Joint Decision-Making and Women’s Agency on Small-scale Farms in Colombia and Nicaragua The Alliance of Bioversity International and the International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) delivers research-based solutions that address the global crises of malnutrition, climate change, biodiversity loss and environmental degradation. The Alliance focuses on the nexus of agriculture, nutrition and environment. We work with local, national and multinational partners across Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean, and with the public and private sectors and civil society. With novel partnerships, the Alliance generates evidence and mainstreams innovations to transform food systems and landscapes so that they sustain the planet, drive prosperity and nourish people. The Alliance is part of CGIAR, the world’s largest agricultural research and innovation partnership for a food- secure future dedicated to reducing poverty, enhancing food and nutrition security, and improving natural resources. https://alliancebioversityciat.org www.cgiar.org The CGIAR Research Program on Policies, Institutions, and Markets (PIM) leads action-oriented research for a food-secure future. Our research provides support for policies that help poor farmers, both men and women, improve their lives; produce nutritious and affordable foods; and protect the soil, water, and biodiversity in rural landscapes. Sound policies, robust institutions, and well-functioning markets complement new discoveries of agricultural science to create dynamic and resilient food systems. Our research results and capacity development efforts contribute to poverty reduction, better nutrition and health, and good stewardship of natural resources. These are the three system level outcomes sought by CGIAR, a global research partnership for a food secure future. PIM is led by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), and brings together 14 CGIAR Centers and many international, regional, and national partners. www.pim.cgiar.org Joint Decision-Making and Women’s Agency on Small-scale Farms in Colombia and Nicaragua María Alejandra García Wendy Godek Jennifer Twyman Alliance of Bioversity International and the International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) Americas Hub Km 17, Recta Cali-Palmira CP 763537 Apartado Aéreo 6713 Cali, Colombia Telephone: (+57) 602 4450000 Website: https://alliancebioversityciat.org/ Citation García MA; Godek W; Twyman J. 2021. Joint decision-making and women’s agency on small-scale farms in Colombia and Nicaragua. CIAT Publication No. 521. International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT). Cali, Colombia. 24 p. About the authors María Alejandra García (Corresponding author) PhD Candidate, Department of Community Sustainability, Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan, United States garci425@msu.edu Wendy Godek PhD in Global Affairs from Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey Assistant Professor, Department of Politics and International Relations, Roger Williams University Bristol, Rhode Island, United States Jennifer Twyman PhD in Food and Resource Economics from the University of Florida Independent Consultant and Gender Visiting Researcher, Alliance of Bioversity International and CIAT Cali, Colombia Disclaimer This publication has not gone through the standard peer-review procedures of IFPRI or the Alliance of Bioversity International and CIAT. The opinions expressed here belong to the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of PIM, IFPRI, the Alliance, or CGIAR. © CIAT 2021. Cover Photo by Neil Palmer Some Rights Reserved. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Copyright © CIAT 2021. Some rights reserved. December 2021 Abstract Intra-household decision-making over agricultural activities is a critical topic of inquiry and development in settings of small-scale farming in countries of the Global South. Development projects are focusing on increasing women’s decision-making over land and agricultural activities as these decisions are often used as key indicators of women’s agency and empowerment. Quantitative studies based on household surveys have shown that farmers report that in some cases the woman and the man head of the household make decisions together. However, there is little information about whether a joint decision reflects women’s agency, especially in Latin America. This study explores the perceptions of women and men in dual-headed households among small-scale farmers in two agricultural sites in Colombia and Nicaragua. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with the principal man and woman of the household separately. The results suggest that women and men generally understand joint decisions as a positive situation in which there is an agreement on a decision between the couple. However, in practice, a range of different ways of making joint decisions are described, with some variations across site and by gender. These joint decision- making processes do not necessarily reflect women’s agency over agricultural activities on the farm. Keywords Household Decision-making, Spousal Accord, Latin America, Agency, Women’s Empowerment, Agriculture. iii Contents Abstract .......................................................................................................................................................... iii Keywords .......................................................................................................................................................... iii I. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 6 II. Literature on household decision-making, spousal agreement, and gender equality ...................... 8 III. Study description and methodology ....................................................................................................... 10 IV. Results ......................................................................................................................................................... 12 1. Meaning of farm-related household decisions: What does it mean to make a joint decision? .... 12 2. Perceptions of farm-related household decisions in practice: How joint decisions are made ..... 13 3. Joint decision-making perceptions: Meaning vs. Practice. ................................................................. 18 V. Discussion .................................................................................................................................................. 19 VI. Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................. 20 Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................................................... 21 Declaration of conflicting interests .............................................................................................................. 21 References ........................................................................................................................................................ 23 Table Table 1. Categories of joint decision-making perceptions identified by Acosta et al., (2019) ............ 8 Figures Figure 1. Analytical dimensions and questions to describe the perceptions of joint decision-making ............................................................................................................ 11 Figure 2. Types of joint decision-making processes according to the interviewees ........................... 14 I. Introduction Women’s empowerment has been a development target since the Fourth World Conference on Women held in Beijing in 1995 and today is seen as a critical element for achieving the fifth Sustainable Development Goal of Gender Equality. Likewise, gender equality is seen as critical measure for achieving food security and has thus become an important goal of agricultural development initiatives (Malapit et al., 2019). Therefore, international development agencies working in agricultural settings in the Global South have an increased interest in incorporating this goal into their agendas (e.g., CGIAR research programs) (Malapit et al., 2019). Kabeer (1999: 2) defined empowerment as “the processes by which those who have been denied the ability to make choices acquire such an ability.” She identified three critical dimensions of empowerment: resources, agency (decision-making), and achievements (outcomes). In theory, the dimension of agency measures empowerment directly, as opposed to the other two dimensions that can be present in cases when women are disempowered (Malapit et al., 2019). Agency usually is understood as participation in decision-making (Acosta et al., 2019; Malapit et al., 2019), which is an “observable” element of empowerment (Kabeer, 1999). Thus, development organizations have prioritized strengthening women’s decision- making in agriculture as a means towards empowerment and gender equality. Its salience is evidenced by its inclusion as one of the central elements in indicators and indexes for women’s empowerment (Alkire et al., 2012; Bishop and Bowman, 2014; Malapit et al., 2019; Hanmer and Klugman, 2016; Phan, 2015), and it has been cited as a key factor for gauging gender transformative change (Hillenbrand et al., 2015). For small-scale farmers, women’s agency is often expressed in decisions made at the household level. Studies on women ś empowerment and intra-household decision making, specifically those based on surveys, have found that small-scale farmers, especially women, report making joint decisions with their partner. However, there is little information about what making a joint decision means for women and men in terms of women’s agency or empowerment (exceptions include Acosta et al., 2019). Do joint decisions reflect women ś agency within the household and their capacity to negotiate with their male counterparts (equally or at all)? Or do they reflect patriarchal dynamics in which men only inform women and the latter automatically agree? Answering these questions is essential for assessing women’s agency in the realm of development projects that aim to increase women’s empowerment in agricultural settings. 6 A number of studies have compared the perceptions of spouses about who makes decisions in the household over the farm and have reached the common conclusion that there is a lack of agreement between them, with the most common pattern being that men reported making sole decisions about some activities for which women reported joint decision-making with her spouse (Alwang et al., 2017; Ambler et al., 2017; Jacobs and Kes, 2015; Twyman et al., 2015a). According to the literature, the lack of spousal agreement, or the occurrence of spousal discord, between the responses of male/female spouses to questions about who makes decisions at the household level could be in part because women and men have different perceptions of what decision-making means, and therefore report joint/sole decisions differently. This theory assumes that there is gender bias in the meaning of decision-making that influences the answers given by men and women (Ambler et al., 2016; Coleman and Straus, 1986; Dekkers, 2009). The literature identifies two additional theories. One is that women and men answer differently because one (or both) of them is likely to report what they believe should be the answer based on gender norms – giving “acceptable responses” – and not necessarily what really happens (Alwang et al., 2017; Jeebhoy, 2002). The other theory argues that disagreement can be an indicator of the absence of mutually recognized legitimacy, meaning one individual does not recognize the power that the other claims to have (Coleman and Straus, 1986).1 Considering both the theoretical and practical implications of collecting data about women’s agency through their participation in joint decisions, this article examines men’s and women’s perceptions of decision-making in agriculture. The objectives are to understand whether women and men have different perceptions of farm decision-making and whether joint decision-making is a sign of women’s agency within the household, the former being one of the theories explaining couples’ discord in answers on who makes the farm-related decisions within the household. Given these objectives, the two broad inter-connected research questions that guided our inquiry were: What are women and men’s perceptions of joint decision-making, in theory and practice? How is women’s agency expressed in household decision-making processes? This study was conducted in two sites in Latin America where Climate Smart Villages (CSVs) have been implemented by the CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS).2 The impetus for the study emerged from the results of a quantitative gender survey, which included a household decision-making component, implemented by CCAFS in these two sites. The survey results suggested that men report most agricultural decisions as primarily taken by men, while women report a higher level of women’s participation through both joint decisions and individual female decisions (see Twyman et al., 2016a; 2016b). However, it was unclear what joint decision-making meant to men and women. Thus, this qualitative follow-up research was conducted to explore men and women’s perceptions of decision-making,3 which was particularly important given that most empirical research on household decision-making and spousal accord has relied on quantitative data collected from surveys. It delves into subjective perceptions of men and women about decision-making and the micro-processes that comprise decision-making with the aim of establishing a dialogue with quantitative approaches that design indicators to measure women’s agency, and therefore their empowerment within their households.4 This research contributes to the gender and development literature that seeks to understand and measure women’s agency (or empowerment) through the study of intra-household decision-making. In this same vein, it provides insights to practitioners for monitoring and evaluating women’s empowerment or agency as critical outcomes of agricultural development programs. Conducting research on household decision-making with smallholder farm families is important for designing effective research and development interventions that foster gender transformative change. This study focuses on rural communities in two Latin American countries, Nicaragua and Colombia. We begin with a brief discussion of the recent literature on household decision-making. We continue with a description of the research methodology followed by a presentation of the findings. The article closes with a discussion of the findings and their implications for the methodologies used to assess women’s agency in agriculture in the realm of development programs in Latin America. 1 While we have some information about legitimacy in our data, we do not explore this theory in depth in this paper. 2 For more information about CCAFS’ work and Climate-Smart Villages, please see https://ccafs.cgiar.org/climate-smart-villages#.XEK6nVw3nIU 3 The qualitative research was carried out as part of a broader mixed-methods study of household agricultural decision-making practices (see [citation of a document written by the authors related to the method]). 4 While surveys have been useful for reaching conclusions regarding relationships between reported decisions and social and economic variables, they have limitations in revealing subjective information necessary for uncovering individual perceptions (Alwang et al., 2017; Hillenbrand et al., 2015), especially the perceptions of the process of decision-making, among other methodological aspects (influence of gender norms in data gathering) (Ambler et al., 2016; Alwang et al., 2017; Twyman et al., 2015b). For additional discussion on the limitations of surveys for conducting research on household decision-making, see Twyman, Useche, and Deere (2015a). Joint Decision-Making and Women’s Agency on Small-scale Farms in Colombia and Nicaragua 7 II. Literature on household decision-making, spousal agreement, and gender equality Scholarship on household decision-making by farm families has grown considerably in recent years parallel to a broader interest in understanding different factors that enhance women’s empowerment. In particular, research on perceptions of joint decision-making has emerged as a notable thread of inquiry (Acosta et al., 2019; Seymour and Peterman, 2018). However, while evidence from studies on household decision-making suggest that men and women do not have the same perceptions of decision-making (Abdulsalam-Saghir et al., 2015; Anderson et al., 2017; Dekkers, 2009; Jacobs and Kes, 2015; Patel et al., 2007; Weeratunge et al., 2016), there is limited existing knowledge about the kinds of perceptions that men and women do have, their roles in making decisions, and how this relates to bargaining power (Ambler et al., 2017). In response to this, scholars have highlighted the importance of exploratory research that seeks to better capture perceptions of (joint) decision-making (Carnegie et al., 2020). Taking this a step further, Anderson et al., (2016) suggested exploring not only perceptions, but also the relationship between perceptions and actual decision-making authority in order to understand the adoption of agricultural practices in development programs and projects, specifically those targeting women. Similarly, Dekkers (2009) discussed how there is a difference between perceived power and the actual power that a person has in the household. Nonetheless, still few studies have considered the relationship between joint decision-making and women’s agency, and more specifically the question of whether joint decision-making can be used to measure women’s empowerment. Acosta et al., (2019) recently conducted a study to explore this issue. Based on their findings, Acosta et al., (2019) identified four categories that express the different ways in which joint decision-making is understood by women and men in an agricultural setting in Nwoya, Northern Uganda (see Table 1 below). Based on four categories, she found that spouses did not participate as equals in the process of making a joint decision, and in fact the extent of their participation was also questionable. Women reported that they often perceived themselves as having participated in making a joint decision simply by virtue of being informed of the decision made by their male spouse or having shared their opinion with their spouse, but in no case did they report having or contributing to the final say – this was always up to the male. Such findings raise questions about whether joint decision-making should be promoted as part of gender transformative approaches, whether it is a sign of women’s empowerment, and whether it should be promoted by NGOs as part of their gender strategy (and if not, what type of joint decision-making should be promoted in order to enhance women’s empowerment).5 Table 1. Categories of joint decision-making perceptions identified by Acosta et al., (2019) Discussion about decision Decision-making process Male spouse ‘informs’ the woman about the decision after the fact. No conversation between the couple Male spouse ‘informs’ the woman about the decision before the fact. Male spouse ‘informs’ the woman about the decision before the fact. Female spouse’s ideas are neither given nor considered. Conversation between the couple Female spouses’ ideas are considered, but man has the final say. Source: The authors based on Acosta et al., (2019). 5 Currently, women’s empowerment indexes and indicators, which are based primarily on surveys, face the problem of how to classify responses concerning “joint decisions.” For example, researchers face the question of whether joint decisions indicate more or less empowerment compared to sole decisions. 8 Moreover, much of the literature on household decision-making and gender has emerged from studies carried out in Africa and Asia (e.g., Abdulsalam-Saghir et al., 2015; Colfer et al., 2015; Weeratunge et al., 2016). In Latin America, while Demographic Health Surveys (Covre-Sussai, 2014; Ministerio de Salud y Protección Social y Profamilia, 2016) suggest that joint decision-making is very important in the region, the scholarship on men and women’s perceptions and practice of household decision-making is quite limited (see for an example Covre-Sussai, 2014). The existing literature has mainly focused on the variables that affect women’s decision-making, such as ownership of assets (Chant, 2002; Wiig, 2013), and gender norms (Bradshaw, 2013; Farah-Quijano, 2013; Ramirez et al., 2005; Tepichin, 2009). These diverse scenarios have led multiple authors to advocate the importance of doing contextualized analysis when addressing the process of household bargaining (Farah-Quijano, 2013). In terms of women and men’s perceptions of household decision-making and the degrees to which they converge or diverge, there is not much research for the Latin American region. The few existing studies suggest that the region generally follows the same patterns as have been noted elsewhere – there is a lack of spousal accord concerning household decisions with men typically reporting making decisions alone, while women report a higher level of joint decision-making and sometimes more individual female decisions (Casique, 2000; Covre-Sussai et al., 2014; Deere and Twyman, 2012; Twyman et al., 2015a, 2015b; Twyman et al., 2016a; 2016b). Joint Decision-Making and Women’s Agency on Small-scale Farms in Colombia and Nicaragua 9 III. Study description and methodology This study employs qualitative case study analysis to explore household agricultural decision-making within families living in communities located in two research sites, one in Cauca, Colombia, and the second in Tuma-La Dalia, Nicaragua. Furthermore, it explores the links between joint decision-making processes and women’s agency. Qualitative case study analysis is particularly suited to exploring processes taking place within bounded systems and are particularly valuable given their propensity or providing “thick description” and capturing the complexity of phenomenon under investigation (Merriam, 1998). Furthermore, qualitative methods are particularly suitable to the study of perceptions given their value for uncovering the meaning that individuals assign to their behavior (Patton, 2015), and cultural semi-structured interviews are particularly useful since they seek to understand the “norms, rules, and values that underlie people’s behavior” (Rubin and Rubin, 2012: 31). Scholars studying household decision- making processes have highlighted the utility of qualitative approaches for collecting data on perceptions and other subjective data (Alwang et al., 2017; Hillenbrand et al, 2005). Also, these methods contribute to the generation of theory and hypotheses (Patton, 2015), by revealing concepts, themes, and associations from the inside (e.g., from the perspective of people that live the situation), especially for unexplored topics. In both sites, the population is mainly composed of small scale-farmers that produce coffee as the main cash crop and other crops for consumption and commercialization, such as beans and sugar cane. These locations are part of CCAFS Climate Smart Villages, a research program of the CGIAR that works with small-scale farmers in coping and adaptation strategies for climate change and variability. As discussed previously, the decision to collect qualitative data emerged in response to the results of a gender survey, which included a household decision-making component, implemented by CCAFS in 2014-2015 in the research sites. 10 Local non-government organizations (NGOs), which actively worked in the respective country-specific research sites, participated in data collection activities. This was a benefit to the study given their local knowledge of the communities where the study was carried out. Data was collected via cultural semi-structured interviews with dual-headed households (i.e., those headed by male- female couples6) in the same communities where the CCAFS Gender Survey was conducted. For Colombia, 18 couples participated in the interviews; in Nicaragua, 10 couples participated in the interviews. The interviews were carried out by a research team consisting of one male and one female interviewer, with men study participants interviewed by the male interviewer and the women study participants interviewed by the female interviewer. Interviews were recorded with permission of the participants and transcribed. The transcriptions were then manually coded and analyzed, based on concepts identified from the literature review. Specifically, the interviews were analyzed based on two analytical dimensions inspired by the work of Anderson et al. (2016) and Dekkers (2009). These authors recommend exploring the individual perceptions of joint decision- making as well as their description of the process of making a joint decision. In this vein, firstly, the men and women study participants were individually asked about what it means to make individual and joint decisions to identify any emerging patterns. This part of the analysis allows us to analyze the first analytical dimension, that is, the perception of what it means to make a joint as opposed to individual agricultural decision. We call this first dimension “the meaning of joint decisions” (Figure 1). Secondly, they were also asked to give an example of an agricultural decision made jointly and describe how the process of making that decision played out between them and their spouse. This relates to the second analytical dimension: perceptions of how joint decisions in farm related activities are made. For this last step, we built on the concept of decision-making typologies in the framework of Acosta et al. (2019) (Table 1) while recognizing that the typologies could be different depending on the context. This dimension we call “processes of making of joint decisions in practice.” Figure 1 shows the analysis to understand men’s and women’s perceptions of farm-related joint decisions. Figure 1. Analytical dimensions and questions to describe the perceptions of joint decision-making. Analysis of perceptions of farm-related intrahousehold decisions First analytical dimension: Second analytical dimension: Meaning of farm-related household decisions Perceptions of farm-related household decisions in practice What does it mean to make a joint decision? How joint decisions are made? Example of questions in the interview Examples of questions in the interview • When do you feel that you make a joint decision • Describe an example of making a farm-related with your partner? What does it mean to make a joint decision for the most important crop for the joint decision? Can you describe an example? household (usually coffee)? • When do you feel that you make an individual • Guided questions for an in-depth description decision? What does it mean to make an individual (e.g., what decisions, when, by whom, conversation, decision? agreement, potential conflicts, final say, why)? Source: The authors 6 We include both married couples and those in consensual unions, as consensual unions are granted the same rights as married couples in both Colombia and Nicaragua. Joint Decision-Making and Women’s Agency on Small-scale Farms in Colombia and Nicaragua 11 IV. Results 1. Meaning of farm-related household decisions: What does it mean to make a joint decision? To explore participants’ understanding of decision-making, women and men were asked to describe what it meant to make decisions individually and jointly with their significant other. Findings indicate that while participants in both sites share some common perceptions of individual and joint decision-making, these perceptions varied across the study group in each site according to decision type and potential implication for conflict, and at times according to gender. Individual decision-making In both sites, most women and men classified individual decisions as those where one spouse decides or acts without informing the other. However, there were also differences between the sites. In Colombia, both genders consider conversations between a couple that do not result in agreement to be individual decisions. In this same site, women tended to view individual decisions as negative since they were seen to reflect a misunderstanding between the couple and a conflict in the relationship. One woman said: “[an individual decision] is when a person has an idea, and he/she makes [a decision] according to his/her way of thinking. It is when you don’t care what the other person thinks.” This negative connotation was also affirmed by some men in the site in Nicaragua. For instance, one man suggested that making individual decisions would lead to conflict with his spouse. However, the findings from the site in Nicaragua revealed that, for women, making individual decisions consisted of making a decision alone without consulting their spouse, and their overall responses tended to express a sense of power and initiative to do something for themselves (e.g., buying a pair of shoes or preparing food of their choice). Another difference is that women in Colombia also reported that when individual decisions follow conventional gender roles and norms – women in charge of the domestic responsibilities (private space/domestic realm) and men in charge of farm management (productive realm) – decisions made individually were viewed as acceptable. In such cases, the individual has a tacit “authorization” from his/her spouse to make decisions by themselves. This authorization for men is more related to the knowledge they have of land management. A man says: “When one person makes the decision based on his/her knowledge, without saying anything to the other.” Finally, regarding men’s responses, some men (in five households) in Colombia saw individual decisions as more circumstantial and not having a negative connotation. An example of this would be when the woman or the man of the household is alone on the farm or in a training, and she/he must take a decision immediately. While in Nicaragua, men’s perceptions of individual responses varied more than those of women respondents. Some men echoed the perceptions of women, reporting that an individual decision is one they make on their own without consulting their spouse. On the other hand, even though every man cited at least one decision he made individually, several men had difficulty articulating their perception of an individual decision and rather made references to decision-making with or by their spouses. Joint decision-making In general, joint decision-making was viewed positively and synonymous with harmony, as it was seen to evidence the reaching of an agreement by a couple (ponerse de acuerdo) with an absence of conflict. It was also seen as a sign of a good relationship, gender equality, and sharing responsibilities. In general, joint decisions were seen as essential for having a good relationship between the couple, and within the family and household. It demonstrates that things can be done. For the participants in the Colombia site, the act of making joint decisions was viewed positively overall; analysis of the interviews revealed multiple types of positive connotations of what it means to make a joint decision. One woman understood joint decisions as reaching an agreement through dialogue: “When we talk, when we agree.” Along these lines, one man in Colombia perceived joint decision-making as a means of supporting each other: “when we understand each other.” In this site for some, joint decisions were a sign of a more gender-equitable household not characterized as machista. In other words, there was less mental and physical control of one spouse over the other. 12 But unlike Colombia, not all participants in the Nicaragua site saw joint decision-making in a positive light. One man who had difficulty describing his perception of a joint decision explained that he believed it was better when only one person made decisions, thereby calling attention to the issue of power and influence in the making of joint decisions. His response indicates that he values the power and/or influence he can express by making an individual decision. In the Nicaraguan site, the main difference between the women and men’s perceptions was that the men’s responses emphasized the benefits of reaching agreement in joint decision-making, namely avoiding potential conflict that could affect the couple’s success in achieving goals. In both sites, some saw more instrumental benefits of joint decision-making, reporting that when a decision is made by the couple, the positive and negative consequences of the decision are assumed by both spouses. For instance, a man in Nicaragua highlighted an additional benefit of making joint decisions – one person does not shoulder responsibility for the outcome of the decision: “For me understanding things in the same way is important because things could get worse if one makes a decision alone. Afterwards they say you were the one who made the decision. When decisions are made together, things go well.” 2. Perceptions of farm-related household decisions in practice: How joint decisions are made The findings presented above on farm-related household decision-making suggest that study participants have a range of meanings of joint decision-making usually with a positive connotation. Couples were also asked to give an example of a farm-related decision that they made jointly with their spouse. The descriptions of these examples were analyzed to understand the process of how joint decisions are made and if this corresponds to women’s agency about agricultural activities within the household. The examples generally reflected either a short or long conversation between the spouses concerning agricultural decisions related to the principal crop they produced, which in most cases was coffee. Figure 2 shows four types of joint decision-making according to women’s agency. Some men and women cited more than one example of joint decisions they made with their spouses in the interviews, and these often reflected different processes depending on the specific decision being made. In general, the examples that men and women gave fell into one of the four typologies shown in figure 2 and described below in the text, they are presented (more or less) in order from least to most woman’s agency in decisions. Joint Decision-Making and Women’s Agency on Small-scale Farms in Colombia and Nicaragua 13 