Jump to... Introduction Food security Project areas Market orientation Project intervention Women's work burden Conclusions Technical appendix References

Table 1 | 2 | 3 |4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32

Table 1. Number of months in which households have enough cereals to eat: Combined sample (% of households)

---

Table 2. Change in cereal and food consumption: Combined sample (% of households)

---

Table 3. Change in the ability to cope with fluctuations in food consumption: Combined sample (% of households)

---

Table 4. How many months households eat sufficient cereal: By project area (% of households)

---

Table 5. Change in cereal and food consumption: By project area (% of households)

---

Table 6. Change in the ability to cope with fluctuations: By project area (% of households)

		Tamil Nadu				Andhra Pradesh				Nepal
		Lean Months		Major Crises		Lean Months		Major Crises		Lean Months		Major Crises
Gone up		72.1		66.7		42.9		37.2		72.5		66.7
Gone down		20.9		24.4		50.0		44.2		20.0		11.1
Unchanged		7.0		8.9		7.1		18.6		7.5		22.2
Total		100.0		100.0		100.0		100.0		100.0		100.0

---

Table 7. Market dependence for food in the project areas: Combined sample (% of households)

	Up	Down	No Change
Cereal	28.3	29.1	42.6
All Food	43.5	20.8	25.7

---

Table 8. Market dependence and household food consumption (% of households)

Household Market Dependence for Food	Total Food Consumption
	Gone Up	Not Changed	Gone Down	Total
Gone up	45.8	29.2	25.0	100.0
Not changed	39.5	23.7	36.8	100.0
Gone down	71.4	10.7	17.9	100.0

---

Table 9. Market dependence and the ability to cope with lean months (% of households)

Household Market Dependence for Food	Ability to Cope with Lean Months
	Gone Up	Not Changed	Gone Down	Total
Gone up	52.3	4.5	43.2	100.0
Not changed	59.5	8.1	32.4	100.0
Gone down	82.1	7.1	10.7	100.0

---

Table 10. Subsistence crop production and household food consumption (% of households)

Household Subsistence Crop Production	Total Food Consumption
	Gone Up	Not Changed	Gone Down	Total
Gone up	78.5	3.6	17.9	100.0
Not changed	54.3	23.7	22.0	100.0
Gone down	25.6	33.3	41.1	100.0

---

Table 11. Subsistence crop production and the ability to cope with lean months (% of households)

Household Subsistence Crop Production	Ability to Cope with Lean Months
	Gone Up	Not Changed	Gone Down	Total
Gone up	85.2	7.4	7.4	100.0
Not changed	72.2	9.3	18.5	100.0
Gone down	32.4	2.7	64.9	100.0

---

Table 12. Cash crop production and household food consumption (% of households)

Household Cash Crop Production	Total Food Consumption
	Gone Up	Not Changed	Gone Down	Total
Gone up	68.0	8.0	24.0	100.0
Not changed	46.9	27.1	26.0	100.0
Gone down	40.0	0.0	60.0	100.0

---

Table 13. Cash crop production and the ability to cope with lean months (% of households)

Household Cash Crop Production	Ability to Cope with Lean Months
	Gone Up	Not Changed	Gone Down	Total
Gone up	83.3	4.2	12.5	100.0
Not changed	58.9	7.8	33.3	100.0
Gone down	25.0	0.0	75.0	100.0

---

Table 14. Source of increase in income and household food consumption (% of households)

Main Source of Higher Household Income	Total Food Consumption
	Gone Up	Not Changed	Gone Down	Total
Subsistence crop	53.8	0.0	46.2	100.0
Other self-employment	66.1	16.1	17.8	100.0
Wage labour	41.9	30.2	27.9	100.0

---

Table 15. Source of reduction in income and household food consumption (% of households)

Main Cause of Lower Household Income	Total Food Consumption
	Gone Up		Not Changed	Gone Down	Total
Subsistence crop	31.6		34.2	34.2	100.0
Other activities	52.4		19.0	28.6	100.0

---

Table 16. Source of increase in income and the ability to cope with lean months (% of households)

	Ability to Cope with Lean Months
	Gone Up	Not Changed	Gone Down	Total
A. Main source of higher household income
Subsistence crop	91.7	0.0	8.3	100.0
Other self-employment	71.2	8.5	20.3	100.0
Wage labour	51.2	0.0	48.8	100.0
B. Main cause of lower household income
Subsistence crop	28.6	5.7	65.7	100.0
Other activities	73.7	0.0	26.3	100.0

---

Table 17. Causes of fall in subsistence income and household food consumption (% of households)

