The unequal efficiency gap: Key factors influencing women farmer’s efficiency in Uganda

Figures & data

Figure 1. Map of Uganda highlighting study districts (©Magdalena Lindberg).

Table 1. Time-use among male and female household members

Activity (24-h recall)	Male (h)	Female (h)
Sleep	11.12	11.22
School/Employment/Business*	1.58	0.64
Agricultural work	3.93	2.64
Domestic work**	1.56	4.99
Leisure***	5.82	4.52

*School, employment and business include going to school or doing homework, working as employed of engaged in one’s own business work.

**Domestic work includes cooking, caring for children, adults or elderly, domestic work, such as cleaning and fetching wood, also activities such as shopping and getting services, including health series and weaving, sewing and other textile work.

***Leisure includes such activities as watching TV, listening to radio or reading, exercising, social- and religious activities and others.

Table 2. Descriptive statistics of survey data

Management type	Male managed N = 268 Mean (SD)	Female managed N = 260 Mean (SD)	Jointly managed N = 368 Mean (SD)
Hectares of land allocated to maize	0.577 (0.687)	0.235 (0.31)	0.477 (0.587)
Kilograms of input seed per hectare	51.9 (67.4)	60.5 (78.9)	57.1 (79)
Number of household members	6.2 (3.0)	6.4 (3.0)	6.7 (2.8)
Members 5 years and under	1.3 (1.1)	1.1 (1.2)	1.5 (1.2)
Members 6–15 years	2.1 (1.9)	2.3 (1.7	2.2 (1.9)
Members 16–19 years	0.6 (0.7)	0.6 (0.8)	0.6 (0.8)
Member 20–60 years	2.1 (1.1)	2.1 (1.3)	2.2 (1.0)
Members over 60 years	0.2 (0.5)	0.2 (0.5)	0.2 (0.5)
Education in years of highest educated female in household	6.1 (3.1)	6.5 (3.4)	5.8 (3.3)
Age of head of household	42 (15)	48 (14)	43 (16)
Education in years of head of household	5.7 (3.3)	4.9 (4)	5.7 (3.4)
Percentage of household heads involved in non-farm activity	38	42	38
Percentage of household spouses involved in non-farm activity	9	9	6
Mean time in minutes to paved road	86 (148)	71 (204)	71 (181)
Percentage of households in Kiboga district under different management types	44	29	27
Percentage of households in Mubende district	44	23	34
Percentage of households in Southwest Uganda	22	60	19
Percentage of households in East Uganda	26	27	47
Percentage of households in Kibaale district	31	24	46
Percentage of households in Masindi district	22	18	60
Percentage of households using agrochemicals	28	10	18
Mean marketed percentage of yield	49 (28)	32 (27)	43 (28)

Source: Data from IFPRI Household Survey 2012/13.

Table 3. Use of fertilisers and pesticides under different management types

Management	Use of agrochemicals—No	Use of agrochemicals—Yes	Total
Male	193	75	268
	72%	28%	100%
Female	234	26	260
	90%	10%	100%
Joint	303	65	368
	82%	18%	100%
Total	773	181	954
	81%	19%	100%

Source: Data from IFPRI Household Survey 2012/13.

Table 4. Estimated parameters (z-value) of Stochastic frontier models for the (1) overall and (2) female model

		(1) Overall model	(2) Female model
ln yield (kg/ha)	Ln of area	0.062	0.077
		(1.76)*	(0.70)
	Ln of area squared	0.041	0.016
		(2.27)**	(0.33)
	Ln of seed (kg/ha)	0.399	0.431
		(10.48)***	(5.76)***
	Ln of seed (kg/ha) squared	−0.012	−0.050
		(0.64)	(1.40)
	Ln of value of equipment	0.059	−0.015
		(2.47)**	(0.26)
	Ln of value of equipment squared	0.002	−0.001
		(1.23)	(0.21)
	Chemical Input (dummy variable,1 = true)	0.149	−0.036
		(2.03)**	(0.20)
	Intercept	0.645	−0.273
		(8.07)***	(2.00)**
lnsig2v	Intercept	−1.159	−0.297
		(8.09)***	(3.21)***
lnsig2u	Male management (dummy variable, 1 = true)	−0.538	–
		(3.08)***	–
	Joint management (dummy variable, 1 = true)	−0.469	–
		(2.79)***	–
	Household size (persons)	−0.044	0.664
		(0.70)	(2.23)**
	Number of members 5 years and under	−0.025	−1.045
		(0.26)	(1.54)
	Number of members 6–15 years old	0.044	−1.189
		(0.61)	(2.45)**
	Number of members 16–19 years old	0.117	−0.667
		(1.10)	(1.11)
	Number of members over 60 years	−0.035	−3.883
		(0.21)	–
	Age of head (years)	0.012	–
		(1.95)*	–
	Highest level of education of household member	−0.028	–
		(1.15)	(0.85)
	Highest education level in years of female in household	–	−0.082
		–	(0.67)
	Head involved in non-farm activity (dummy variable, 1 = true)	0.117	−0.468
		(0.80)	(0.50)
	Spouse involved in non-farm activity (dummy variable, 1 = true)	−0.572	–
		(2.02)**	–
	Time to weekly market (h)	0.000	0.021
		(1.02)	(2.32)**
	Share of crop yield sold (%)	−0.014	−0.089
		(5.24)***	(1.87)*
	East (dummy variable,1 = true)	0.213	–
		(0.93)	–
	Southwest (dummy variable,1 = true)	0.323	–
		(1.25)	–
	Mubende (dummy variable,1 = true)	−0.129	–
		(0.50)	–
	Kibaale (dummy variable,1 = true)	−0.210	–
		(0.78)	–
	Masindi (dummy variable,1 = true)	−0.844	–
		(2.96)***	–
	Intercept (dummy variable,1 = true)	0.804	−1.406
		(1.88)*	(1.00)
N		896	259

*p < 0.1; **p < 0.05; ***p < 0.01.

Source: Data from IFPRI Household Survey 2012/13.

Table 5. Input elasticities

Overall model	Elasticity
Area	0.15
Seed	0.38
Equipment	0.06
Female model	Elasticity
Area	0.11
Seed	0.33
Equipment	−0.15

Source: Data from IFPRI Household Survey 2012/13.

Table 6. Mean technical efficiency of different management types

Management	N	Mean	SD	Min	Max
Male	268	0.57	0.18	0.03	0.87
Female	260	0.43	0.21	0.02	0.82
Joint	368	0.56	0.19	0.06	0.84
All	896	0.52	0.20	0.02	0.87

Source: Data from IFPRI Household Survey 2012/13.

Table 7. Number (N) and proportion (%) of farmers in each technical efficiency category according to management type (actual values of technical efficiency)

Efficiency category	Male		Female		Joint
	N	%	N	%	N	%
Lowest efficiency	10	4	47	18	24	7
Second efficiency	37	14	71	27	52	14
Third efficiency	84	31	73	28	99	27
Fourth efficiency	124	46	65	25	178	48
Highest efficiency	13	5	4	2	15	4
Total	268	100	260	100	368	100

Source: Data from IFPRI Household Survey 2012/13.

Table 8. Technical efficiency of women managed plots in relation to own frontier (Model 2)

Efficiency category	N	%
Lowest efficiency	2	1
Second efficiency	5	2
Third efficiency	9	3
Fourth efficiency	33	13
Highest efficiency	211	81
Total	260	100

Source: Data from IFPRI Household Survey 2012/13.