder case. J Agric Econ 56(1):97–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh G, Singh G, Kotwaliwale N (1999) A report on agricultural production and processing technologies for women in India. Gender Technol Dev 3(2):259–278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh N, Gunnar J, Bhattacharya P, Gustafsson J-E (2006) Gender and water management: some policy reflections. Water Policy 8(2):183–200

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith R (2008) Cattle’s effect on land and labour productivity: evidence from Zambia. J Int Dev 20(7):905–919

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SOAS (School of Oriental and African Studies), Wadonda Consult, Michigan State University, and Overseas Development Institute (2008) Evaluation of the 2006/7 Agricultural Input Subsidy Programme, Malawi. Final report. London

    Google Scholar 

  • Somda J, Nianogo AJ, Nassa S, Sanou S (2002) Soil fertility management and socioeconomic factors in crop-livestock systems in Burkina Faso: a case study of composting technology. Ecol Econ 43(2):175–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swinkels RA, Shepherd KD, Franzel S, Ndufa JK, Ohlsson E, Sjogren H (2002) Assessing the adoption potential of hedgerow intercropping for improving soil fertility, Western Kenya. In: Franzel S, Scherr SJ (eds) Trees on the farm: assessing the adoption potential of agroforestry practices in Africa. CABI Publishing/International Centre for Research in Agroforestry, New York, pp 89–110

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Thapa S (2009) Gender differentials in agricultural productivity: evidence from Nepalese household data. University of Trento, Department of Economics, Trento, Italy. Electronic paper

    Google Scholar 

  • Tiruneh A, Tesfaye T, Mwangi W, Verkuijl H (2001) Gender differentials in agricultural production and decisionmaking among smallholders in Ada, Lume, and Gimbichu Woredas of the Central Highlands of Ethiopia. Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maiz y Trigo, Ethiopian Agricultural Research Organization, and the European Union, Mexico City

    Google Scholar 

  • Tripp AM (2004) Women’s movements, customary law and land rights in Africa: the case of Uganda. Afr Stud Q 7(4):1–19

    Google Scholar 

  • UNDP (United Nations Development Programme) (2006) Mainstreaming gender in water management: resource guide, version 2.1. Gender and Water Alliance (GWA). New York

    Google Scholar 

  • UN-HABITAT (United Nations Human Settlements Programme) (2006) Mechanism for gendering land tools: a framework for delivery of women’s security of tenure. Strategies and outline adopted at the High Status Round Table on Gendering Land Tools, 21 June, Nairobi, Kenya. www.unhabitat.org/downloads/docs/4223_75221_gltn.doc. Accessed 3 Aug 2009

  • UN News Centre (2010) Rural women key to economic growth, says UN official. http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=34165&Cr=agriculture&Cr1=. Accessed 21 Apr 2010

  • Uttaro P (2002) Diminishing choices: gender, small bags of fertilizer, and household food security decisions in Malawi. Afr Stud Q 6(1):77–110. www.africa.ufl.edu/asq/v6/v6i1a4.htm. Accessed 3 Aug 2009

  • Van de Fliert E, Johnson N, Asmunati R, Wiyanto X (2001) Beyond higher yields: the impact of sweetpotato integrated crop management and farmer field schools in Indonesia. In: Scientist and farmer: partners in research for the 21st Century. Program report 1999–2000. International Potato Center, Lima, pp 331–342

    Google Scholar 

  • von Braun J, Hotchkiss D, Immink M (1989) Nontraditional export crops in Guatemala: effects on production, income and nutrition. Research report 73. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC. www.ifpri.org/pubs/abstract/73/rr73.pdf. Accessed 3 Aug 2009

  • von Koppen B (2002) A gender performance indicator for irrigation: concepts, tools, and applications. Research report 59. International Water Management Institute, Colombo

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitehead A, Tsikata D (2003) Policy discourses on women’s land rights in Sub-Saharan Africa: the implications of the return to the customary. J Agrar Change 3(1&2):67–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Bank (2007) Global monitoring report 2007: millennium development goals—confronting the challenges of gender equity and fragile states. World Bank, Washington, DC

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • World Bank/FAO/IFAD (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations/International Fund for Agricultural Development) (2009) Gender in agriculture sourcebook. World Bank, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • World Bank/IFPRI (International Food Policy Research Institute) (2010) Gender and governance in rural services: insights from India, Ghana, and Ethiopia. Gender and Governance Author Team. International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/World Bank, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • World Bank/Malawi (2007) Malawi poverty and vulnerability assessment (PVA): investing in our future. Synthesis report: main findings and recommendations. Poverty reduction and economic management 1, report 36546-MW. World Bank, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to Jere Behrman, Kristin Davis, an anonymous reviewer, and participants of The State of Food and Agriculture contributors’ workshop for helpful comments on an earlier draft and to all authors who provided drafts of forthcoming work. The results presented do not reflect the institutional views of the FAO or IFPRI; all errors are our own.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Public Policy, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA

    Amber Peterman

  2. Department of Sociology, New York University, 295 Lafayette Street, 4th floor, New York, NY, 10012, USA

    Julia A. Behrman

  3. Poverty, Health, and Nutrition Division, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), 2033 K Street, N.W., Washington, DC, 20006, USA

    Agnes R. Quisumbing

Authors
  1. Amber Peterman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Julia A. Behrman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Agnes R. Quisumbing
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amber Peterman .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Poverty, Health, and Nutrition Division, International Food Policy Research Inst., Washington, District of Columbia, USA

    Agnes R. Quisumbing

  2. Environment and Production Technology Division, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington, District of Columbia, USA

    Ruth Meinzen-Dick

  3. The State of Food and Agriculture, Agricultural Development Economics Division, Economic and Social Development Department, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome, Italy

    Terri L. Raney

  4. Agricultural Development Economics Division, Economic and Social Development Department, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome, Italy

    André Croppenstedt

  5. Department of Sociology, New York University, New York, New York, USA

    Julia A. Behrman

  6. Department of Public Policy, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA

    Amber Peterman

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Peterman, A., Behrman, J.A., Quisumbing, A.R. (2014). A Review of Empirical Evidence on Gender Differences in Nonland Agricultural Inputs, Technology, and Services in Developing Countries. In: Quisumbing, A., Meinzen-Dick, R., Raney, T., Croppenstedt, A., Behrman, J., Peterman, A. (eds) Gender in Agriculture. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8616-4_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation