An assessment of the existing definitions of HFS and food security in general is limiting in the context of gender, the lacunae being that equity in household processes is referred to but inadequately applied in comparison with access and entitlement. This poses a central problem because the findings of this study indicate that the crux of womens quest for a HFS or livelihood strategy is represented by the challenges and pressures of both internal (the household allocatory process) and external processes (macropolicies) that deny equity to women.
Thus, HFS is defined by this study as access, entitlement and equitable distribution to all (at all times) commensurate with the roles performed, the time spent and the energy used (not always measured by cash) towards achieving livelihood security. HFS is attained through the autonomous and equitable decisions, choices and cultural preferences of households (with gender-neutral values) concerning the deployment of resources, all of which lead to improved livelihoods, well-being and empowerment.
Towards a definition and a construct of gender and HFS
Women are faced with three sets of pressures in the three project areas.
Struggling among these three alternating pressures, women operate from an initial resource bundle or entitlement of at least six variables. These are:
Precariously balanced among these three sets of factors (that is, external, internal and given variables), women perform four roles: (i) the reproductive or biological role, (ii) the productive role, (iii) the role of home maintenance and (iv) community management.
Table 1 indicates the major elements of the initial resource bundle for women in the three project areas.
Table 1: Type of project, participant group, scope and strategy
| Tamil Nadu Womens Development Project |
Production Credit for Rural Women |
Andhra Pradesh Tribal Welfare Project |
|
| Type of project |
Women only |
Components approach |
Integrated approach |
| Participant group |
Women |
Women |
Men and women |
| Scope of operation |
5 districts |
55 districts |
8 districts |
| Project strategy |
Credit and savings (mechanism of thrift and credit groups, TCGs) |
credit groups, training, support services |
|
| Entitlement Base:
Given Variables |
|||
| Productive assets |
|||
| Land |
Landlessness |
40 out of 45 respondents have access to land (wetland, slash-and-burn and common property resources, homestead gardens in the hill districts) |
85% have access to small plots of poor-quality dryland. Declining rights due to environment policy and land practices |
| Rights to land |
Yes |
No |
No |
| Livestock/sheep |
Average at Rs. 2 761.36 |
Highest among the three projects at Rs. 5 011/- |
Access only to sheep; no livestock |
| Forests |
No access |
Yes, though diminishing |
Diminishing in spite of it being a major source of food supply and employment |
| (Seeds) collected, processed and stored by women |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
| Non-productive assets |
|||
| House |
Rs. 1 471.27 |
Rs. 204.50 |
|
| Jewelry |
Rs. 956.70 |
Rs. 295.00 |
Total of Rs. 720/- |
| Other assets |
Rs. 1 818.18 |
Rs. 500.00 |
|
| Human capital |
Scheduled and backward or most backward caste (no upper caste) |
45% upper caste; 55% other or lower castes |
All scheduled Tribes |
| Family size |
80% (4-9 members) |
80% (4-9 members) |
70% (4-9 members) |
| Education |
2nd/3rd standard |
2nd standard |
Illiterate |
| Fuel |
Firewood |
Firewood |
Fuel wood |
| Toilets |
Open space |
open space |
Open space |
| Water |
Tubewell and dugwell (90%), stream (7%) |
stream (37%) |
Stream (50%) |
| Housing |
Temporary structures |
temporary or semi-permanent |
Temporary structures |
| Womens time use |
15.67 hours |
17.68 hours |
15.68 hours |
| Income and employment |
|||
| Total income increase |
55% |
90% |
56% |
| Livelihood base and income source |
Microenterprises (especially livestock and sheep-rearing) wage work |
Agriculture, microenterprises (especially livestock and sheep-rearing) wage work |
Declining subsistence production substituted by wage work (70%) |
| Total food consumption (increase) |
68% |
66% |
35% |
| Food expenditure |
70.67% |
63.48% |
74.42% |
| Cash crops and alcoholism |
Highest share of household expenditure |
Campaigned and banned alcohol in several districts |
Anti-alcohol agitation taken up by TCGs |
| Debt decline |
50% |
46% |
30% |
| Female headed households |
45% |
38% |
34% |
| Food storage |
2.8 months |
4.84 months |
3.14 months |
| Social claims |
|||
| Public distribution system (PDS) |
Easy to access |
Non-existent |
Available but not always accessible (owing to lack of ration cards or shops) |
| Mid-day meal |
Available |
Not available |
Not available |
| Subsidies |
Available |
||
| Extensions |
Available |
Poor - average |
Gender blind |
| Non-governmental organizations |
Available |
Non-existent in project |
Non-existent in project |