Myths about the feminization of agriculture: Implications for global food security

The term “feminization of agriculture” is used to describe changing labor markets that pull men out of agriculture, increasing women's roles. However, simplified understandings of this feminization persist as myths in the literature, limiting our understanding of the broader changes that affect food security. Through a review of literature, this paper analyses four myths: 1) feminization of agriculture is the predominant global trend in global agriculture; 2) women left behind are passive victims and not farmers; 3) feminization is bad for agriculture; and 4) women farmers all face similar challenges. The paper unravels each myth, reveals the complexity of gendered power dynamics in feminization trends, and discusses the implications of these for global food security

Optimal Land Development with Endogenous Environmental Amenities

A spatially explicit model of the optimal timing and location of land development is presented that incorporates dynamic interactions between land development and water quality. Ignoring two-way interactions leads to a lower level of water quality, more development, and lower social welfare. The optimal pace and pattern of development can be achieved through the assessment of an impact fee that internalizes pollution damages and irreversibility costs. Our results demonstrate the importance of accounting for the spatial dimension of land use, the interdependence between land use and environmental quality, and development irreversibility in models of urbanization and amenity-driven growth. Copyright 2008, Oxford University Press.

Do community members share development priorities? Results of a ranking exercise in East African rangelands

Patti Kristjanson is ILRI authorThis study investigates development priorities of individuals living in 11 communities in the arid and semi-arid rangelands of northern Kenya and southern Ethiopia. We first asked individuals to describe development efforts that have been implemented in their community. People were then asked to rank the usefulness of these different interventions. Finally, we asked them to rank their priorities for future development activities in their community. Econometric analysis of their responses indicates that variation in rankings of future priorities is primarily driven by variation across communities rather than across households within communities, lending support to community-based approaches to priority setting