國立屏東科技大學熱帶農業暨國際合作系

Department of Tropical Agriculture and International Cooperation

National Pingtung University of Science and Technology

碩士學位論文

Master’s Thesis

透過比較分析以賦權馬拉威婦女農民之研究

A Study of Women Farmers’ Empowerment in Malawi through Competitive

Analyses

指導教授: 鍾惠雯 (Rebecca Chung, PhD)

研究生: (Loveness Msofi)

中華民國 2012 年 6 月 7 日

June 7, 2012

表格

編號

：M

06

摘要

學號: M9922019

論文題目: 透過比較分析以賦權馬拉威婦女農民之研究

總頁數:

學校名稱: 國立屏東科技大學系 (所) 別: 熱帶農業暨國際合作研究所

畢業時間及摘要別: 碩士

研究生姓名: 指導教授: 鍾惠雯

論文摘要內容:

馬拉維是其經濟嚴重依賴農業的最不發達國家之一。女農民作為生產者，工人和企業家在農業部門發揮至關重要的作用。然而，他們遇到很多挑戰，這限制了他們的潛力充分促進該部門的經濟重要性。由於這個原因，一些干預已發展到授權和支持女農民。本研究的主要目的是通過競爭性分析，以確定婦女農民權力和建議的最佳策略，以提高他們的競爭力。研究中使用的 SWOT 分析的優勢，劣勢，機會和威脅進行分析，來賦予婦女農民的戰略。該研究還分析了競爭力，確定基於波特的鑽石模型，採用層次分析法（AHP）的元素。研究中使用的意見領袖誰是熟悉婦女農民偏好數據。 45 受訪者包括 5 研究人員，10 個推廣工作者和 30 個農民選擇從 Rumphi 在馬拉維北部地區的區。結果顯示，受訪者有不同的優先級，以提高婦女農民的競爭力的重要因素。與會者認為，需求條件，戰略，結構和競爭，以及政府的作用是最重要的。與會者還認為，最重要的因素是市場的可用性，可用性和電源輸入和合同農業的一致性。結果還顯示，賦予婦女權力的農民最重要的替代戰略，形成生產營銷隊伍（光電倍增管），擴展可用性和培訓，以及建立婦女農民協會。總之，這些結果為女性農民有關的政策和方案發展提供了重要的見解。

I

它也可以建議有需要利益相關者之間的合作，賦予婦女權力的農民，使他 們 能 夠 在 農 業 部 門 的 競 爭 力 ， 成 為 與 適 當 的 干 預 措 施 來 。

關鍵詞：馬拉維婦女農民，增強能力，提高競爭力，SWOT 分析，波特的鑽石模型，層次分析法（AHP）

II

English Abstract

Student ID: M9922019

Title of thesis: A Study of Women Farmers’ Empowerment in Malawi

through Competitive Analyses

Total pages:

Name of institute: Department of Tropical Agriculture and International

Cooperation, National Pingtung University of Science and

Technology

Graduation date: June 15, 2012 Degree Conferred: Masters

Name of student: Loveness Msofi Advisor: Rebecca Chung, PhD

The content of abstract in this thesis:

The contribution of Malawian women farmers to the agriculture sector

cannot be overemphasized. However, women farmers face many challenges

that limit their potential to contribute fully to the economic importance of the

sector. In response, a number of interventions have been developed which are

aimed at empowering and supporting women farmers. The main objective of

this study was to determine women farmers’ empowerment through

competitive analyses. This was done by identifying factors of competitiveness

and determining their importance in empowering women farmers. The study

used a SWOT analysis to come up with strengths, weaknesses, opportunities

and threats and to formulate strategies for empowering women farmers. A

Porter’s Diamond Model was used to identify factors of competitiveness.

Then, an Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method was employed to

determine the importance of the competitiveness factors. The study used

III

preference data from experts who are familiar with issues concerning women

farmers. A total of 45 respondents comprising of 5 researchers, 10 extension

IV

workers and 30 women farmers was selected for this study. The participants

perceived that demand conditions, government role and strategy, structure and

rivalry were the most important factors. Participants also perceived that the

most important sub-factors were availability of markets, availability and

consistency of supply inputs and contract farming. Results also revealed that

the most important alternative strategies for empowering women farmers were

establishment of women farmers associations, availability of extension and

training as well as formation of Production Marketing Teams (PMTs). In

conclusion, these results provide important insights for policy and program

developments relating to women farmers. Results revealed that respondents

had different priorities regarding the important factors and alternative

strategies. This shows that there is no single strategy that is superior in

empowering women farmers to enhance their competitiveness. Therefore, it

can be recommended that there is need to use multiple alternative strategies

for empowering women farmers. There is also need for collaboration among

the stakeholders, to come up with appropriate interventions for empowering

women farmers so that they can become competitive in the agricultural sector.

Keywords: Malawian women farmers, empowerment, competitiveness, SWOT

analysis, Porter’s Diamond Model, Analytic Hierarchy Process

(AHP)

V

Dedication

I dedicate this paper to family, my dad B.S. Msofi; my mum Esnart

Cecilia Msofi; my siblings Peter, Dominic, Raphael, Stuart, Bias, and

Dorothy for their love and support throughout the period of my study. Special

thanks to my lovely sister Bernadette who assisted me in collecting data for

this research. I also dedicate my work to my love Elton Eric Chikondi

Mgalamadzi for being there for me and encouraging me throughout my study

period. You all mean a lot to me and I love you all very much.

VI

Acknowledgements

First, I would like to thank God for giving me courage, wisdom and

patience to make this possible. I also thank NPUST Scholarship for giving me

the opportunity to study in Taiwan and to get my Masters degree. I really

appreciate the support and guidance from Barbara and all the Office of

International Affairs staff.

I would like to acknowledge the input and supervision of my Advisor

Dr. Rebecca Chung. You were very encouraging, you tirelessly helped me

throughout the writing of this paper and contributing positively to my career

and professional life, you will always be remembered for that. You made me

strong and I have learned a lot from you that will help me grow.

Similarly, I am thankful to each professor that taught me and helped me

gain knowledge, skills and experience. I have learned a lot from you all and I

appreciate the knowledge and manners you gave me. I also thank all the staff

of DTAIC and my classmates.

My sincere gratitude also goes to my bosses at work in Malawi, Ms

Frieda Kayuni and Mr. Mataka for their efforts to ensure that I came to

Taiwan to further my studies. I am grateful to the Ministry of Agriculture and

Food Security in Malawi especially to my workmates at Blantyre District

Agriculture Office for their support.

I am also indebted to my country mates I met here in Taiwan, Mwiza,

Glory and Chifundo, for being there for me and making my life easier. I love

you all. Friends and relatives so numerous to mention please receive my

heartfelt thanks.

VII

Table of Contents

摘要...................................................................................................................I

English Abstract..............................................................................................III

Dedication.........................................................................................................V

Acknowledgements.........................................................................................VI

Table of Contents...........................................................................................VII

List of Figures...................................................................................................X

List of Tables...................................................................................................XI

List of Acronyms...........................................................................................XII

1. Introduction.................................................................................................1

1.1. Background Information.......................................................................1

1.1.1. Agriculture in Malawi....................................................................1

1.1.2. Women in Malawian Agriculture...................................................1

1.1.3. Women Empowerment in Malawi..................................................4

1.2. Research Objectives..............................................................................5

2. Literature Review........................................................................................7

2.1. Women Empowerment.........................................................................7

VIII

2.2. Competitiveness..................................................................................13

2.3. Methods for Measuring Competitiveness...........................................17

3. Methodology.............................................................................................26

3.1. The Research Framework...................................................................26

3.1.1. The SWOT Analysis Application.................................................28

3.1.2. Strategy Formulation for Malawian Women Farmers..................35

3.1.3. Porter’s Diamond Model Application..........................................37

3.1.4. Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) Method Application.............42

3.2. Questionnaire Design..........................................................................44

3.3. Sampling Plan.....................................................................................45

3.4. Statistical Analysis..............................................................................46

4. Results and Discussion..............................................................................48

4.1. Characteristics of Survey Respondents...............................................48

4.2. Results of Respondent’s Opinions on Elements of Competitiveness. 51

4.3. Results of AHP Model Analysis for the Competitiveness Elements..52

4.3.1. Results of Criteria Analysis..........................................................53

4.3.2. Factor Conditions.........................................................................55

4.3.3. Demand Conditions......................................................................58

4.3.4. Related and Supporting Industries................................................60

IX

4.3.5. Strategy, Structure and Rivalry....................................................61

4.3.6. Government Role..........................................................................63

4.3.7. Results of the overall analysis......................................................65

4.3.8. Results of the Analysis of Alternatives........................................67

5. Conclusions and Recommendations.........................................................71

5.1. Conclusions.........................................................................................71

5.2. Recommendations...............................................................................73

5.3. Future Research..................................................................................74

References.......................................................................................................75

Appendices......................................................................................................91

Appendix I. Data Analysis Outputs..............................................................91

Appendix II. Questionnaire for Researchers and Extension Workers.......101

Appendix III. Questionnaire for Farmers...................................................112

Bio-Sketch of the Author..............................................................................123

X

List of Figures

Figure 3-1. Research framework to determine the competitiveness of

Malawian women farmers...............................................................................27

Figure 3-2. Modified Diamond Model, adapted from Porter (1990)..............41

Figure 3-3. AHP hierarchical structure...........................................................44

Figure 4-1. Characteristics of researchers and extension workers..................48

Figure 4-2. Characteristics of farmers.............................................................49

Figure 4-3. Economic activities of women farmers........................................50

Figure 4-4. Summary of the expert’s priorities of the criteria with respect to

the goal............................................................................................................53

Figure 4-5. Summary of expert’s priorities of the factor conditions...............55

Figure 4-6. Summary of experts’ priorities of the demand conditions...........58

Figure 4-7. Summary of experts’ priorities of the related and supporting

industries.........................................................................................................60

Figure 4-8. Summary of expert priorities of strategy, structure and rivalry

factors..............................................................................................................61

Figure 4-9. Summary of experts’ priorities of the roles of the government....63

Figure 4-10. Summary of expert’s priorities of the alternatives.....................67

XI

List of Tables

Table 3-1. SWOT matrix for Malawian women farmers................................36

Table 3-2. Strategies formulated for Malawian women farmers.....................37

Table 3-3. Standard preference scoring system for AHP, (Saaty, 1990)........43

Table 3-4. Random Index Numbers (Saaty, 1990)..........................................47

Table 4-1. Summary of expert’s opinions on the elements of competitiveness

.........................................................................................................................51

Table 4-2. Summary of the expert’s priorities of the criteria with respect to the

goal..................................................................................................................53

Table 4-3. Summary of expert’s priorities of the factor conditions................56

Table 4-4. Summary of experts’ priorities of the demand conditions.............58

Table 4-5. Summary of experts’ priorities of related and supporting industries

.........................................................................................................................60

Table 4-6. Summary of experts’ priorities of strategy, structure and rivalry. .62

Table 4-7. Summary of experts’ priorities of the role of government.............64

Table 4-8. Overall analysis results of the first 5 priority sub-criteria.............66

Table 4-9. Summary of experts’ priorities of the alternatives.........................67

XII

List of Acronyms

AHP – Analytic Hierarchy Process

AIDS – Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome

ASTI – Agriculture Research and Technology Indicators

AWARD – African Women in Agriculture Research and Development

CSW – Commission on the Status of Women

EPA – Extension Planning Area

EU – European Union

FAO – Food and Agriculture Organisation

FISP – Farm Input Subsidy Programme

GAD – Gender and Development

GDP – Gross Domestic Product

GOM – Government of Malawi

HIV – Human Immuno-deficiency Virus

IFAD – International Fund for Agricultural Development

IFPRI – International Food Policy Research Institute

MDGs – Millennium Development Goals

MGDS – Malawi Growth and Development Strategy

XIII

MoAFS – Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security

XIV

NGO – Non-Governmental Organisation

NSO – National Statistical Office

OECD – Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development

PDM – Porters Diamond Model

PMTs – Production Marketing Teams

RCA – Revealed Comparative Advantage

UNDP – United Nations Development Programs

UNICEF – United Nations Children’s Fund

WID – Women in Development

XV

1. Introduction

This chapter gives an overview of the study on women farmers’

empowerment in Malawian agriculture sector. The background information

on agriculture in Malawi will be presented besides women farmers’

contribution to the agriculture sector. Challenges that women farmers face are

presented and a brief background of women empowerment in Malawi is

presented. Furthermore, the chapter presents objectives of this research.