Figure 2. Types of joint decision-making processes according to the interviewees. Type A Type B Type C Type D The man The woman The man The man and informs the expresses her and woman woman exchange woman before opinion, but exchange opinions with making the the man makes opinions other family decision, and the decision and make members, and the woman a decision the decision is conforms to together made as what he says a family* Women’s agency in decision-making *The data does not provide sufficient information about Type D of joint decision-making reported by the interviewees to compare it with the others in terms of women’s agency on agriculture decisions (it likely falls between Type B and Type C). Source: The authors Type A: The man informs the woman before making the decision, and the woman conforms to what he says. This typology was identified in the findings from Nicaragua and Colombia and evidenced in the descriptions of the joint decision-making process given by several men and women. In this case, study participants described joint decisions made with their spouses in which the man informed the woman of a decision and she conformed. What is meant here by conformed is that the woman reported simply saying, “sure” (“está bien” ) and not further engaging in the conversation about the decision or giving an opinion. This response was more common for women who reported making very few decisions by themselves and/or for which few joint decisions were reportedly made in their households. An example described by one woman is as follows: At least when he sells a cow, he tells me, and we talk… [He says,] ‘I’m going to sell it or maybe I’ll buy a calf. What they sell are calves. It’s going to cost money. At least, as you know, to fix the wire fence or something else.’ So, I tell him, ‘yes, it’s fine.’ She further reported that she does not think her husband would be open to her expressing an opinion that was different from his and she has never tried to do so. A similar example was said by a man in Colombia: I talk with her because she helps me. For example, if we are going to work in the land, or if she needs to bring me food. But I make the decisions. She will never tell me no, do not do that, or that what I do does not work. In another example, one man explained that he made the decision to plant coffee close to the house. When asked if he had discussed this with his spouse, he said that he had, and she had said that it was fine. In his mind they had reached an agreement, though there was little indication of the degree of her participation in the decision. 14 Type B: The woman expresses her opinion, but the man makes the decision. For this typology, during the conversation, the woman may share her opinion, but the man will be the one who leads the decision. However, ultimately the man is the one who makes the decision. This typology was evidenced in the findings for both Colombia and Nicaragua. One man explained that his wife can raise ideas about the farm, but it does not mean that the ideas that she has are good ideas. He described the following example: She has different opinions [from me]. [Once she said]: ‘let’s plant a thousand more [coffee] trees.’ I told her: ‘mija, if with five thousand [coffee] trees we are always tired and we have them [the trees] in bad conditions, we cannot sustain a thousand more. Realize that. If with five thousand trees we are too busy during the harvest, with a thousand more we will lose too much coffee.’ [My wife] can have an opinion and I tell her that is very good. Also, one woman in Colombia narrates that she and her husband were planning to build a new home garden after a workshop from an NGO. However, she had a different opinion from her husband on the place to locate the home garden. But her husband made the final decision of building the home garden in the location he wanted, even though she expressed her disagreement. Unlike the previous category (a), in this type of joint decision, a woman can raise an idea or express a different opinion from her husband. However, the man has the final say. Men have the final say because of socio-cultural norms, like one man explained: “If you are the head of household, you have to make the decision.” In Nicaragua, several men gave examples of joint decisions that fit this typology. In these examples, men took into consideration women’s opinions. In one case, the man’s spouse had studied agronomy in the past, and he believes that while he has more practical experience, she has a lot of knowledge. He reported making joint decisions with her deciding which varieties of beans, corn, and coffee to grow (though she only reported making a joint decision about the bean variety – she reported the others as him making the decision). In another case, one in which the woman reports making no decisions on her own and having little autonomy – and indeed no joint decisions were reported for the household by either spouse, an interesting development surfaced in the examples of joint decision-making. Her husband explains how they came to produce rice on the farm: She asked me when I was going to plant rice. I asked myself, ‘How am I going to plant rice?’ So, she too makes decisions about work. We are going to see how this goes because I didn’t want to plant rice… [But] yes, this is the first year that I planted rice. So, I spoke with her, and we planted it – and there it is. Ultimately, he made the decision, but the example evidences some decision-making space for her to initiate decisions and participate in making them. In both cases in Nicaragua, the men report making a fair number of agricultural decisions jointly with their wives, though their wives generally perceive these decisions as being made solely by their husbands.7 7 It is important to note that there is an exception of a woman in Nicaragua that made a decision and informed her husband. The husband described how his wife initiated a decision to contract some farmworkers and made the decision about which ones to hire. We opted not to create an additional typology given that there was only one case described in this way. Joint Decision-Making and Women’s Agency on Small-scale Farms in Colombia and Nicaragua 15 Type C: The man and woman exchange opinions and make a decision together. For this typology, the man and woman both exchange opinions and decide together. It can be understood as the category in women have more agency. It is the most frequent type of joint decision among the study participants in both research sites with both men and women describing joint decisions that fit this typology. As per the findings in Colombia, several study participants described this type of decision in which a woman and man have a conversation and can have different opinions, but the product of the dialogue is an agreement. Throughout the conversation, they respect and support each other. In some cases, this conversation can be very rational, since it implies planning and thought towards a desired outcome. Several participants described such a process similarly to that expressed in the following quotes: For example, when the harvest comes, like the beginning of the coffee harvest, this is the time when you make decisions with your spouse. For instance, right now we are starting the harvest, so we are thinking. And now we are talking: ‘And now, that the harvest is ready, what are we going to do with it?’ In these moments, you make decisions. (Female) Sometimes [my wife] thinks one thing and I think another, but we reach an agreement because I talk to her. In other words, we understand each other. Therefore, what she says or what I say is respected by both. (Male) In Nicaragua, it was possible to identify that this decision-making style was more common among households in which one or both spouses had been exposed to information about gender equality and human rights on television or via training workshops in their communities. It is important to note that in these decisions, even though participants report a dialogue between themselves and their spouse, the data shows that it was often the man who initiated the decision. An example of a joint decision made by one woman and her spouse is described in the following way: When he made the decision to plant coffee, he said to me, ‘Well, we have these animals, these pigs. If I plant coffee, they are going to damage it. What do you say – should I or should I not plant coffee?’ So, I said, ‘The pigs can be tied up so that they don’t damage the coffee.’ He told me no because they would get stressed out. So, I told him that they wouldn’t get stressed out if they were well cared for and when the coffee was a bit bigger, we could let them loose again and they wouldn’t damage the coffee. Like this we made the decision. For the several men who reported joint decisions of this typology, their wives’ examples of joint decisions also followed this same typology and there is also spousal accord with respect to reported decisions they make jointly. The data suggest that in these two couples the woman has more agency compared to women of other couples interviewed. In one example of a joint decision, the man describes how his wife came to him several years ago with an idea to change the type of bean variety they were using to one that was more climate friendly. He describes this as follows: Two years ago, it was rumored that climate change was going to make it a dry year. So, she said to me, ‘They say that this year is going to be dry. Why don’t we plant a few of these beans?’ […] We planted them, and this time we planted half a manzana and it’s been good for us. 16 Type D: The man and woman exchange their opinions with other family members and the decision is made as a family. For this final typology, the man and the woman exchange opinions with other family members (women or men) and decide together. The data for both research sites reveals that few cases of joint decision-making fit this typology. In Colombia, decisions that fit this typology was made with other family members that either live or do not live in the household. Usually, these family members include sons and daughters and/or the parents (typically the father) of the woman or the man. Children are seen by the couple as innovative and contributors to home and farm work, while parents are people with more experience with farm activities or still are the landowners. One man described the process of making a decision about hiring labor with his wife and children as “reaching an agreement.” When we asked him about a particular example of joint decision among all the family members, he described how they made the decision of hiring labor for the farm between him, his wife, and the parents of his wife (the landowners): “[It] was decided by the four of us. The four of us said: we are going to recruit laborers. Among the four we decided how to pay them.” In Nicaragua, this type of decision was only evidenced in an example given by one woman, and it is unclear if she was a part of it. According to the woman’s example, the family made the decision to not grow beans after the previous harvest had been rather small. She further explained in the following: The boys said not to plant right now because it was so much work, and they didn’t get out of it what they put into it. So, they reached an agreement [with their father] that it was better to buy beans and like this we have been buying beans. Joint Decision-Making and Women’s Agency on Small-scale Farms in Colombia and Nicaragua 17 3. Joint decision-making perceptions: Meaning vs. Practice. In comparing the responses of men and women participants from Colombia on their understanding of joint decision- making and the perception of the process of decision-making in practice, the results generally show similarities: men and women report decision-making practices that are consistent with their perceptions of joint decisions. Within this result two tendencies in the information were identified. First, some women and men had different meanings of joint decisions, and these were evidenced in their examples of decision-making. For example, one woman explained that a joint decision is synonymous with a peaceful household and described a decision-making process in which all the household members, including her sons and daughter, participate. They prefer not to move forward with a particular action until there is a consensus between them. According to her, they do not make individual decisions. Her husband perceives joint decision-making as an agreement involving conversation. In his description of an example of a farm- related joint decision, he describes talking with his wife, but not taking her opinion into consideration. He has the final say. A second tendency is that women and men share a similar meaning of joint decisions, and both report a similar process of making them. This happens especially for those that report the process of making a joint decision as a conversation in which women and men give their opinions, debate, and finally reach an agreement. However, not all couples evidenced consistency between their meaning of joint decisions and the process of making one in practice. Some defined a joint decision as an equal conversation in terms of gender, but their description of joint decision demonstrated that men have the final say in the conversation, and in some cases, men did not even consider women’s opinion. For example, recalling an example given above, a woman in Colombia describes joint decision-making as the moment when she talks with her husband about a decision, but at the end, he makes the decision he considers best. She says that he built the home garden in a place of the farm that she did not like despite their conversation and her disagreement with that decision. However, when she expresses her meaning of joint decisions, she affirms that it is an agreement (“ponerse de acuerdo” ) between the couple. In the Nicaragua site, the examples that the men and women gave of joint decisions were for the most part consistent with their individual meaning; however, the perceptions that each person had of joint decision-making was usually different from their spouse’s perception. Only in three cases did spouses share similar perceptions of what joint decision-making means. While for the most part joint decision-making was perceived by men and women as a process of conversing and reaching an agreement, there were different ideas about how this plays out and what it implies for the participation of each person. Reaching an agreement, as illustrated in several examples given by men and women, did not mean equal participation in the agreement, and might instead mean simply conforming to the wishes of your spouse. For example, one woman reported that making a joint decision usually implied her husband would initiate the decision-making process and they would then “talk about the decision,” which, according to her explanation, consisted of her conforming to his wishes. When asked what would happen if she did not conform to his opinion, she stated his reaction would be “bad,” thus underscoring her perception of having significantly less agency in the decision-making process and inability to assert her opinion without negative consequences. Furthermore, given that agriculture is largely dominated by men as per traditional gender norms and the gender division of labor, some men end up making agricultural decisions themselves, even though they acknowledge the role and the value of their partner in their stated perception of joint decision-making. Finally, related to this last point is a final and important observation. Several couples described decision-making as sharing their opinions and making a decision together, and in both cases the man clearly articulated the meaning of joint decision-making when discussing his perceptions, noting it was a process and also underscoring the importance of “recognizing the value of the other person” and “reaching agreement [and] analyzing together.” This should be seen in contrast to the man described above who had difficulty both articulating the meaning of a joint decision and identifying an example of making a joint decision with his spouse. 