Main Cause of Lower Household Subsistence Crop Production	Total Food Consumption
	Gone Up	Not Changed	Gone Down	Total
Pull forces	30.7	46.2	23.1	100.0
Push forces	30.0	10.0	60.0	100.0

---

Table 18. Diversification of livelihood and household food consumption (% of households)

Degree of Household Income Diversification	Total Food Consumption
	Gone Up	Not Changed	Gone Down	Total
Low	43.1	34.5	22.4	100.0
Medium	69.2	0.0	30.8	100.0
High	56.5	17.4	26.1	100.0

---

Table 19. Diversification of livelihood and the ability to cope with lean months (% of households)

Degree of Household Income Diversification	Ability to Cope with Lean Months
	Gone Up	Not Changed	Gone Down	Total
Low	52.7	9.1	38.2	100.0
Medium	76.0	0.0	24.0	100.0
High	69.8	9.3	20.9	100.0

---

Table 20. Participation in IFAD projects and household food security (% of households)

	Household Food Security
	Gone Up	Not Changed	Gone Down	Total
A. Household food consumption
No participation	29.4	41.2	29.4	100.0
Less than 1 year	64.0	12.0	24.0	100.0
More than 1 year	53.8	19.8	26.4	100.0
B. Household ability to cope with lean months
No participation	27.8	22.2	50.0	100.0
Less than 1 year	76.2	14.3	9.5	100.0
More than 1 year	66.3	31.4	2.3	100.0
C. Household ability to cope with crisis
No participation	23.5	41.2	35.3	100.0
Less than 1 year	68.0	20.0	12.0	100.0
More than 1 year	60.4	11.0	28.6	100.0

---

Table 21. Impact of project participation on women’s access to resources and control over decision-making (% of households)

Length of Project Participation	Women’s Access to Resources			Women’s Control over Decision-making
	Increased	Not Increased	Total	Increased	Not Increased	Total
No participation	27.8	72.2	100.0	22.2	77.8	100.0
Less than 1 year	72.0	28.0	100.0	84.0	16.0	100.0
More than 1 year	71.4	28.6	100.0	63.7	36.3	100.0

---

Table 22. Women’s access to resources and household cereal consumption

Indicators of Food Security	Women’s Access, Change		Test of Significance
	Up	Down/Same
Months household eating well at time of survey	7.9	7.5	ns
Months household ate well five years previously	6.9	8.0	s
Change	1.1	-0.5	s

Note: S means that the difference between the two groups is statistically significant at less than 10%; ns means that the difference is not statistically significant.

---

Table 23. Household food security and women’s access to resources (% of households)

	Household Food Security
	Gone Up	Not Changed	Gone Down	Total
A. Household food consumption
Women’s access increased	63.7	6.8	29.5	100.0
Women’s access decreased/unchanged	31.1	48.9	20.0	100.0
B. Household ability to cope with lean months
Women’s access increased	66.2	6.3	27.5	100.0
Women’s access decreased/unchanged	55.5	8.9	35.6	100.0
C. Household ability to cope with crisis
Women’s access increased	64.8	12.5	22.7	100.0
Women’s access decreased/unchanged	42.3	24.4	33.3	100.0

---

Table 24. Household food security and women’s ownership of assets (% of households)

	Household Food Security
	Gone Up	Not Changed	Gone Down	Total
A. Household food consumption
Women’s assets increased	53.1	20.4	26.5	100.0
Women’s assets decreased/unchanged	30.0	25.0	25.0	100.0
B. Household ability to cope with lean months
Women’s assets increased	64.8	6.7	28.5	100.0
Women’s assets decreased/unchanged	50.0	10.0	40.0	100.0
C. Household ability to cope with crisis
Women’s assets increased	56.6	17.7	25.7	100.0
Women’s assets decreased/unchanged	60.0	10.0	30.0	100.0

---

Table 25. Reasons for change in women’s access to resources (%)

	All Regions	Tamil Nadu	Andhra Pradesh	Nepal
Overall access has gone up	70.4	93.3	50.0	65.0
Reason for improvement
Better organization	54.7	55.0	20.8	90.9
Presence of NGOs	19.8	30.0	20.8	0.0
Improved economic environment	18.6	2.5	33.3	9.1
Other	6.9	12.5	25.0	0.0

Note: Women claiming to have experienced improved access to resources over the five years previous to the survey were asked to identify the most important reasons for this. Multiple responses were allowed. The number of occurrences of a particular response is expressed as a share of all responses.

---

Table 26. Household cereal consumption and women’s control over decision-making

Indicators of Food Security	Women’s Control, Change		Test of Significance
	Up	Down/Same
1. Months household eating well at time of survey	8.2	6.9	s
2. Months household ate well five years previously	7.1	7.5	ns
3. Change	1.1	-0.6	s
4. Household ability to cope with lean months was up (%)	72.5	51.1	s
5. Household ability to cope with major food crises was up (%)	68.7	38.0	s

Note: S means that the difference between the two groups is statistically significant at below 10%; ns means that the difference is not statistically significant.