1.1. Background Information

1.1.1. Agriculture in Malawi

Malawi is one of the countries in Southern Africa heavily dependent on

agriculture; in 2010 it contributed about 35 percent towards Gross Domestic

Product (GDP) (World Bank, 2010). The Agricultural sector in Malawi

employs about 85 percent of the population, and provides over 80 percent of

foreign exchange which was reported in the Malawi government 2010

Integrated Household Survey (National Statistical Office, GOM, 2010).

Above all, agriculture contributes significantly to national and household food

security (GOM, 2010). Most Malawians make their daily living from small-

scale agriculture, and the majority of Malawi’s population relies on

agriculture for their livelihoods (GOM, 2010). The agricultural sector

comprises of the estates and smallholder subsectors. The smallholder

agriculture subsector contributes over 30 percent towards the Gross Domestic

Product (GDP) (World Bank, 2010).

1.1.2. Women in Malawian Agriculture

It is estimated that 70 percent of the agricultural labour force in both

smallholder and estate agriculture is provided by women (World Bank, 1991).

This indicates the importance of women farmers in Malawi; however, it also

1

means that women are thus particularly affected by any constraints to

productivity arising in this sector. The majority of women are found in the

2

smallholder agriculture sector, which is characterized by low incomes due to

low productivity and unfavorable input/output prices ratios. However, both

gender categories (men and women) are actively involved in agriculture with

different activities depending on their gender roles and priorities (Hirschmann

and Vaughan, 1984). This is because agriculture is the main source of the

majority of the people’s livelihoods in terms of cash income, food security,

and source of employment. Research has revealed that women are more

involved in agriculture than men (Saito, Mekonnen and Spurling, 1994).

Empirical evidence also reveals that despite women’s large involvement in

agriculture as workers, farmers and agro-entrepreneurs, they have not

received much of the benefits that accrue from agriculture (FAO, 2010a). This

has fueled debates as to what should be done to improve the situation so that

women farmers can benefit. Government and the private sectors have

formulated interventions for women empowerment to improve their

conditions in the agricultural sector since their role is crucial to improvement

of people’s livelihoods, as well as for the economic growth of the country. As

a result, over the years, food security has improved because of an increase in

maize production, which is a staple food, and the country has experienced an

increase in agricultural exports. In all these improvements, the contribution of

women farmers cannot be overemphasized.

Women farmers produce most of the food consumed in the domestic

and international markets. They produce a variety of crops mostly for

subsistence, which are indigenous varieties of maize, pulses, sorghum, millet,

groundnuts, cassava and vegetables. Women tend to sell surpluses of these

subsistence crops to cater for other livelihood needs of the households. On the

other hand, men concentrate on commercial cash crops that are mostly hybrid

varieties of maize, tobacco, cotton and some varieties of groundnuts high in

oil content (Cromwell and Winpenny, 1993). While literature often states that

cash and export crops are male crops while subsistence crops are cultivated by

women, the lines of distinction are often blurred (Doss, 2001).

3

Despite the general situation about women’s involvement in

subsistence agriculture, they are also actively involved in the commercial

agricultural production as helpers. Research indicates that under both

subsistence and cash crop farming systems, women work more hours

compared to men (Engberg, Sabry and Beckerson, 1988; Government of

Malawi (GOM)/United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), 1987). In

general, women farmers are involved in activities categorised as productive,

reproductive and community activities. As part of productive activities, they

engage in farm and off- farm activities such as crops and livestock production

and small businesses, however, their opportunities for earning income in off-

farm activities are constrained by lack of time. The reproductive activities

include child bearing and rearing, household keeping activities (cooking,

washing, cleaning, etc) (World Bank, 1991 and Davison, 1992). The

community roles of women involve attending community ceremonies and

functions including developmental activities of the community (Brydon and

Chart, 1989).

Despite efforts to improve the conditions of women in agriculture,

women farmers face a number of challenges that limit their potential to

exploit the opportunities in the agricultural sector (Tiessen, 2008). A great

deal of research has documented the challenges that women face which

include small land holding sizes and lack of land rights (World Bank, 1991;

Segal, 1986 and Kenedy and Peters, 1992). They lack access to cash income

for purchase of household consumption requirements and critical inputs (Due

and Gladwin, 1991 and Hirschmann and Vaughan, 1984). Extension services

are currently male biased in personnel and consequently in coverage, with

women farmers often suffering from exclusion (Doss, 2001; Due, Magayane,

and Temu, 1997; (GOM)/UNICEF, 1987 and Mkandawire, 1989). Women

farmers are less likely than men to use modern inputs such as improved seeds,

fertilizers, pest control measures and mechanical tools (Due and Gladwin,

1991; (GOM)/UNICEF, 1987 and Spring, 1988). They also use less credit and

4

often do not control the credit they obtain (World Bank, 1991; Burgess, 1991

and Hirschmann and Vaughan, 1984). Finally, women have less education,

which makes it more difficult to gain access to and use some of the other

resources, such as land, credit and fertilizer (World Bank, 1991 and GOM,

1994).

The obstacles that confront women farmers mean that their productivity

is lower than their male counterparts are. Solid empirical evidence shows that

if women farmers used the same level of resources as men on the land they

farm, they would obtain the same yield levels (Gilbert, Sakala, and Benson,

2002; Quisumbing, 1996 and FAO, 2010b). Therefore, it is necessary to

evaluate the competitiveness of women farmers in the agricultural sector.

1.1.3. Women Empowerment in Malawi

Due to the women farmer’s substantial contribution to Malawian

agriculture, efforts have been made to empower them through implementation

of policies, programs and projects. The private sectors and Non-Governmental

Organisations (NGOs) have also implemented various interventions aimed at

empowering and supporting women farmers. Interventions like promoting

women and girls education; promoting income-generating activities among

women; promoting use of labor and time saving technologies; promoting the

growing of high-value agricultural crops; promoting value addition to

agricultural products among others. The government through the Ministry of

Agriculture and Food Security in the Department of Agricultural Extension

Services promotes gender mainstreaming across all the agricultural

development programs to enhance women farmer’s contribution to the

economic importance of agriculture in the country. The government

incorporates gender issues at policy level by formulating and implementing

policies that are sensitive to gender issues. In most of the policy documents

that are adopted and implemented by the government, for example the Malawi

Growth and Development Strategy (MGDS), the Millennium Development

5

Goals (MDG) of the United Nations, there is a provision to address gender

issues.

Similarly, along with the gender approaches to development, there has

been a shift in the approaches to development in the agriculture sector. The

government, through the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security has also

adopted these approaches. The current empowerment approach Gender and

Development (GAD) (Moser, 1993) is more concerned about gender and

gender relations in the agricultural sector looking at how gender relations

affects planning and implementation of agricultural development

programmes. It emphasizes the inclusion of men and other gender categories

in the planning and implementation of agricultural programmes since all have

an impact on the gender relations that exist in the household. This is done

with the aim of improving women’s access to benefits that are realized from

agriculture.

1.2. Research Objectives

Considering the importance of agriculture sector and the crucial roles of

women farmers in Malawian agriculture, it is fundamental to attach the

importance of women farmers to the growth of the sector, improvement of

people’s livelihoods and economic growth of the country. However, the

challenges that women farmers face limit their potential to contribute

effectively towards the sector. Despite the challenges women face and the

existing gender inequalities in the agriculture sector, women farmers remain

the important players in the sector.

Studies on women farmers in Malawi have focused much on gender

roles in the agriculture sector (Engberg, Sabry and Beckerson, 1988;

(GOM)/UNICEF, 1987). Gender division of labour and challenges that

women farmers face (Tiessen, 2008; World Bank, 1991; Segal, 1986; Kenedy

and Peters, 1992; Doss, 2001; Due, Magayane and Temu, 1997 and

Mkandawire, 1989). However, there is no information regarding studies on

6

competitiveness analyses on women farmers in Malawi. Therefore, the aim of

this study is to conduct competitive analyses on Malawian women farmers’

empowerment by determining the importance of different competitive factors

in empowering women farmers. The study also seeks to evaluate the

importance of different alternatives to empower and support women farmers.

The main objective of this study was to determine women farmer’s

empowerment in Malawi through analysis of their competitiveness in the

agriculture sector. The specific objectives of this research were:

1. To identify and analyse the importance of competitiveness elements that

enhance the competitive advantage of Malawian women farmers.

2. To evaluate important alternatives and strategies for empowering women

farmers in Malawian agricultural sector.

3. To come up with recommendations for empowering and supporting

women farmers so that they can achieve competitive advantage.

7

8

2. Literature Review

This chapter aims to review literature on women empowerment and

competitiveness. Emphasis is put on general understanding and review of

studies on the terms. There are four sections in this chapter. The first section

presents the general understanding of women empowerment and a review of

literature. The second section describes competitiveness in terms of

definitions as presented in literature. The third section is a review of studies

on competitiveness. Lastly, this chapter presents methods for measuring

competitiveness.

2.1. Women Empowerment

Women empowerment is a process whereby women become able to

organize themselves to increase their own self-reliance, to assert their

independent right to make choices and to control resources that will assist in

challenging and eliminating their own subordination (Keller and Mbwewe,

1991). Empowerment of different groups of women has been the subject of

many studies. Since the mid 1980s, the term has been particularly attractive to

third world feminist scholars and practitioners. For example, (Afshar, 1998),

who were concerned with integrating poor women in development projects in

such a way that this would bring greater self-reliance, and enable them to

challenge their highly disadvantaged positions in the society and family,

gaining control over lives. The World Food Summit Plan of Action (1996)

recognizes the importance of the empowerment of women to the achievement

of food security and the need to remove the constraints hindering them.

Commitment one of the World Food Summit Plan of Action reads:

“We will ensure an enabling political, social, and economic environment

designed to create the best conditions for the eradication of poverty and for

9

durable peace, based on full and equal participation of women and men,

which is most conducive to achieving sustainable food security for all.”

10

In her analysis of gender planning, Moser (1993) identified five

different approaches to policymaking vis-à-vis women. These were welfare,

equity, antipoverty, efficiency and empowerment approaches. The welfare

approach was the most dominant during the 1950s and 1960s. It places

emphasis on women’s roles as caregivers and sees them as passive

beneficiaries of development. The main method of implementation was

through “top-down” handouts of free goods and services or through training

in those skills deemed appropriate for non-working homemakers and mothers.

In other words, this approach does not challenge women’s traditional roles as

wives and mothers responsible for the welfare of the family. In turn, the

equity, antipoverty and efficiency approaches were developed in the mid

1970s and onwards. While the first focused on women’s need to gain equity

with men in the development process by means of top-down legislation and

other measures, the antipoverty and efficiency approaches aimed at ensuring

that poor women increase their “productivity” and participation in the

economy.