18 V. Discussion In light of the findings presented above, the discussion that follows revisits the question mentioned in the introduction that guided this inquiry. The study findings suggest that most individuals interviewed agreed that one of the defining features of a joint decision is agreement between the couples, but agreement neither necessitates nor implies women’s equitable participation in decision-making and agency, thus echoing the finding of Acosta et al. (2019). Although in most of the cases joint decisions were described as a conversation between the couple to reach an agreement, this was not the case for all the decisions made in the households. In the latter cases we found that there was a substantial amount of inequality in decision-making, even beginning with who initiates the joint decision (typically men) and who has the final say (typically men). In this study focused on Latin America, there are higher levels of women’s agency than that found in Uganda, but men still seem to dominate agricultural decisions, and in the examples given, women had less agency than men. This may be due to gender norms that relate to the gender division of labor; and, it is more common for agricultural to be associated with men’s domain. Other studies have found different decision- making patterns depending on the types of decisions and find that they may be related to the gender division of labor (Carnegie et al., 2020). Thus, a future area of research may be to compare women’s agency across different types of decision-making. For example, comparing decisions in men’s domain (i.e. agricultural decisions) with decisions in women’s domain (i.e., childcare or household decisions). The data suggests that conversing and reaching an agreement – hallmark features of joint decisions according to the men and women – can imply very different degrees of women’s agency. In some cases, as stated above, it appeared that the woman merely conformed to the wishes of her spouse and in some cases was fearful of the consequences of expressing herself fully. In other cases, it was clear that the man and woman engaged in a thoughtful dialogue, and it was important to listen and analyze together. In such cases, both men and women initiated decisions with their spouse and bargaining power seems to be more equitably distributed. It was here again that the factors like whether the couple had received gender equality or human rights training appeared significant, at least in the case of Nicaragua. The examples from both cases point to the fact that joint decision-making is not necessarily a sign of women’s agency; rather, it is the conditions and way joint decision-making is exercised that indicate degrees of women’s power within the relationship with her male counterpart in regard to agricultural activities. Therefore, the diverse categories of how a joint decision is made, reflect a spectrum in which women have different degrees of agency. In each category depicted in Figure 2, women’s participation and say in decisions on agricultural activities, and the extent to which that say is equal to their male counterparts, vary. In Type A in which the man informs the woman before making a decision, and the woman conforms to what he says, women do not appear to have agency. Women do not even have the opportunity to express their opinion. In the following category, Type B, women have slightly more say in decision-making because they can express their opinion, but they do not have equal say vis-à-vis their male counterparts. Agency was still weak for women compared to men. Finally, Type C shows the most women’s agency since the couples discuss to reach an agreement or final decision. Also, men and women conveyed relatively similar ideas of what individual and joint decision-making means, but they demonstrated different perceptions of how decisions were made. In Nicaragua, it was clear that men and women had different perceptions about the extent to which they participated in making agricultural decisions, evidenced by the examples of joint decisions they described. Therefore, our results provide support for the theory that men and women have different perceptions of what joint decision-making means, which could explain the discord in their responses to surveys about who makes the decisions on different farm activities (Ambler et al., 2016; Coleman and Straus, 1986; Dekkers, 2009). Joint Decision-Making and Women’s Agency on Small-scale Farms in Colombia and Nicaragua 19 VI. Conclusions This research contributes to the emerging literature on the perceptions that women and men hold about decision- making about on-farm activities in rural areas of Latin American countries. The main result of this study shows that for women and men in two rural villages living in households dedicated to small-scale farming, joint decisions generally have a positive connotation: agreement and equality between spouses. In contrast, individual decisions were perceived as either negative or positive depending on the situation (e.g., they can indicate empowerment, a responsibility due to gender norms, or sign of conflict between the couple). In practice, there are degrees of agreement between spouses about women’s participation in joint decision-making processes, ranging from accepting men’s proposals without giving an opinion to women expressing their opinions and reaching an agreement with their male counterpart. Other aspects also seem to influence the decision-making process. For instance, who raises the idea, who can share his/her opinion, who can raise discontent with her/his counterpart, and who can participate in the final say. In this vein, measuring agency by only identifying “who makes the decision” can overlook the real agency or lack of agency experienced by women in agricultural settings, especially for joint decisions. Also, the results show that in some contexts, like in the Nicaragua site, the differences between women and men’s responses to the question of who makes the decisions over the farm can be attributed to different perceptions of participation in decisions. Similar to Seymour and Peterman (2018), our study suggests the importance of understanding men’s and women’s perceptions of joint decision making (in both meaning and practice). Such understanding aids in relating data about how decisions are made to the underlying concepts of agency and/or empowerment, which is typically what interests researchers and practitioners. This can help to classify whether “joint decisions” promote women’s agency, or on the other hand, reproduce gender inequalities, thereby elucidating the difference between women’s agency and gender equality. As the results show, there might be degrees of women agency in joint decisions, but this does not mean that women’s agency is equal to that of their male counterparts. 20 This study underscores the value and utility of qualitative research for exploring the particularities of household decision-making and its link to women’s agency. The rich description yielded from qualitative inquiry is especially valuable in conjunction with quantitative inquiry through mixed-methods research. Qualitative research reveals how the population of interest perceives decision-making processes and assigns meaning to these processes, which can support the development of useful quantitative indicators related to decision-making to better capture data relating to the underlying concepts of interest (i.e., agency and/or empowerment). Then, quantitative data can be used to measure the concepts across different populations of interest. For example, our qualitative study suggests that to measure agency in quantitative studies, decision-making questions could be followed up with additional questions about whether the woman can give her opinion, how much influence she has in the final decision, and the like, in order to better measure women’s agency. We also encourage the development of further studies that can delve into the three theories in the literature that explain women’s and men’s disagreement in the responses in surveys about decisions in agricultural settings. While our results provide evidence of one, that men and women have different perceptions of what it means to make joint decisions, we do not know how the other two (legitimacy and response bias) may also influence responses about decision-making processes. While this study focuses on perceptions of agricultural activities, further research should be conducted on decisions related to non-agricultural activities to explore how agency and/or empowerment in one area may influence that in other areas. For example, whether women choose to remain silent about agricultural activities to have more say/power in other types of decisions. Finally, the study suggests that an interesting area for future research would be to compare decision-making processes and the degree of women’s agency across different types of decisions, specifically comparing decisions related to what are typically considered men’s and women’s realms based on the gender division of labor within the household. Acknowledgments This work was undertaken as part of, and funded by, the CGIAR Research Program on Policies, Institutions, and Markets (PIM) led by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). PIM is in turn supported by the CGIAR Fund Donors http://www.pim.cgiar.org/donors/ We also thank Ecohabitats and Nitlapan (our local partners), Alberto Alvarado and Elizabeth Pelaez who supported the research in Colombia, and the community members that participated in the study and made the analysis possible. Joint Decision-Making and Women’s Agency on Small-scale Farms in Colombia and Nicaragua 21 22 References Abdulsalam-Saghir PB, Bennet B, Quaye W, Viet