The potential and limits of farmers’ groups as catalysts of women leaders

Figures & data

Table 1. Socio-demographic characteristics of groups

Variable	Mean	SD	Minimum	Maximum
Years the group has been in existence	10	10.15	1	61
Total number of members	37.6	36.28	10	289
Number of males	16.57	24.33	0	195
Number of females	20.78	14.70	5	94
Number of youth	8.31	8.00	0	34
Number of households represented	31	31.53	5	250
Number of leadership posts	5.48	1.17	3	9

Table 2. Other socio-characteristics of groups (categorical variables)

Variable	Description	Percent (N = 65)	Variable	Description	Percent (N = 65)
Gender composition	Men only	0.00	Record keeping	Keep records	98.46
	Women only	4.62		Do not keep	1.54
	Mixed	95.38	Type of records	Saving	64.06
Committee	Have committees	55.38		Registration	51.56
	Do not have one	44.62		Lending	51.56
Frequency of holding meetings	Weekly	15.38		Production	48.44
	Twice a week	26.15		Receipt book	26.56
	Monthly	53.85		Constitution	20.31
	Quarterly	4.62		Membership	10.94
				Sales	10.94
				Contracts	7.81
				Planning	1.56

Figure 1. Main activities run by the group.

Figure 2. Distribution of leadership positions by gender.

Table 3. Organization arrangements of group leadership

Characteristic	N
Election of members to leadership committee	% of cases (N = 62)
Nomination of group member	25.40
Vote by show of hands	25.40
Vote by secret ballot	63.49
Vetted by the committee	1.59
Seconded by other for approval	1.59
A three month notice for expression of interest	1.59
Decision-making (How leaders guide group members)	% (N = 65)
Meeting to discuss with the involvement of the entire group	73.85
Voting of major decision	15.38
All decisions are made if there is quorum	6.15
Decisions made by executives in executive meeting	1.54
The wish of the majority is considered when making decisions	1.54
The wish of the majority is considered when making decisions	1.54
Negotiations on major issues by the whole group	1.54

Table 4. Partnerships with groups

Partnership	Percent
Presence of partners
Have partners	100
Do not have partners	0
Types of partners
Government	71.43
Non-governmental organizations (NGOs)	96.83
Farmers Groups	9.52
Support offered by partners to groups
Seed support	92.06
Market for produce	33.33
Livestock support	14.29
Trainings	93.65
Financial support and management	38.10
Environmental conservation	23.81
Production support (advisory services	20.63
Group management	7.94
Infrastructure development	3.17
High group level development	11.11

Table 5. Extent to which groups have developed management skills (%)

Management skill	≤5 years (N = 23)	6–10 years (N = 21)	Above 10 years (N = 20)	Chi-square
Have a vision of its goals shared by all its members
Early	30.43	4.76	–
Intermediate	30.43	4.76	10.00	26.5373***
Advanced	26.09	14.29	15.00
Fully developed	13.04	76.19	75.00
Written constitution of the group
Early	43.48	–	–
Intermediate	39.13	4.76	5.00	44.7356***
Advanced	13.04	19.05	10.00
Fully developed	4.35	76.19	85.00
Demonstrate capacity to resolve internal conflicts
Early	39.13	4.76	0
Intermediate	43.48	4.76	0	41.6193***
Advanced	4.35	4.76	5.00
Fully developed	13.04	85.71	95.00
Support continuous learning of its members
Early	30.43	–	–
Intermediate	30.43	4.76	5.00	30.6705***
Advanced	34.78	61.90	40.00
Fully developed	4.35	33.33	55.00
Make decisions independently with the participation of all members
Early	17.39	–	–
Intermediate	21.74	4.76	5.00	22.1061***
Advanced	39.13	14.29	20.00
Fully developed	21.74	80.95	75.00
Follow its own internal rules
Early	–	–	–
Intermediate	43.48	14.29	5.00	25.6923***
Advanced	47.83	19.05	15.00
Fully developed	8.70	66.67	80.00
Monitor and evaluate its progress towards its goals
Early	–	4.76	–
Intermediate	13.04	9.52	10.00	3.1532
Advanced	21.74	33.33	25.00
Fully developed	65.22	52.38	65.00

Notes: “Early” The group has no knowledge of or does not fully understand how to use this skill and is not able to do it well even with facilitation: “Intermediate” The group fully understands how to use the skills but not yet able to do this well even with facilitation: “Advanced” The group can do this well but depends on outside facilitation: “Fully developed” The group can do this well and independently without outside facilitation.

*** represents significance of coefficients at 1% levels.

Table 6. Determinants of the proportion of women in group leadership dependent variable = proportion of women in group leadership

Explanatory variables	Coefficient	Marginal effects
		Probability of participating	Intensity of participation
Number of households represented^a	−16.957 (4.523)***	−0.224	−10.727
Years the group has been in existence	5.005 (3.026)*	0.066	3.167
Election of leaders by secret ballot^	−0.593 (5.240)	−0.008	−0.375
Holding meetings on a monthly basis^	4.322 (5.286)	0.057	2.734
Proportion of women	1.102 (0.136)***	0.015	0.697
Economic activities	4.644 (2.239)**	0.061	2.938
Training in 2014	0.941 (1.251)	0.012	0.595
Record keeping^	44.255 (19.687)**	0.583	27.997
Proportion of youth selling arrangements	−0.307 (0.123)**	−0.004	−0.194
Freelance	27.406 (11.968)**	0.361	17.338
Contract	11.692 (12.269)	0.154	7.397
Constant	−47.358 (29.954)
Pseudo R^2	0.117
χ^2	64.05***

^{^} dummy variable.

^a Logarithm.

^* Significance of coefficients at 10%, level.

^** Significance of coefficients at 5%, level.

^*** Significance of coefficients at 1%, level.