All four approaches were based on Women in Development (WID)

premises that women have been “marginalized” and need to be “integrated” in

to development. From this perspective, women were considered a valuable

“resource” of development and are entirely in terms of their delivery capacity

and ability to extend their working day, rather than as development agents

capable of bringing about social change. All four approaches fail to recognize

the complex interaction between women’s role as producers, reproducers and

community organizers and ignore the fact that women are already

participating in the productive sector in considerable numbers. By contrast,

the empowerment approach derives from Gender and Development (GAD)

ideas. Rathgeber (quoted in Braidotti, 1994) summarized this position as

follows:

11

“The gender and development trend analyze the nature of women’s

contribution inside and outside the household. It sees women as agents of

change rather than as passive recipients of development assistance. It also

questions the underlying assumptions of current social, economic and

political structures and leads not only to the design of interventions and

affirmative action strategies which will ensure that women are better

integrated in to on-going development efforts but also to a fundamental

reexamination of social structures and institutions.”

Thus, the empowerment approach places considerable attention on

women’s triple roles as producers, reproducers and community organizers,

and stresses the importance of bottom-up mobilization as a means to confront

oppression. Although empowerment approach is the most desirable in terms

of equality, it is by no means the most widely practiced.

Concern over women’s subordination in law is not new. Beginning

from the nineteenth century and to the twentieth century, the world has

witnessed innumerable women’s movements seeking to pressure governments

and societies to recognize not only women’s civil rights but also that woman

should enjoy equal working conditions and wages. However, it was not until

feminist movements gained recognition in the seventies and the United

Nations women’s decade achieved significant advances, that it became

possible to conduct a series of studies on rural women. These studies show

clearly and conclusively that women’s contribution to the development

process is much greater than previously assumed, and that women suffer from

problems stemming from traditional gender-based division of labor, which

sees them exclusively taken up with their reproductive role as mothers and

homemakers.

Boserup’s book, Women’s Role in Economic Development (1970) was

critical for the emergence of women as a consistency of development

(Kabeer, 1995). The declaration of the first development decade (1961-70)

12

did not refer to women, but the international development strategy for the

second decade (1970s) encouraged “the full integration of women in the total

development effort.” Empowering women for development should have high

returns in terms of increased output, greater equity and social progress

(Kabeer, 1995). Policies to improve women’s employment and educational

opportunities, political participation and physical and mental well-being have

been given high international profile since 1975.

The “status of women” as well as the factors that confer the status

varies considerably across regions. A woman’s status is often described in

terms of her income, employment, education, health, and fertility as well as

the roles she plays within a family, the community and society. It also

involves society’s perception of these roles and the value it places them. The

status of women implies a comparison with the status of men and is therefore

a significant reflection of the level of social justice in the society (UNDP,

1995). Women’s low status and lack of decision-making power are some of

the reasons why sub-Saharan African countries have the highest rates if

illiteracy among women. As female children of illiterate women are unlikely

to have basic primary school education, the impact of poor education is

passed on to the daughter generations. Thus, there is a big challenge to break

the vicious cycle of poor education and poverty by gender-oriented literacy

campaign (Kabira, Gachukia and Matiiangi, 1997).

The improvement of women’s education opportunities can empower

them and bring positive impact on the achievement of food security. There is

a gap between women and men literacy rate (FAO, 2011). Improving

women’s education can improve their abilities and thus can play a vital role in

the development program. The 1996 World Food Summit acknowledged both

women’s fundamental contributions to food security and the importance of

enabling women to have equal access to educational opportunities. It is

insufficient to increase women’s education opportunities, however, without at

the same time ensuring that women can benefit equally from these

13

opportunities. Educational opportunities and empowerment of women go

hand in hand, education contributes to the empowerment of women and the

empowerment of women makes it possible for women to benefit from

educational opportunities.

Human capital is a major factor in determining opportunities available

to individuals in society and is closely linked to the productive capacity of

households and their economic and social well-being. The level of human

capital available in a household (usually measured as the education of the

household head or average age of working-age adults in the household) is

strongly correlated with measures such as agricultural productivity, household

income, and nutritional outcomes – all of which ultimately affect household

welfare and economic growth at national level (World Bank, 2007a). The

education gender gap in levels of enrollment and attainment remains wide in

Southern Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, however, progress has been made to

narrow this gap. A survey by the Agricultural Science and Technology

Indicators (ASTI) and the African Women in Agricultural Research and

Development (AWARD) in 2008 in 15 sub-Saharan African countries found

out that the pool of female professional staff increased by 50 percent between

2000/01 and 2007/08. The survey also found out that the share of women in

total professional staff increased from 18 – 24 percent over the period

(Beintema, 2006; Beintema and Di Marcantonio, 2009).

Provision of agricultural extension services to women farmers helps to

empower them with technical knowledge required for their enterprises.

Extension services encompass the wide range of services provided by experts

in the areas of agriculture, agribusiness, health and others and are designed to

improve productivity and the overall well-being of the rural populations. The

provision of agricultural extension services can lead to significant yield

increases, yet extension provision in developing countries remains low for

both men and women, and women tend to make less use of extension services

(Meinzen-Dick et al., 2010). According to a 1988-89 FAO survey of

14

extension organizations covering 97 countries with sex-disaggregated data,

only 5 percent of all extension resources were directed towards women.

Moreover, only 15 percent of the extension personnel were female (FAO,

1993). Extension service agents tend to approach male farmers more often

than female because of the general misconception that women do not farm

and that extension advice will eventually trickle down from the male

household head to all other household members. Women farmers are less

likely to access resources and may therefore be bypassed by extension service

providers (Meinzen-Dick et al., 2010). Time constraints and cultural

reservations may also hinder women from participating in extension activities

(Meinzen-Dick et al., 2010). In response, several new and participatory

extension approaches have been developed and tested in an effort to move

away from the top-down model of extension service delivery to more farmer-

driven services. These approaches can target women effectively and increase

their participation and uptake of innovations (Davis et al., 2009)

Financial services such as savings, credit and insurance provide

opportunities for improving agricultural output, food security and economic

vitality at the household, community and national levels. A report by FAO

indicated that improving women’s direct access to financial resources is one

way of empowering women economically and it leads to higher investments

in human capital in the form of children’s health, nutrition and education

(FAO, 2011). Evidence shows that credit markets are not gender-neutral.

Legal barriers and cultural norms sometimes bar women from holding bank

accounts or entering into financial contracts in their own right. Women

generally have less control over the type of fixed assets that are usually

necessary as collateral for loans. Institutional discrimination by private and

public lending institutions often either ration women out of the market or

grant women loans that are smaller than those granted to men for similar

activities (Fletschner, 2009 and World Bank, FAO and IFAD, 2009). In

Nigeria for example, 14 percent of males compared to only 5 percent of

females obtained formal credit while in Kenya the percentages were 14

15

percent males and 4 percent females respectively (Saito, Mekonnen and

Spurling, 1994).

2.2. Competitiveness

It is important to be clear about what exactly the term

“competitiveness" means as there is much debate on this subject. Banse et al.

(1999) pointed out that “no single measure or definition of competitiveness

has gained the universal acceptance of either economists or management

theorists.” There has been a profusion of definitions applied to different

organizational and spatial entities like firms, sectors, industries, regions, and

states, and to proxies such as the balance of payments, market shares, costs,

and job creation. Most authors use the term to refer to an advantage of firms

or industries vis-à-vis their competitors in domestic or international markets.

Some authors have extended the meaning to entire economies (World

Economic Forum, 1995; Markusen, 1992 and Porter, 1990). Competitiveness

is equivalent to strong performance of economies relative to other countries,

where strong performance can mean economic growth, success in exports and

increased wellbeing. It is clear that economy-wide conditions such as

generally high levels of education, productivity, natural resource endowment

and business-friendly economic policies, can have significant impacts on the

competitiveness of specific firms and industries (Cockburn et al., 1998). The

definition of competitiveness in a more general outlook is referred to as the

ability of providing products and services with a satisfactory profit in an

international competitive environment (Reve and Mathiensen, 1994). This

study focuses on this definition to evaluate the competitiveness of women

farmers in Malawi.

Scientific discussion and efforts for giving an initial definition for

“competitiveness” flourished in the 1980s in many countries. This discussion

was a result of the booming technological evolution, the rapid globalization of

markets and trading and the total economical activity. Since 1990s and the

early 21st century the constitutional nature of competition radically

16

transformed (Tapscott, 2001), thus demanding new fundamental principles on

the scientific research of the term.

In academic studies, economic competitiveness has been defined in

several ways. The most systematic work in this connection has been done by

Trabold, who distinguishes between four important aspects of competitiveness

(Trabold, 1995).

1. Ability to sell (export ability)

2. Ability to attract foreign investment and labour force (location)

3. Ability to adjust to changing environmental conditions

4. Ability to earn (to cover the current expenses and investment needs

with income and to show profit).

Considering competitiveness specifically for agricultural sector, various

approaches have been applied following a number of different methodologies

for quantitative considerations. Gorton et al. (2001) estimated Poland’s

agricultural competitiveness based on the Domestic Resource Cost Model

(DRC) (Pearson and Meyer, 1974). This model measures domestic production

effectiveness in agricultural sector in terms of international prices. Gorton et

al. (2006) also followed this method for estimating Hungary’s agricultural

sector competitiveness. Lee et al. (2003) also used the same method but in

combination with Net Private Profitability (NPP) method in order to estimate

aquaculture sector competitiveness between Taiwan, Japan and China. Banse

et al. (1999) computed the DRC ratios for various crops (wheat, barley,

maize, rapeseed and sunflower) and livestock (beef, pork and milk) sectors in

Hungary during 1990-96. Gorton, Davidova, and Ratinger (2000) again

calculated the DRC for the main Bulgarian and Czech agricultural

commodities during 1994-96 and adjusted it using EU15 output and input

prices, in order to assess the commodities competitiveness with regard to the

world and to the EU15. Also using the DRC ratio and farm-level data,

17

(Gorton et al., 2001) investigated how competitive Polish agriculture was

between 1996 and 1998.

Ahearn, Culver, and Schoney (1990) compared the competitiveness of

wheat production in the United States and Canada by calculating costs of

production in 1986-87. In the same way, (Bureau and Butault, 1992)

calculated the costs of production for the EU countries in 1984 to assess their

competitiveness in the soft wheat, sugar beet, hog and milk sectors. Again,

Bureau, Butault, and Hoque (1992) investigated the competitiveness in wheat

production of EU countries and the United States in 1984-86, by calculating

costs of production as an average over the period. Similarly, (Thorne, 2005)

measured the competitiveness of cereal production in Denmark, Germany,

France, Ireland, Italy and the United Kingdom during 1996-2000 by

calculating various cost indicators: total costs as a percentage of the value of

total output (including area payments); margin over costs per 100 kilograms

of output volume; and margin over costs per hectare of cereal production.

In order to assess the competitiveness of Canada’s agri-food industry in

1986, (van Duren et al., 1991) used three profit measures. He calculated the

profits by the ratio of value added to sales; value added to workers; or value

added to plants. These three indicators were then aggregated to compare the

competitiveness of Canada, the EU and the United States, according to their

ranking with each indicator. Viaene and Gellynck (1998) also evaluated the

competitiveness of the pig meat processing sector in Belgium during 1987-93

by looking at several profitability measures: the net sales margin (i.e. the net

profit relative to the level of sales); the business assets turnover (i.e. sales

divided by business assets); the ratio of net profits on own funds; and the

financial leverage. To evaluate the competitiveness of the Czech dairy

industry, (Bavorova, 2003) computed a yearly profitability measure as a

percentage of total profit in total costs.

18

Alvarano, Morina and Bol (2008) conducted another research to

investigate the communities that border the Parismina River of Costa Rica.