PT, Carnegie M, Cornish PS, Htwe KK, Htwe NN. (2020). Sanni LO, Martin AM. (2015). Gender analysis of Gender, decision-making and practice change: An households’ decision-making to reduce post-harvest action learning intervention in Myanmar. Journal of losses of cassava in Ghana, Nigeria, and Vietnam. Rural Studies. Ahead of print 8 June 2020. Food Chain 5(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.01.002 https://doi.org/10.3362/2046-1887.2015.014 Chant S. (2002). Researching Gender, Families and Acosta M, van Wessel M, van Bommel S, Ampaire Households in Latin America: From the 20th into the EL, Twyman J, Jassogne L, Feindt PH. (2019). What 21st Century. Bulletin of Latin American Research 21(4): does it Mean to Make a ‘Joint’ Decision? Unpacking 545–75. Intra-household Decision Making in Agriculture: Implications for Policy and Practice. The Journal of Development Studies 56(6): 1210–1229. Coleman DH, Straus MA. (1986). Marital power, conflict, https://doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2019.1650169 and violence in a nationally representative sample of American couples. Violence and Victims 1(2): 141–57. Alwang J, Larochelle C, Barrera V. (2017). Farm Decision Making and Gender: Results from a Randomized Colfer CJP, Achdiawan R, Roshetko JM, Mulyoutami E, Experiment in Ecuador. World Development 92: Yuliani L, Mulyana A, Moeliono M, Adnan H, Erni. 117–129. (2015). The balance of power in household decision https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.11.015 making: encouraging news on gender in southern Sulawesi. World Development 76: 147–164. Ambler K, Doss C, Kieran C, Passarelli S. (2016). He Says, She Says: Exploring Patterns of Spousal Agreement Covre-Sussai M. (2014). Couples’ joint decision-making: in Bangladesh. IFPRI Discussion Paper 01616. the construction and validation of a key proxy for Washington, DC, United States: International Food understanding gender relations in contemporary Policy Research Institute. families. R. bras. Est. Pop., Rio de Janeiro 31(1): 51–71. Alkire S, Meinzen-Dick R, Peterman A, Quisumbing Dekkers TD. (2009). Qualitative analysis of couple A, Seymour G, Vaz A. (2012). The Women’s decision-making PhD thesis, Iowa State University, Empowerment in Agriculture Index. IFPRI Discussion United States. Paper 1240. Washington, DC, United States: International Food Policy Research Institute. Deere C, Twyman J. (2012). Asset ownership and Anderson CL, Reynolds TW, and Gugerty MK. (2017). egalitarian decision making in dual-headed Husband and Wife Perspectives on Farm Household households in Ecuador. Review of Political Economics Decision-making Authority and Evidence on 44(3): 313–320. Intra-household Accord in Rural Tanzania. World https://doi.org/10.1177/0486613412446043 Development 90: 169–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.09.005 Farah-Quijano MA. (2013). Changes in Bargaining over Immovable Assets within Rural Households in the Bishop D, Bowman K. (2014). Still learning: a critical Colombian Andes. Bulletin of Latin American Research reflection on three years of measuring women’s 32(1): 32–45. empowerment in Oxfam. Gender and Development https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-9856.2012.00699.x 22(2): 253–69. Hanmer L, Klugman J. (2016). Exploring Women’s Agency Bradshaw S. (2013). Women’s decision-making in rural and Empowerment in Developing Countries: Where and urban households in Nicaragua: the influence of do we Stand? Feminist Economics 22(1): 237–263. income and ideology. Environment and Urbanization https://doi.org/10.1080/13545701.2015.1091087 25(1): 81–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956247813477361 Hillenbrand E, Karim N, Mohanraj P, Wu D. (2015). Measuring gender-transformative change: A review Casique I. (2000). Mexican Married Women’s Autonomy of literature and promising practices. World Fish, and Power within the Household. In the Latin American Studies Association (LASA) Congress, Rio CGIAR Research Program on Aquatic Agricultural de Janeiro, Brazil, January 2000. Systems, and CARE. CARE USA. Working Paper. Joint Decision-Making and Women’s Agency on Small-scale Farms in Colombia and Nicaragua 23 Jacobs K, Kes A. (2015). The Ambiguity of Joint Asset Rubin H, Rubin I. (2012). Chapter 3. Qualitative data- Ownership: Cautionary Tales from Uganda and South gathering methods and style. In: Qualitative Africa. Feminist Economics 21(3): 23–55. Interviewing. The Art of Hearing Data, Sage Publication, https://doi.org/10.1080/13545701.2014.926559 Thousand Oaks. Jeebhoy SJ. (2002). Convergence and Divergence in Seymour G, Peterman A. (2018). Context and Spouses. Perspectives on Women’s Autonomy in measurement: An analysis of the relationship Rural India. Studies in Family Planning 33(4): 299–308. between intrahousehold decision making and https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4465.2002.00299.x autonomy. World Development 111: 97–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.06.027 Kabeer N. (1999). The Conditions and Consequences of Choice: Reflections on the Measurement of Tepichin AM. (2009). Autonomía para participar en Women’s Empowerment. Discussion Paper No. 108. decisiones: elemento central para el combate a la Geneva: United Nations Research Institute for Social pobreza con equidad de género. Estudios Sociológicos Development (UNRISD). 27(79): 111–46. Malapit H, Quisumbing A, Meinzen-Dick R, Saymour G, Twyman J, Useche P, Deere C. (2015a). Gendered Martinez EM, Heckert J, Rubin D, Vaz A, Yount KM, the Gender Agriculture Assets Project Phase 2 (GAAP2), Perceptions of Land Ownership and Agricultural and study team Development of the Project-level Decision-making in Ecuador: Who Are the Farm Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index (pro- Managers? Land Economics 91(3): 479–500. WEAI). (2019). World Development 122: 675–692. https://doi.org/10.3368/le.91.3.479 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.06.018 Twyman J, Muriel J, García MA. (2015b). Identifying Merriam SB. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study women farmers: informal gender norms and Applications in Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass institutional barriers to recognize women’s Publishers. contributions to agriculture. Journal of Gender, Agriculture and Food Security 1(2): 1–17. Ministerio de Salud y Protección y Profamilia. (2016). Resumen ejecutivo. Encuesta Nacional de Twyman J, Muriel J, Clavijo M. (2016a). Reporte Encuesta Demografía y Salud. Bogotá, Colombia. de Género: Cauca, Colombia. Reporte CCAFS. Programa de investigación de CGIAR en Cambio Patel AM, Leonard WR, Reyes-García V, McDade T, Climático, Agricultura y Seguridad Alimentaria Huanca T, Tanner S, Vadez V. (2007). Parental (CCAFS). Copenhague, Dinamarca. preference, bargaining power, and child nutritional status: Evidence from the Bolivian Amazon. Tsimane’ Twyman J, Clavijo M, Gumucio T, Gerber L. (2016b). Amazonian Panel Study Working Paper No. 31: 1–35. Gender survey report: Matagalpa, Nicaragua. CCAFS Report. Copenhagen, Denmark: CGIAR Research Patton MQ. (2015). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Methods. Newbury Park: Sage Publications. Security (CCAFS). Phan L. (2015). Measuring Women’s Empowerment at Weeratunge N, Sonali Senaratna Sellamuttu JO, Household Level Using DHS Data of Four Southeast Bouahom B, Keophoxay A. (2016). Gender and Asian Countries. Social Indicators Research 126: household decision-making in a Lao Village: 359–378. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-015-0876-y implications for livelihoods in hydropower development. Gender, Place and Culture 23(11): Ramírez DK, Nazar A, Mariaca R, Olivera M. (2005). 1599–1614. Género y negociación reproductiva: Un estudio https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369X.2016.1219319 en una comunidad rural de Chiapas (Gender and Contraceptive Negotiation: A Study of a Rural Community in Chiapas). Revista Mexicana de Wiig H. (2013). Joint Titling in Rural Peru: Impact on Sociología 67(4): 687–727. Women’s Participation in Household Decision- Making. World Development 52: 104–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2013.06.005 24 Bioversity International and the International Center Americas Hub https://alliancebioversityciat.org for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) are part of CGIAR, a global www.cgiar.org research partnership for a food-secure future. Km 17 Recta Cali-PalmiraCP 763537 Bioversity International is the operating name of the Cali, Colombia International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI). Phone: (+57) 602 4450000