---

Table 27. Household food security and women’s control over household decision-making (%)

	Household Food Security
	Gone Up	Not Changed	Gone Down	Total
A. Household food consumption
Women’s control increased	65.1	8.4	26.5	100.0
Women’s control decreased/unchanged	32.0	42.0	26.0	100.0
B. Household ability to cope with lean months
Women’s control increased	68.4	6.6	25.0	100.0
Women’s control decreased/unchanged	53.0	8.2	38.8	100.0
C. Household ability to cope with crisis
Women’s control increased	68.7	13.3	18.1	100.0
Women’s control decreased/unchanged	38.0	22.0	40.0	100.0

---

 

Table 28. Reasons for a change in women’s control over household decision-making (%)

	All Regions	Tamil Nadu	Andhra Pradesh	Nepal
A. Women’s overall control has gone up	66.9	74.4	42.5	82.9
B. Reason
Benefit of organization	44.3	54.5	27.8	43.2
Being de jure household head	30.7	36.4	50.0	16.2
Confidence through income-earning	10.2	3.0	0.0	21.6
Other	14.8	6.1	22.2	19.0

Note: Women claiming to have gained greater control over household decision-making over the five years previous to the survey were asked to identify the most important reasons for this. Multiple responses were allowed. The number of occurrences of a particular response is expressed as a share of all responses.

---

Table 29. Perceived reasons for change in food security (% of responses)

	Overall sample	Nepal	Tamil Nadu	Andhra Pradesh
1. More savings/assets	32.0	36.0	39.0	10.5
2. Easier access to credit	28.0	23.0	33.0	20.0
3. Greater demand for wage labour	24.5	28.0	19.0	38.0
4. Greater scope for off-farm self-employment	4.5	10.0	3.0	0.0
5. Less shortage of food	4.5	2.5	3.0	10.5
6. Greater access to public foodgrain distribution	4.0	0.0	1.5	14.0
7. Better food storage	2.5	0.0	1.5	7.0

Note: Only households directly involved in IFAD-supported projects. Households claiming to have experienced improved coping ability over the five years preceding the survey were asked to identify the most important reasons for this. Multiple responses were allowed. The number of times a particular response occurred is expressed as a share of all responses.

---

Table 30. Time-allocation among households with different patterns of change in women’s control over decision-making

	Control Up	Control Down/Same	Test of Significance
Wife’s time burden (hours per day)	16.9	16.3	ns
Wife’s subsistence production (hours per day)	3.7	2.1	s
Wife’s market-oriented activities (hours per day)	6.8	7.0	ns
Wife’s domestic activities (hours per day)	6.5	7.2	s
Husband’s time burden (hours per day)	8.8	10.0	ns
Husband’s subsistence production (hours per day)	3.0	2.0	s
Husband’s market-oriented activities (hours per day)	5.2	7.2	s
Husband’s domestic activities (hours per day)	0.6	0.8	ns
Time of husband’s market-oriented activities grew during five years before survey (% households)	58.0	79.0	s
Size of household’s operating land (acres)	91.0	48.0	s
Household size (members)	6.3	5.2	s

Note: Households in which women were de jure heads are excluded. S means that the difference between the two groups is statistically significant at less than 10%; ns means that the difference is not statistically significant.

---

Table 31. Food security and women’s relative work burden (%)

	Women’s Relative Work Burden
	Gone Up	Gone Down/No Change	Total
A. Household food consumption
Gone up	87.1	12.9	100.0
Gone down	80.0	20.0	100.0
Unchanged	67.9	32.1	100.0
B. Household ability to cope with lean months
Gone up	87.2	12.8	100.0
Gone down	73.7	26.3	100.0
Unchanged	55.6	44.4	100.0
C. Household ability to cope with crisis
Gone up	92.1	7.9	100.0
Gone down	71.4	28.6	100.0
Unchanged	59.1	40.9	100.0

---

 

Table 32. Correlates of women’s relative work burden ((% of households)

Relative work burden	Gone Up	Gone Down/No Change	Total
A. Women’s control
Increased	89.2	10.8	100.0
Decreased/unchanged	66.7	33.3	100.0
B. Women’s project participation
Nil	44.4	55.6	100.0
Less than 1 year	92.0	8.0	100.0
More than 1 year	84.6	15.4	100.0
C. Women’s access to resources
Gone up	87.5	12.5	100.0
Gone down/unchanged	67.4	32.6	100.0