The main purpose of this study was to identify the structural weaknesses that

are present in enterprises of the region and the impact of these weaknesses on

the competitiveness factors identified by Organization for Economic

Cooperation and Development (OECD). The results indicated that factors

such as the organizational structure and the development of linkages across

the value chain severely affected business competitiveness in the region. In

addition, the ability to make decisions strengthened negotiation and marketing

position.

Mulder et al. (2004) investigated the competitiveness of agriculture and

the agro-food sector in the Mercosur countries and in the EU during 1991-99.

They calculated Real Exchange Rate (RER) and Relative Real Exchange

Rates (RRER). They showed that Mercosur countries (with the exception of

Paraguay for which it was stable) experienced until 1998 a decrease in

competitiveness (i.e. an increase in the exchange rate). In 1999, the

devaluation of the Brazilian currency increased competitiveness. Regarding

the EU countries, despite a convergence within the Euro countries since 1997,

figures revealed a group of countries with low competitiveness: Ireland, Italy,

Portugal and Spain.

Applying Balassa and Vollrath indices, competitiveness can be

measured. Several studies have applied these indices and have been widely

accepted. For instance, the competitiveness of Hungarian agro-food products

vis-à-vis the European Union (EU) was measured using these indices (the

original Balassa index, relative trade advantage, relative export advantage,

and natural logarithm of the relative export advantage) in the period 1992 to

1998 (Fertő and Hubbard, 2003).

Banterle and Carraresi (2007) assessed the competitiveness of the

prepared swine meat sector in the EU during 2000-03. Calculation of the

19

Export Market Size (EMS) revealed that during 2000-03, Italy had the highest

export share of the sector followed by Germany. As for comparative

advantage measures, Denmark had the highest Revealed Comparative

Advantage (RCA) score, followed by Italy, while low Revealed Import

Advantage (RMA) scores were found in Finland, Italy and Spain. Wijnands et

al. (2008) also assessed the competitiveness of the EU15 food industry vis-à-

vis Australia, Brazil, Canada, and the United States for the period 1996-2004.

Using trade data for individual countries, the authors calculated the growth of

RCA and the growth of EMS in the world market for the EU15 and the other

four countries. They found that the EU15 had very low competitiveness

compared to Brazil in terms of both measures, but higher competitiveness in

terms of share growth in the world market (although lower in terms of RCA

growth).

Concerning the effect of gender, competitiveness has also been studied

to compare the technical efficiency in terms of productivity between male and

female farmers. Quisumbing (1996) explained that, in general, studies

investigating male-female differences in technical efficiency show no

difference. This was also the case for the study by (Chavas, Petrie and Roth,

2005) for Gambian farmers in 1993. In contrast, (Timothy and Adeoti, 2006),

found that for cassava growers in Nigeria in 2004 female farmers showed

superior technical efficiency than male farmers, but lower allocate efficiency.

The authors attributed the differentials to different access to inputs. Mathijs

and Vranken (2001) reported that the share of women in the household had a

positive impact on the technical efficiency of Hungarian crop farms in 1997.

2.3. Methods for Measuring Competitiveness

Researchers study competitiveness either from the perspectives of a

nation or an individual firm. As a result, studies of competitiveness are found

across multiple disciplines including economics performance measurement,

strategic management, operations management as well as policy research.

Over the past decades, the literature on this subject mainly centred on

20

questions of measuring competitiveness using various indicators and

identifying sources of competitive advantage or so-called competitiveness

drivers. Attempts to answer these questions have produced extensive research,

especially in the strategic management and operations management fields of

study.

In strategic management, the approach assesses competitiveness

according to financial performance, and identifies competitiveness drivers as

competitive conditions of markets and resources of firms. To explain why

firms achieve different profit rates, the literature provides two important but

contrasting theories: the Industrial Organization (IO) and the Resource-Based

View (RBV) of the firm (Hoskisson et al., 1999). The IO theory explains why

firms operating in some industries are more profitable than others. It asserts

that firm profitability is a function of the industrial environment or market

conditions, since the nature of an industry directs behaviours of firms

(Hoskisson et al., 1999).

Resource Based View (RBV) theorists believe the firm’s resources are

the most important factors affecting profitability (Barney, 2001; Wernerfelt,

1984). The term “resources” refers to bundles of tangible and intangible assets

as well as skills, which are valuable, rare, imperfectly imitable and not

substitutable (Barney, Wright, and Ketchen, 2001). According to Barney

(1991), resources refer to “all assets, capabilities, organizational processes,

firm attributes, information, knowledge, etc controlled by a firm, that enable a

firm to develop and implement strategies that improve its efficiency and

effectiveness.” Thus By developing and exploiting firm resources, managers

can change the “rules of the game”– competitive conditions, and establish a

competitive advantage that addresses customer values (Stoelhorst and van

Raaij, 2004).

Market share is an indicator of competitiveness that measures the

percentage of a world commodity market held by an exporter. Shifts in market

21

share reflect changing competitiveness across countries. Market share can be

defined as:

MS ia = XS i

a / XS aw (1)

where (XS) denotes exports, subscript (a) refers to a commodity, (i) denote

home country and (w) refers to world.

The disadvantage of this measure is that simple comparisons of market share

may not describe an ability to compete because market share may be a result

of export subsidies. An example is Saudi Arabia where large subsidies and not

resource advantage increased its market share in wheat production (Vollrath,

1989). Swann and Taghavi (1992) pointed out that market shares alone give

no indication of how competitiveness will change with price, product

redesign, change in price or design of substitute, or the exchange rate. The use

of other measures helps to explain more about competitiveness (Vollrath,

1989).

Revealed Comparative Advantage (RCA) measures a country’s exports

of a commodity relative to its total exports and to the corresponding export

performance of a set of countries (competitors) (Vargas, 2006). The basic

logic behind RCA is to evaluate comparative advantage on the basis of a

country’s specialization in exports relative to some reference group (Batra and

Khan, 2005). Revealed Comparative Advantage (RCA) was first formulated

by Balassa (1965) and modified by Vollrath (1991) in order to avoid double

counting between pairs of countries. RCA is sometimes called the Balassa

index. Vollrath’s modified version is called the Relative export advantage

(RXA) measure, as it is based on exports. This calculates the ratio of a

country’s export share of a commodity in the international market to the

country’s export share of all other commodities.Vollrath (1991) on the other

hand, offered mainly three alternative ways of measurement of a country’s

RCA to calculate international competitiveness. These indices offer the

advantage that can be resorted into statistics of agricultural trade. These

22

equations measure the competitiveness and the export/import performance

through post-trade data, which allows distinguishing commodities that

possess competitiveness (Ayala-Garay et al., 2009). An index of export share

ratios reflects the extent of trade specialization. Aggregation and policy

effects may distort any measure of revealed comparative advantage (RCA)

and selection of a particular level of aggregation may obscure the pattern of

comparative advantage. Letting (i) denote country and (j) commodity:

RCAj = (Xij / Xiw) / (Xwj / Xw) (2)

where Xij is exports by country i of commodity j, Xiw is total exports of

country I (summed over j), Xwj is the total world trade in commodity j

(summed over i), and XW is total world trade (summed over i and j). This

measure gauges a country’s world export share of a commodity with its total

export share of total world exports. If country i’s share of world exports of

commodity j is greater than that country i’s share of world exports of all

goods, RCA > 1, suggesting a country has revealed a comparative advantage

in the production of that commodity.

Vollrath (1989) used RCA to show that from 1982 to 1986 the US had

a 53% share of world soybean exports compared to an 11% share of all

exports, making the relative export share of the US in soybeans almost 5,

suggesting that US was 5 times better at exporting soybeans than at exporting

all agricultural products. The US, Australia, and Canada showed relative

export advantages for wheat, and Pakistan and Thailand had higher relative

export advantages than the US in rice. Vollrath (1991) offers three alternative

specifications of revealed comparative advantage. The first is Relative Trade

Advantage (RTA), which is the difference between the Balassa relative export

advantage (RXA), and relative import advantage (RMA).

RXA = (Xij/Xit) / (Xnj/Xnt) (3)

where (n) is a set of countries and its counterpart relative import advantage

23

RMA = (Mij/Mit) / (Mnj/Mnt) (4)

Where (m) represents imports

RTA = RXA – RMA (5)

Vollrath’s second measure is the logarithm of the relative export advantage

(lnRXA) and his third measure is Revealed Competitiveness (RC).

RC = lnRXA – lnRMA (6)

Domestic Resource Cost (DRC) analysis and, more generally, cost-

benefit analysis constitutes an area of economic literature with many lessons

for the analysis of competitiveness (Balassa and Associates, 1982; and Siggel

and Cockburn, 1995). As its name implies, this predominantly empirical

branch is devoted to measuring the costs and benefits of specific projects and,

more generally, the so-called comparative advantage (essentially

competitiveness measured in the absence of price distortions) of firms and

industries. Costs and benefits are generally measured at social or shadow

prices thus eliminating the effects of price distortions. The domestic resource

costs (DRC) ratio compares the opportunity costs of domestic production with

the value added it generates (Gorton et al., 2001). It was originally proposed

for measuring the gain from expanding profitable projects or the cost of

maintaining unprofitable activities through trade protection (Masters and

Winter- Nelson, 1995). According to Masters and Winter-Nelson (1995)

because the DRC ratio is based on the cost of non-tradable inputs, it

understates the competitiveness of activities that use mainly such domestic

factors in comparison to those that rely more on tradable inputs. To overcome

this shortcoming, Masters and Winter-Nelson (1995) proposed the Social

Cost-Benefit (SCB) ratio. Using the same data as for the DRC ratio but in a

different relationship, the SCB ratio is defined as the ratio of the sum of

domestic (non-tradable) and tradable input cost to the price of the good

considered.

24

When it comes to the concept of competitiveness or competitive

advantage, existing work must be introduced from the basis of the theory and

research concerning competitive advantage completed by (Porter, 1990). In

his book of “The Competitive Advantage of Nations,” he addresses the

question “Why do nations succeed in particular industries, and what are the

implications for firms and for the national economies?” Porter stresses the

important role played by a nation’s economic environment, institutions and

policies.”

Porter (1990) was one of the first to underline the importance of firms’

strategy and structure in developing their competitiveness. The author

proposed the so-called “diamond model” according to which nations succeed

in industries for which the national diamond is the most favourable. The four

corners of the diamond are: 1) factor conditions; 2) demand conditions; 3)

presence of related and supporting industries; and 4) firm strategy, structure

and rivalry. In addition to the four factors, there is an interaction of other two

external factors: 5) government role and 6) chance. In this framework,

performance indicators such as cost superiority, profitability, productivity,

and efficiency reveal competitiveness.

Among management theories, Porter’s (1990) framework and the

resource-based view (RBV) have been recognized as the most influential

perspectives to explain competitive advantage and why some firms succeed

where others fail (Powell, 2001). Those scholars who believe that competitive

advantage is associated with firms’ specific resources (Foss, 1997; Wernefelt,

1984) have supported the RBV theory. Supporters of this theory claim that the

management of firms’ specific resources is the main determinant of

differential performances between companies (Barney, 2001). They argue that

those companies capable of developing rare and non-substitutable resources

and capabilities such as technical knowledge, managerial ability, and

organizational capabilities (routines and interactions); will achieve

25

competitive advantage over competing firms (Barney, 1991; Wernerfelt,

1984).

SWOT analysis is a planning tool that aims at identifying the strengths

and weaknesses of an organization and the opportunities and threats in the

environment. The SWOT analysis is a qualitative method for the strategic

planning. It is able to help enterprises evaluate their competitiveness

qualitatively and can be used as a foundation for the development of

strategies. The strengths and weaknesses are the internal factors while the

threats and opportunities are the external factors. It is commonly accepted that

the strengths and weaknesses demonstrate the organizations internal

characteristics and are controllable whereas, an organization’s opportunities

and threats are determined by external factors on which it has no direct

control but can react to its own advantage. The method allows organizations

to understand and plan using their strengths to exploit opportunities to

recognize and repair or avoid weaknesses and to defend against or sidestep

any known threats (Weihrich, Cannice, and Koontz, 2008).

Due to its above-mentioned capabilities in strategic management,

SWOT analysis has been widely utilized in various business settings to make

effective decisions. However, it possesses a major drawback; the lack of the

identification of the importance ranking for the SWOT factors/criteria.

Therefore, researchers developed models which incorporate Analytic

Hierarchy Process (AHP) in SWOT and named their approaches ‘‘SWOT-

AHP method (or analysis)’’ which can determine the priorities for the SWOT

factors (Kurttila, et al., 2000).

The method has been used in several cases to evaluate the

competitiveness of different sectors for example, The SWOT analysis was

used to develop the systematic competitiveness of fresh tomato industry of

Zacatecas (Mexico) protected agriculture (Padilla-Bernal, et al., 2010).

Alcantara et al. (2009) used a SWOT method to evaluate the drivers of

26

competitiveness by identifying the strengths and weaknesses of the Brazilian

agri-systems to take advantage of possible opportunity of increasing export to

EU in the face of scenarios of trade agreements. Rochman et al. (2011)

examined nanotechnology development strategy to increase competitiveness

of national agro-industries by using quantitative SWOT-AHP analysis.

Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a multi-objective or multicriteria

measurement that helps to address the complicated decision problem,

identifying decision making factors, measuring the importance of the factors,

and synthesizing all the decision making factors (Saaty, 2008). AHP reflects a

simple fact that the nature of decision-making requires a series of logical

considerations of different factors involved in a certain decision-making

situation. Many times, decision-making factors are difficult to quantify or

prioritise, as they are intangible, subjective, and non-quantifiable. One of the

advantages of AHP is that the method can convert intangible factors into

numerical values, and systematically evaluate weights of selected factors in

pairs through a series of comparisons (Saaty, 2008). Therefore, the

cornerstone of AHP is the logic of pair-wise comparison. The pair-wise

comparisons allow for the production of the relative importance value, which

is called weight, and the importance value is computed using the Eigenvalue

method.

The AHP is an intuitively easy method for formulating and analysing

decisions. The process was developed to solve a specific class of problems

that involve the prioritization of potential alternative solutions. A Consistency

Ratio is calculated to check the consistency of judgments. Inconsistency is

likely to occur when decision-makers make careless errors or exaggerated

judgments during the process of pair-wise comparison. A consistency ratio of

0.1 is considered the acceptable upper limit.

The outcome of the AHP is an optimum choice among alternative

decisions. The model utilizes quantitative as well as qualitative factors in its

27

analysis. Tavana (2004) has pointed out that AHP is preferred to multiple

regressions for qualitative criteria because these criteria do not allow for an

easy derivation of measurable attributes, however, operationally, the multiple

attribute utility approach does better than AHP. AHP has several advantages,

including over-specification of judgment, built-in consistency tests, use of

appropriate measurement scales and applicability in elicitation of utility

functions. Due to these advantages, there has been a successful application of

the AHP to a variety of problem areas, including allocation of resources,

conflict resolution, forecasting, input output analysis, planning, choice of

behaviour and sustainable development planning (Quaddus and Siddique,

2001).

AHP has also been used to measure competitiveness in different

studies. For example, AHP was one of the analytical methods used to evaluate

tourism competitiveness on selection of tourism destination. The other

methods include Multiple Criteria Decision Evaluation Model, Data

Envelopment Analysis (DEA), Consumer Demand Model, and Regression

Model (Chang, 1997; Shen and Tsai, 2001; Shen and Hsieh, 2002). Sirikai

(2006) analyzed the competitiveness of automotive components industry in

Thailand by evaluating trade-offs among the varying degrees of importance of

competitiveness indicators and the different effects of competitiveness

drivers. Another study by (Li and Tian, 2012) was conducted using AHP to

evaluate the performance of specialized cooperative organizations of farmers

in Sichuan, China.

28

29

3. Methodology

The primary purpose of this study was to analyse women farmers’

empowerment in Malawi through competitive analyses. To accomplish this

purpose, the research adopted a SWOT analysis to identify women farmers’

strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats as well as to formulate

strategies. These were linked to the Porter’s Diamond Model to identify

factors of competitiveness and alternatives for women empowerment. Porter’s

Diamond Model was adopted and modified so that as it is a commonly used

measure of competitiveness, it may also apply to the situation of women

farmers. Then, an Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method was used to

determine the importance of the factors and alternative strategies in

empowering women farmers. The first section of this chapter presents the

research framework where models and methods are identified. The second

section describes the questionnaire design. The sampling method is presented

in the third section. Section 4 presents the description of statistical analysis

for the study.

3.1. The Research Framework

Figure 3.1 illustrate the research framework for this study. It shows the

procedure that was followed to conduct this research to meet the objectives.

30

Figure 3.1. Research Framework for Determining the Competitiveness of

Malawian Women Farmers.

31

3.1.1. The SWOT Analysis Application

A SWOT analysis was done to come up with strengths, weaknesses,

opportunities and threats for women farmers in Malawi. In this study, the

SWOT analysis provides a clear picture of the position of Malawian women

farmers in the agriculture sector, which determines their competitiveness. The

strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats are explained in details in this

section. Table 3.1 shows the SWOT matrix for women farmers in Malawi.

Strengths

1. Women are equipped with local and indigenous knowledge. Malawian

women are the custodians of local and indigenous knowledge. By

having such knowledge, new technologies would just build on the

existing knowledge. FAO (2005) reported that local knowledge serves

as a critical livelihood asset for poor rural women for securing food,

shelter and medicines.

2. Women are hard working. A survey by FAO in 2010 found out that in

sub-Saharan Africa, women grow as much as 90 percent of the regions

food (FAO, 2010). The working day of women is at least 50 percent

longer than that of men. Many women in developing countries

including Malawi work an average of 12-16 hours in a day (Sinn and

Wahyuni, 1996). Women’s triple roles often translate to working long

hours and this manifests their hardworking spirit as they ensure that

they fulfill all their roles. With proper planning and equity in

distribution of roles this hardworking and long hours working can be

productive without compromising their health.

3. Women farmers have the ability to produce efficiently. Just like male

farmers, women can produce efficiently given the right production

conditions. Substantial and growing evidence demonstrate that women

farmers can produce on par with or better than men can (Quisumbing,

1996). With similar access to resources and inputs as men, women

32

stand to achieve equal or higher yields than men. If women farmers

were given the same access to resources (such as finance), women’s

agricultural yields could increase by 20 to 30 percent; national

agricultural production could rise by 2.5 percent to 4 percent; and the

number of malnourished people could be reduced by 12 to 17 percent

(FAO, 2011).

4. Women farmers often diversify their enterprises. In most cases, they are

involved in a number of agricultural enterprises including crops,

livestock, off-farm activities and small and medium enterprises. Their

ability to intercrop the staple food crop with other legumes and

vegetables on the very small piece of land gives them an advantage in

terms of engaging in different economic activities both on and off the

farm. As a result, they are able to cope with changes in the market since

they can supply different products.

5. Women farmers are market sensitive and are aware of the changes

taking place the market hence they are able to respond to these changes

by diversifying their enterprises.

Weaknesses

1. Time constraints - Women perform multiple roles as agricultural

producers, workers, mothers, and caregivers (Razavi and Miller, 1998).

Women face far greater time constraints than men. They may spend

less time on farm work but work longer total hours on productive and

household work and paid and unpaid work, due to gender-based

division of labour in childcare and household responsibilities.

2. Small land holding sizes - In most parts of sub-Saharan Africa

including Malawi where customary property regimes prevail,

community leaders tend to favor males over females in the allocation of

land, both in terms of quantity and quality. Malawi is a densely

populated country with an average land holding size of less than a

33

hectare. However, men continue to dominate over them in terms of land

holding. Small land holding sizes is common in Malawi especially

among women (FAO, 2010).

3. Poor access to markets - One of the major challenges that farmers in

Malawi face is poor access to markets for their agricultural produce.

Due to poor market infrastructure farmers tend to travel long distances

to urban areas in search for viable markets. Due to lower economic

status than men, women tend to face challenges to travel to such

markets. Furthermore, traveling to such distant markets compromises

their reproductive roles. This trend results into women being forced to

use local markets trading with intermediate buyers who reap them off

by buying at poor prices. The situation for Malawian women farmers is

even worse considering the disproportionate obstacles in accessing and

competing in markets. These include women’s relative lack of mobility,

capacity and technical skills in relation to men (World Bank, FAO and

IFAD, 2009).

4. Illiteracy levels among women in Malawi are over 60 percent (GOM,

2010), which poses a challenge for them to ably indulge in market-

oriented farming. Until recently, the boy child was the most favored in

terms of education as the belief was women would rely on their

husbands once they are married. Hence, illiteracy level is higher among

women than men. This trend has had an impact on record keeping and

access to information that is important to agribusiness. Furthermore,

high illiteracy levels affect technology adoption, which impacts heavily

on enhancement on agriculture production (World Bank, 2007).

5. Less access to financial and credit facilities - Women compared to men

have less access to financial and credit facilities in most developing

countries including Malawi (FAO, 2010). Women have less access to

formal financial services because of high transaction costs, limited

education and mobility, social and cultural barriers, the nature of their

34

businesses, and collateral requirements, such as land title, they can’t

meet. Women’s roles as primary caregivers and health risks associated

with childbearing also lead to intermittency in employment, which

makes them risky clients for banks.

6. Less access to agricultural extension services - On average, women

have less access to agricultural extension services compared to men.

Some of the reasons for this bias are: women's daily workloads do not

usually allow them to be absent from home for residential training.

Second, these services have been predominantly staffed by and they

tended to direct their services to male farmers or heads of households,

excluding female-headed households and women members of male-

headed households (World Bank, 2000). Women farmers have less

contact with extension services than men do, especially where male-

female contact is culturally restricted. Male agents often provide

extension to men farmers on the wrong assumption that the message

will trickle down to women. In fact, agricultural knowledge is

transferred inefficiently or not at all from husband to wife. In addition,

the message tends to ignore the unique workload, responsibilities, and

constraints facing women farmers.

7. Poor access to and control over production resources - Generally,

Malawian women farmers have poor access to and control over

production resources. Women produce most of the food that is

consumed locally and are responsible for household food security in

many rural areas. More equitable access to land, fertilizers, water for

irrigation, seeds, technology, tools, livestock and extension services

would make agriculture a more efficient means of promoting shared

economic growth, reducing poverty and improving food security and

rural livelihoods. They often have weak property and contractual rights

to land, water and other natural resources. Even where legislation is in

35

place, lack of legal knowledge and weak implementation often limits

the ability of women to exercise their rights (Koopman, 1993).

36

Opportunities

1. Existing government support - the government of Malawi makes an

effort to support women farmers through the formulation of policies

under various government policy strategies like the Malawi Growth and

Development Strategy (MGDS), the Millennium Development Goals

(MGD) of the United Nations to address issues of gender. Government

support has been evident through setting a ministry (Ministry of

Gender, Child Development and Community Development)

specifically looking at gender issues. Furthermore, gender focal points

have been put in government institutions besides allocation of funds

meant for reducing gender inequalities. With such support, the

initiatives that aim at ensuring equity and equality can be achieved. The

government also implements projects and programs that are aimed at

empowering and supporting women farmers to enhance their

contribution in the agriculture sector. Some of these programs include:

provision of input subsidies that benefit disadvantaged farmers

including women (for example the Farm Input Subsidy Program

(FISP); provision of micro-loans; linking women farmers to markets

and negotiating product prices with international buyers on behalf of

farmers; investing in education for girls; and protecting women’s

property rights. To ensure incorporation of gender as a crosscutting

issue in all the agricultural development programs, the government

promotes a gender mainstreaming approach.

2. Gender awareness campaigns - Gender issues cut across virtually all

aspects of agriculture. In recent years, greater attention has been

devoted to gender at both national and international levels and since the

recognition of the contribution of women in agriculture, there have

been gender awareness campaigns at both levels. With more donor

support which emphasis upholding of human rights especially those of

37

the marginalized, the country embarked on sensitization campaigns

which have opened up people’s minds to ably challenge practices that

abuse women. These campaigns are continuing which simplifies the

efforts in ensuring that women are empowered and participate actively

in decision making

3. Existing support from the private sector and Non-Governmental

Organizations (NGOs) - the private sector and NGOs like World Bank

has institutional policies and commitments to ending discrimination

against women and promoting gender equality in Malawi. Some of the

interventions include investment in women education, provision of

credits, promotion of income generating activities, promoting the use of

labor and time saving technologies, encouraging the growing of high-

value agricultural commodities and promoting value addition to

agricultural products. NGOs continue to play a lead role in ensuring

that women farmers receive training, information, and improved

technologies. Their services often are increasing in scope and scale,

either as complementary support to government efforts or to fill the

gaps created as government expenditures and capabilities decline. An

important emphasis, which recently has been highlighted in NGO

programmes, is their support for membership-based community and

farmer organizations. Women as well as men benefit from the

expanding opportunities to develop farmer-to-farmer extension and

training networks and to form partnerships with agricultural researchers

and development agencies (World Bank, 2007).

4. The government of Malawi enforces laws to protect women’s rights.

The Malawi constitution prohibits any discrimination based on gender,

race or tribe. This is an opportunity for reducing gender inequalities

since it is the only way to challenge patriarchy system. Several reforms

have taken place to ensure that legally women are protected from any

sort of discrimination. For instance, under the land reforms, the

38

constitution any inheritance of property based on ones gender but all

children regardless of sex has equal opportunity of inheriting property.

The only challenge is to sensitize communities on their rights and about

the constitution to guide their actions.

Threats

1. Global Climate change is one of the greatest threats to the agricultural

sector in the world today and Malawi has not been spared from the

impacts of climate change. For the past years, there have been

incidences of droughts in the country that have resulted in crop failures.

Although the impacts of climate change are experienced in the whole

agricultural sector, but the impact is great among women farmers due to

other disadvantages in accessing the production resources.

2. In most African countries, gender discrimination exists and it is usually

cultural based. In Malawi, the situation is the same. Social norms

underlie the allocation of land, men’s and women’s labour allocation in

agriculture. This traditional bias against women has led to an

asymmetric distribution of rights, resources and responsibilities (Udry,

1996). In addition, women are considered second citizens in the society

such that they are denied most development privileges. In Malawi a

number of forms of discrimination still persist especially in rural areas

where cultural traditions are still very strong. The government of

Malawi has adopted various international conventions advocating for

an end to discrimination against women but the extent to which these

conventions have been implemented is not known.

3. The agricultural marketing system in Malawi experiences several

failures ranging from poor agricultural prices, inadequate demand for

the agricultural products, overproduction that causes abundant supply

of products and crop failure that reduces the supply of the products. All

these become a threat to farmers’ especially small-scale farmers

including women.

39

4. Human Immuno-deficiency Virus/Acquired Immune Deficiency

Syndrome (HIV/AIDS) pandemic is a critical problem for rural

development and for rural women in particular, especially in sub-

Saharan Africa. HIV/AIDS has severe impacts on women and girls

because of gender specific division of family care, labour and resource

control, as well as gender related discrimination. In addition, women

and girls spend so much time taking care for the sick, attending

funerals, which exacerbate their problems of time constraints.

5. Competition from male farmers - Men already have an upper hand over

the women hence cannot effectively compete. In terms of access and

control over productive resources and markets, where women’s issues

are not considered then the competition would be unfair to women.

Where fairness is orchestrated, women can ably compete with male

farmers. Women farmers face a threat of competition from male

farmers who have more resources, are equipped with more technical

knowledge and their scale of production is much higher than that of

female farmers.

3.1.2. Strategy Formulation for Malawian Women Farmers

SWOT matrix presents a mechanism for facilitating the linkage among

strengths and weaknesses (internal factors), and threats and opportunities

(external factors). It also provides a framework for identifying and

formulating strategies. SWOT matrix helps to develop four types of strategies,

namely SO (strengths-opportunities) strategies, WO (weaknesses-

opportunities) strategies, ST (strengths-threats) strategies, and WT

(weaknesses-threats) strategies. SO strategies use internal strengths to take

advantage of external opportunities. WO strategies improve internal

weaknesses by taking advantage of external opportunities. ST strategies use

strengths to avoid or reduce the impact of external threats. WT strategies are

defensive tactics directed at reducing internal weaknesses and avoiding

40

environmental threats (Weihrich, 1982). Table 3.2 shows strategies

formulated for Malawian women farmers.

41

Table 3.1. SWOT Matrix for Malawian Women Farmers

Internal factors (controllable) External factors

(uncontrollable)

Favorable

factors

Strengths (S)

SO: Well equipped with local and

indigenous knowledge

S2: Hard working

S3: Ability to produce efficiently

S4: Market Sensitive

S5: Ability to diversify enterprises

Opportunities (O)

O1: Existing

government support

O2: Existing NGOs and

private sector support

O3: Existing legal

framework to protect

women’s rights

O4: Existing gender

awareness campaigns

Unfavorable

factors

Weaknesses (W)

W1: Time constraints

W2: Small land holding sizes

W3: Poor market access

W4: Poor education

W5: Lack of access to credit

services

W6: Inadequate access to

agricultural extension services

W7: Lack of access to and control

Threats (T)

T1: Climate change

T2: Gender

discrimination

T3: HIV/AIDS

pandemic

T4: Poor agricultural

prices

T5: Competition from

male farmers

42

over production resources

Table 3.2. Strategies Formulated for Malawian Women Farmers

Strengths (S) Weaknesses (W)

Opportunities

(O)

SO strategies

Establishment of financial

institutions to provide loans

and other financial related

assistance

WO strategies

Availability of

training and

extension to women

farmers

Threats (T)

ST strategies

Formation of women

farmer’s Production

Marketing Teams (PMTs)

Establishment of women

farmers associations

WT strategies

Government to help

transfer women

farmers out of

farming

3.1.3. Porter’s Diamond Model Application

Porter’s Diamond Model offers an organisational structure for

development linked to a theory of competitive advantage of Malawian women

farmers in the agricultural sector. This study determines whether Porter’s

(1990) theory of competitive advantage and his analysis of global competition

focusing on inter-firm competition is an appropriate model for Malawian

women farmers.

Michael Porter’s Diamond Model (Porter, 1990) is a useful technique

for identifying the factors that an enterprise has to consider in the business

operation and the interactions between these factors with a consideration of

the organisational structure, external competition and strategic decisions. The

diamond model comprises four major factors and two accessorial factors.

Although the variables function independently, an advantage variable in one

43

element can provide, or improve, the advantage in another variable. This

model was adopted and modified for this research purpose with a

consideration of unique characteristics of the context in which the model has

been applied. Five factors are incorporated in this study; these and their

corresponding sub-factors are described below:

1. Factor conditions: These are factors of production and inputs required

to compete in the industry. Under this factor/criterion, the following

sub criteria were identified: a) Human resources - this sub criterion

looks at the quantity, skills and cost of personnel for example,

extension workers working with women farmers, and the labour

required to become competitive. b) Natural resources - this sub

criterion looks at the abundance, quality, accessibility and the cost of

resources for production such as land and water. c) Technique and

equipment - this factor analyses the women farmer’s stock of scientific,

technical and market knowledge that can enhance their

competitiveness. It also considers the availability, and access to

equipment for production like machinery. d) Financial and capital

resources - this sub criterion looks at the amount and costs of capital

available to finance women farmer’s enterprises. e) Farm location - the

location of the farm has a great impact on the transportation costs and

on the cultural and business interchange of enterprises. f) Marketing

resources - this factor analyses the availability and the quality of

important marketing resources like storage facilities, transportation

means.

2. Demand conditions: Demand conditions emphasise the nature of the

consumer demand in the home country in motivating a firm to increase

its competitive position. In this study, the following sub criteria have

been considered: a) Availability of market for the produce by women

farmers - this sub criteria looks at both the domestic and international

demand for the products and services offered by women farmers. The

higher the demand, the more competitive advantage women farmers

44

have. b) Consumer’s preference to safe produce - this factor considers

consumer preferences in demanding safe products and services. The

stricter the consumers are in their preference towards safe foods, the

more creative and careful women farmers will be and this will create

their competitiveness. c) Consumer’s preference to value-added

produce - this factor considers consumer preferences in demanding

value-added products. The stricter the consumers are in their preference

towards value-added products, the more innovative and careful women

farmers will be and this will create their competitiveness.

3. Related and supporting industries: The presence or absence in a

nation of supplier industries and related industries, which are globally

competitive. In this study, the following sub criteria were considered

under this criterion: a) Availability and consistency of supply inputs -

this factor analyses the supply chain for important inputs needed by

women farmers like fertilizer, seeds and chemicals. b) Availability of

on-job education and training - the effectiveness of available

institutions in providing on-job education and training to women

farmers in their various enterprises. c) Property rights/legal protection -

the effectiveness of legal protection for women farmers on issues of

property rights.

4. Firm strategy, structure and rivalries: The conditions that govern

how companies are created, organised, managed, and as well as

determine the nature of domestic rivalry. This study considers the

following: a) too many farmers - the competition that exists due to the

availability of too many farmers who produce almost homogenous

products. The competition triggers innovation among farmers, which in

turn creates competitiveness. b) Forming business alliances - this can

help to reduce the cost of production for example by buying inputs

together in bulk or transporting produce together. c) Low cost

production practices – the use of low cost production techniques such

as physical and biological methods of weeds and pest control, manure

45

usage instead of fertilizer, which is expensive to reduce production

costs. d) Contract farming - the involvement of women farmers in

contract farming which can help them secure markets as well as good

prices for their products.

5. Government role: Government policies have a great influence on the

success of an industry. In this study, the following government support

initiatives are considered to enhance the competitiveness of women

farmers: a) Availability of budget to implement policies and programs -

government budget allocation for the implementation of policies and

programs that support women farmers. b) Enforcement of policies and

programs - the effectiveness and the extent to which the government

enforces policies and programs that empowers and supports women

farmers. c) Provision of subsidies and direct payment - the extent to

which the government come in to help women farmers through

subsidies (for inputs and other production resources) or thorough direct

payments that help to finance their enterprises. d) Provision of micro-

loans - whether the government provides micro-loans which benefit

women farmers in financing their enterprises. e) Provision of insurance

for protection - whether the government provides insurance to women

farmers for protection against risks and uncertainties.

In this research, the chance factor was not considered as it has already

been incorporated in other factors. In this study, the framework was used to

come up with the determinants of competitiveness for Malawian women

farmers in the agricultural sector based on the competitive elements

developed by Michael Porter in his book “The Competitive Advantage of

Nations” (Porter, 1990). The modified framework is illustrated in figure 3.2.

46

Figure 3.2. Modified Diamond Model, Adapted from Porter (1990).

47

Related and supporting industries: Availability

and consistency of supply inputs, Availability of

on-job education and training and Property

rights/legal protection

Demand conditions:

Availability of markets for

women farmers produce;

Consumer’s preferences

to safe produce and

Consumers’ preference to

value added produce

The role of the

government:

Availability of budget to

implement policies and

programs, Enforcement

of policies and

programs, Provision of

subsidies and direct

payment, Provision of

micro-loans and

Provision of insurance

for protection

Firm strategy, structure

and rivalry: Too many

farmers, Formation of

business alliances, Low cost

production practices and

Contract farming

Factor conditions:

Human resources, Natural

resources, Technique and

equipment, Financial and

capital resources, Farm

location and Marketing

resources

3.1.4. Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) Method Application

As a decision model that decomposes a complex multicriteria decision

problem into a hierarchy (Saaty, 1980), AHP is also a measurement theory

that prioritises the hierarchy and consistency of judgmental data provided by a

group of decision makers. AHP incorporates the evaluations of all decision

makers into a final decision, without having to elicit their utility functions on

the subjective and objective criteria, by pair-wise comparisons of the

alternatives (Porter, 1990). Saaty (1980) has enveloped the AHP that can

enable decision makers to represent the interaction of multiple factors in

complex situations. The process requires the decision makers to develop a

hierarchical structure for the factors that are explicit in the given problem and

to provide judgments about relative importance of each of these factors,

specify a preference for each decision alternative with respect to each factor.

It provides a prioritised ranking order indicating the overall preference for

each of the decision alternatives.

An advantage of AHP over other multicriteria decision-making

methods is that AHP is designed to incorporate tangible as well as intangible

factors especially where the subjective judgments of different individuals

constitute an important part of the decision process. Therefore, AHP has been

successfully applied in a diverse array of problems, with the calculation

procedure as follows.

Step 1: Determine the objective and the evaluation factors. This step involves

development of the hierarchical structure with a goal or objective on the top

level, the factors at the second level and the sub-factors at the third level and

lastly the alternatives. Step 2: Find out the relative importance of different

factors with respect to the goal or objective. Construct a pair-wise matrix

using a scale of relative importance. The judgments are entered using the

fundamental scale of the AHP. Step 3: The next step is to compare the

48

candidate alternatives pair-wise with respect to the how much better (more

dominant) in satisfying each of the factors. It is ascertaining how well each

candidate alternative serves each factor. Step 4: The next step is to obtain

composite weights for each of the alternatives by multiplying the relative

normalised weight (Wi) of each factor with its corresponding normalised

weight value for each alternative and making summation over all the factors

for each alternative.

Then the comparison scale is used which was based on a

mathematically based, multi-objective decision-making tool that was

introduced by Saaty (1990). The AHP scoring system is a ratio scale where

the ratios indicate the degree of preference. The nine-point scale has been the

standard rating system used for the AHP. Table 3.3 shows the description of

the standard preference scoring system used for the AHP in the questionnaire.

Table 3.3. Standard Preference Scoring System for AHP, (Saaty, 1990)

Intensity of

importance

Definition Explanation

1:1 Equal importance Two elements contribute equally to

the objective

3:1 Moderate importance Experience and judgment

moderately favour one element

over another

5:1 Strong importance Experience and judgment strongly

favour one element over another

7:1 Very strong

importance

One element is favoured strongly

over another, its dominance is

demonstrated in practice

9:1 Extreme importance The evidence favouring one

element over the other is of highest

possible order of affirmation

49

2,4,6,8 Intermediate values When compromise is needed

between two elements

Using the AHP method, a criteria hierarchy with three levels including

5 principal criteria, 21 sub-criteria and 5 alternatives was designed as a

framework of an evaluation model. The quantitative analysis was then

conducted using AHP by calculating the importance weight of each criterion.

Figure 3.3 shows the AHP hierarchical structure for this study.

Figure 3.3. AHP Hierarchical Structure

3.2. Questionnaire Design

To support the general analysis of the situation of women

empowerment and competitiveness from literature, interviews were conducted

to evaluate more qualitative aspects and gain insights of the current situation

50

of Malawian women farmers. The questionnaire was designed based on

literature published previously and the theoretical framework of Porter’s

Diamond Model. Based on the hierarchical structure of the AHP ranking for

the determination of elements of competitiveness for Malawian women

farmers in the agricultural sector, the survey consisted of the following

sections: the first section looked at the general background information of the

survey respondents. The second section sought respondents’ opinions of

various statements on elements of competitiveness. The third section

investigated the most important criteria for determining the competitiveness

of women farmers in Malawian agriculture sector. Fourth section investigated

the best sub criteria for the factor conditions. Fifth section tried to find out the

most important sub criteria for the demand conditions. The sixth section

measured the most suitable criteria for the strategy, structure and rivalry. The

sixth section determined the best sub criteria for the government role and

support for women farmers. Section 7 evaluated the alternatives for enhancing

the competitiveness of women farmers in the agricultural sector. The

questionnaires are attached in Appendix II and III.

3.3. Sampling Plan

This section describes in details the procedure followed to draw

respondents for the survey. This study was conducted in Rumphi district in

the northern region of Malawi. The country is divided into 3 regions: northern

region, which has 6 districts, central region with 9 districts and southern

region with 13 districts. Rumphi is one of the districts among the 6 districts in

the northern region. The district was chosen for the study because it is one of

the districts where many agricultural activities take place. The district is

divided into 5 Extension Planning Areas (EPAs) namely Bolero, Mpherembe,

Mhuju, Mphompha and Ntchenachena and among these, Bolero EPA was

selected for convenience. The study targeted three categories of respondents,

women farmers, government officials (agricultural extension workers directly

working with women farmers) and researchers working on women issues. To

51

select respondents, two sampling techniques were used: random sampling and

purposive or judgmental sampling. Random sampling was used to select 30

women farmers among a population of about 3000 women farmers in the

study area representing 10 percent. The technique was selected because it

gives an equal chance to all the elements in the population of being selected.

The second category of respondents was agricultural extension

workers. A total number of 10 extension workers were targeted and selected

from Bolero EPA. A purposive or judgmental sampling technique was

employed. In this method, the researcher chooses the sample based on whom

they think would be appropriate for the study. In this case, the respondents

sought were those directly working with women farmers. This technique is

used primarily when there are a limited number of people with expertise in the

area being researched as it was in this case.

The third category was researchers that are working on women farmers

issues. A total number of 5 researchers were targeted and selected for this

study. Like the previous category, the sample was selected using purposive or

judgmental sampling technique.

Although the sample size is small for this study, respondent size is not a

limitation as Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method can be conducted

with small number of responses. In addition, AHP is designed to survey

people such as decision makers, who have specific knowledge about the topic

(Masozera et al., 2006).

3.4. Statistical Analysis

The primary data on the background information of the respondents

was analysed using Statistical Package for Social Scientists (SPSS 19) to

generate frequencies using descriptive statistics. The data obtained following

AHP method was analysed using Expert Choice software version 11.

52

A consistency test was also done using Expert choice software.

Because people tend to make inconsistent decisions, decision-making science

should judge the consistency of decision-making (Saaty, 2008). Consistency

Ratio (CR) is one of the most important cornerstones of AHP and can be

illustrated in the following manner: if factor A is more important than factor

B, and factor B is more important than factor C, then ultimately factor A

should be more important than factor C. However, there are instances where

people do not use this logic. A CR test is a measurement of validity of the

survey respondent’s responses. In this study, a consistency test was conducted

after obtaining the weights and ranks from the pair-wise comparison matrix

for the criteria. The test is performed to obtain the Consistency Index (CI) as

well as the Consistency Ratio (CR). The Consistency Ratio tells the decision

maker how consistent he/she has been when making the pair-wise

comparisons. Saaty (1990) proposed utilising a consistency ratio to verify the

consistency of the comparison matrix. CI and RI are defined as follows:

C.I = λmax – n

n-1

CR = CI/RI

where RI is the random index and it denotes the average CI over numerous

random entries of same order reciprocal matrices. If CR ≤ 0.1, the estimate is

accepted otherwise, a new comparison matrix is solicited until CR ≤ 0.1.

Table 3.4 indicates the random index numbers developed by Saaty (1990).

Table 3.4. Random Index Numbers (Saaty, 1990)

n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

R.I .00 .00 .58 .90 1.12 1.24 1.32 1.41 1.45 1.49 1.51

53

54

4. Results and Discussion

This chapter presents and discusses findings from the analyses of the

primary data. The first section presents the characteristics of survey

respondents. The second section presents results of the respondents’ opinions

regarding elements of competitiveness. The third section presents the analysis

results of the elements of competitiveness based on the application of the

Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method.

4.1. Characteristics of Survey Respondents

A total of 45 questionnaires were sent to three different categories of

respondents (5 researchers, 10 extension workers and 30 women farmers). All

these questionnaires were returned which represent a 100 percent response

rate. Figure (4.1, 4.2 and 4.3) shows the background information of survey

respondents.

Figure 4.1. Characteristics of Researchers and Extension Workers (n=5,

researchers and n=10, extension workers).

55

According to figure 4.1, the results show that 3 out of 5 researchers

were female and 2 were male representing 60 and 40 percent respectively.

The results also indicate that 2 out of 5 researchers interviewed had Bachelors

56

degree, 2 had masters’ degree and only 1 had a PhD degree. The graph also

shows that 1 researcher had less than 5 years of work experience, 2 had

between 5-10 years and 2 had more than 10 years of work experience. For the

extension workers, the results show that 6 of them were male while 4 were

female representing 60 and 40 percent respectively. The figure also shows

that 3 of the extension workers had a certificate, 5 had a diploma and 2 had a

bachelor’s degree. The figure also indicates that 7 of the extension workers

had between 5-10 years of work experience and 3 had more than 10 years of

work experience.

Figure 4.2. Characteristics of Farmers (n=30).

From figure 4.2, it is clear that more than 50 percent of the farmers

interviewed were aged less than 50 years. It also shows that about 66 percent

of the women interviewed were married while about 33 percent were either

widowed, divorced or separated. All the women farmers interviewed had

attended either primary or secondary education, however, 70 percent of them

had only attended primary education and 30 percent had attended secondary

education. Almost 50 percent of the women farmers interviewed indicated

their household size of more than 6 people which is above national average of

4.4 (2008 Population and Housing Census) (GOM, 2008) while the other 50

percent is distributed among the household sizes of (2-5 people).

57

Figure 4.3. Economic Activities of Women Farmers (n=30).

With reference to figure 4.3, the results indicate that more than 66

percent of women farmers interviewed grow tobacco, more than 90 percent

grow maize and more than 50 percent of them grow soybeans. It was also

found out that very few of them (about 6 percent) grow cassava. This is so

because tobacco is the main cash crop while maize is the staple food. Soybean

is a crop being promoted to improve diets at household level and also grown

as a cash crop by women farmers in the study area. Cassava is less grown

because traditionally the people of this area do not consume it as a staple. The

type of livestock that is commonly kept was found to be chicken where in this

case 80 percent of the respondents indicated that they keep chicken. This is so

because chicken are relatively cheap to acquire for parent stock, easy to keep

and manage and they can be raised on a small piece of land. Besides, women

tend to keep them to supplement their income needs when they sell them. The

second commonly kept type of livestock were goats where in this case about

30 percent of the women farmers were found to be raising goats. Like

chickens, goats are easier to manage on a free range system and are

commonly used in traditional functions like weddings and funerals. The figure

also shows that more than 70 percent of the respondents earn their income

through sales of farm produce. This shows that most of the respondents were

full time farmers and depend on agriculture for their livelihoods.

58

4.2. Results of Respondent’s Opinions on Elements of Competitiveness

The results of experts’ opinions on the elements of competitiveness are

presented in table 4.1.

Table 4.1. Summary of Experts’ Opinions on the Elements of Competitiveness

Statements Researcher’s

opinions (n=5)

Extension

worker’s

opinions

(n=10)

Farmer’s

opinions

(n=30)

There are adequate production

factors available to women

farmers

Disagree Disagree Agree

There is enough demand for

produce made by women farmersAgree Disagree Disagree

Related and supporting

industries’ cooperation is needed

in women farmers’ production

Strongly agreeStrongly

agree

Strongly

agree

The strategies and structures are

important to empower women

farmers

Strongly agreeStrongly

agree

Strongly

agree

The government’s role is very

important to empower women

farmers

Strongly agreeStrongly

agree

Strongly

agree

The results indicate that almost all the researchers (representing more

than 80 percent) agree to the statements that there is demand for women

farmers produce, that there is need for cooperation among related and

supporting industries, that strategies and structures are important for women

farmers and that the government role is important in empowering women

farmers. However, 80 percent of the researchers disagree that production

factors are available for women farmers. The results also indicate that more

59

than 80 percent of the extension workers agree that there is need for

cooperation among related and supporting industries, that strategies and

structures are important for women farmers, and that the government role is

crucial in empowering women farmers. However, 50 percent of the extension

workers disagree on the availability of production factors and demand for

women farmers produce.

The results shows almost the same trend for the farmers where (about

96 percent) strongly agree that there is need for cooperation among related

and supporting industries, that structures and strategies are important for

women farmers and that government role is important in empowering women

farmers. On the availability of demand, 56 percent of the farmers disagree

while 26 percent of them agree. On availability of production factors, 43

percent of the farmers agree while 33 percent of them disagree.

The results on expert’s opinions regarding elements of competitiveness

have shown a similar trend for all the three categories of respondents.

However, there are differences in opinion regarding the availability of

demand and production factors. This is the case because each group of experts

look at these elements from a different angle hence they have a different

understanding and views about them.

4.3. Results of AHP Model Analysis for the Competitiveness Elements

The data on the AHP model was analyzed using Expert choice software

to determine the expert’s priorities of the competitiveness factors (criteria and

sub-criteria) by evaluating the weights and ranks. The analysis outputs are

shown in the appendix I and the output results are summarized and discussed

in this section.

4.3.1. Results of Criteria Analysis

Figure 4.4 and table 4.2 summarize the results of the expert’s priorities

of the criteria with respect to the goal. The results indicate that researchers

60

prioritized demand conditions (0.299) as the most important criteria, followed

by related and supporting industries (0.251), factor conditions (0.231),

government role (0.115) and lastly strategy, structure and rivalry (0.104). On

the other hand extension workers, prioritized government role (0.303)

followed by related and supporting industries (0.207), factor conditions

(0.206), strategy, structure and rivalry (0.176) and lastly demand conditions

(0.109). Farmers prioritized strategy, structure and rivalry (0.382) followed by

factor conditions (0.218), government role (0.171), related and supporting

industries (0.121) and demand conditions (0.109). The results also show that

all the judgments were consistent since the inconsistencies for all the three

categories were less than or equal to 0.1 as suggested by Saaty (1990).

Figure 4-4. Summary of the Experts’ Priorities of the Criteria with Respect to

the Goal.

61

Table 4.2. Summary of the Experts’ Priorities of the Criteria with Respect to

the Goal

Criteria

Researchers

(n=5)

Extension

workers (n=10)

Farmers (n=30)

Weight Rank Weight Rank Weight Rank

Factor conditions 0.231 3 0.206 3 0.218 2

Demand conditions 0.299 1 0.109 5 0.109 5

Related and

supporting industries

0.251 2 0.207 2 0.121 4

Strategy, structure and

rivalry

0.104 5 0.176 4 0.382 1

Government role 0.115 4 0.303 1 0.171 3

Inconsistencies (researchers = 0.07, extension workers = 0.10, and farmers =

0.03).

From the results, it can be pointed out that researchers prioritized

demand conditions because the availability of both domestic and international

demand is crucial for the competitiveness of women farmers in Malawi. The

main factor under demand is the availability of markets for women farmer’s

produce. In Malawi, one of the major problems farmers face is lack of

markets for their produce, especially at international level. This problem is

even more serious among women farmers due to other challenges such as

transportation, time burdens, low productivity, and low quality and low value

products. Therefore, there is need to invest in market-oriented interventions

that facilitate women access to markets while addressing other gender issues

as it was observed by (IFAD, 2001; IFPRI, 2002 and Kindness and Gordon,

2002).

62

Extension workers’ prioritized government role this is so because the

government can help women farmers through implementation of gender

responsive policies and programs, improving budget allocation to

interventions targeting women farmers, and provision of subsidies, micro-

loans and insurance. FAO (2010) pointed out that governments have the role

to eliminate discrimination against women under law, build human capital of

women and girls and also improve on collection of sex-disaggregated data. In

addition, since the government of Malawi considers agriculture as the most

important sector, women farmers can benefit from the efforts put into the

sector with deliberate effort to target them.

Farmers however prioritized strategy, structure and rivalry to help them

become competitive. This could be because most of the women farmer

groupings that exist are not effective. As farmers, the way they organize and

manage their enterprises, determines their competitiveness. A report by

Commission of the Status of Women (CSW) (2012) indicated that “The future

belongs to the organized” therefore women farmers need to organize

themselves to gain economies of scale in acquiring production inputs, bulking

up produce for markets, receiving production extension and training and to

benefit from social networking to learn from other women farmers and to

benefit from government and NGO interventions

4.3.2. Factor Conditions

Figure 4-5 and table 4-3 summarize the experts’ priorities of the factor

conditions. The results indicate that researchers prioritized financial and

capital resources (0.377) as the most important factor condition for women

farmers. According to extension workers, the crucial factor condition was

technique and equipment (0.259) while for farmers; the most important factor

condition was natural resources (0.436). The results also show that all the

judgments were consistent since the inconsistencies for all the three categories

were less than or equal to 0.1.

63

Figure 4.5. Summary of Experts’ Priorities of the Factor Conditions.

Table 4.3. Summary of Experts’ Priorities of the Factor Conditions

Factor conditions

Researchers

(n=5)

Extension

workers (n=10)

Farmers

(n=30)

Weight Rank Weight Rank Weight Rank

Human resources 0.123 3 0.198 3 0.086 5

Natural resources 0.077 6 0.127 4 0.436 1

Technique and

equipment0.121 4 0.259 1 0.195 2

Financial and capital

resources0.377 1 0.229 2 0.095 4

Farm location 0.082 5 0.104 5 0.118 3

Marketing resources 0.220 2 0.082 6 0.070 6

Inconsistencies (researchers = 0.10; extension workers = 0.08; farmers =

0.05).

The results indicate differences in priorities among the experts

regarding the important factor conditions. Researchers perceive financial and

64

capital resources to be the important factor, which is in line with the criterion

(demand conditions) they prioritized. If farmers have adequate financial and

capital resources, they will enhance production and meet the demand both at

domestic and international levels. Zeller et al. (1997) argued that producers

who have access to well designed credit, savings and insurance services can

avail themselves of capital to finance the inputs and labour and equipment

they need to generate income; can afford to invest in riskier but more

profitable enterprises and asset portfolios; can reach markets more effectively

and can adopt more efficient strategies to stabilize their food consumption.

However, rural financial programs have been largely designed, crafted and

implemented with the male head of households and fail to recognize that

women are active, productive and engaged in economic agents with their own

financial needs and constraints (Fletschner, 2009 and Diagne, Zeller, and

Sharma, 2000). In Malawi, women have less access to financial services than

men (FAO, 2011). This was also found to be the case with Nigeria and Kenya

(Saito, Mekonnen, and Spurling, 1994) and in Uganda (Dolan, 2004).

Therefore, there is need to improve women’s access to financial and capital

recourses to enhance their competitiveness.

Extension workers chose technique and equipment, which is in line

with the government role they prioritized under criteria. This is the case

because as extension workers, they believe imparting knowledge and skills in

women farmers is crucial for them to become competitive. Women farmers

need to be trained in good agricultural practices and business skills for them

to be able to run their enterprises as commercial ventures. However women

farmers are generally illiterate and have less access to extension education and

training and to mechanical tools and equipment (FAO, 2011). Therefore, there

is need to improve women’s access to technical education and training as well

as to use of mechanical tools and equipment.

Farmers prioritized natural resources as the most important factor. This

is so because these are the obvious factors that directly constraint production.

65

Women farmers in Malawi lack access to land and water resources.

According to FAO (2010), women farmers land holdings are generally

smaller and the tenure security is less than that of men. Therefore, there is

need to ensure women’s access to land, ensure tenure security as well as

access to sufficient, safe and clean water for farming and domestic use.

4.3.3. Demand Conditions

Figure 4-6 and table 4-4 give a summary of the experts’ priorities of the

demand conditions. The results indicate that among the three sub-factors

under demand conditions, all the experts prioritized availability of markets for

women farmer’s produce to be the most important one. The sub-criterion had

the weights of 0.540, 0.437 and 0.455 for researchers, extension workers and

farmers respectively. The results also show that the experts were consistent in

their judgments since the inconsistencies were found to be less than or equal

to 0.1.

Figure 4.6. Summary of Experts’ Priorities of the Demand Conditions.

66

Table 4.4. Summary of Experts’ Priorities of the Demand Conditions

Demand conditions

Researchers

(n=5)

Extension

workers (n=10)

Farmers

(n=30)

Weight Rank Weight Rank Weight Ra

nk

Availability of markets

for women farmer’s

produce

0.540 1 0.437 1 0.455 1

Consumer’s preference

to safe produce0.272 2 0.215 3 0.185 3

Consumer’s preference

to value added produce0.188 3 0.348 2 0.360 2

Inconsistencies (researchers = 0.00512; extension workers = 0.02; farmers =

0.10).

From the results all the experts have indicated that availability of

markets for women farmer’s produce is an important factor under demand

conditions to enhance the competitiveness of women farmers. However, the

performance of agricultural markets in Malawi often tends to fail for

smallholder farmers of whom majority are women (Barrett, 2008). The failure

of agricultural markets for smallholder farmers often result from lack of

access to information or from the endemic problem of information asymmetry

between the farmers and buyers (Poulton et al., 2006). Consequently, majority

of smallholder farmers sell their produce in local poor-paying markets or at

the farm-gate rather than travel to distant better-paying markets (Fafchamps

and Hill, 2005). The situation is even worse for women farmers due to other

challenges like poor transportation, lack of organization among women

farmers and time constraints. Therefore, facilitating women farmers’ access to

67

better-paying markets has been an issue of major concern to government and

private sectors.

4.3.4. Related and Supporting Industries

Results of the experts’ priorities of the related and supporting industries

are illustrated in figure 4.7 and table 4.5.

Figure 4.7. Summary of Experts’ Priorities of the Related and Supporting

Industries.

Table 4.5. Summary of Experts’ Priorities of Related and Supporting Industries

Related and

supporting industries

Researchers

(n=5)

Extension

workers (n=10)

Farmers (n=30)

Weight Rank Weight Rank Weight Rank

Availability and

consistency of supply

inputs

0.540 1 0.504 1 0.667 1

Availability of on-job

education and training0.121 3 0.310 2 0.229 2

Property rights/legal

protection0.338 2 0.186 3 0.103 3

Inconsistencies (researchers = 0.02; extension workers = 0.06; farmers = 0.08)

68

Regarding related and supporting industries, the results show that all

the experts have indicated availability and consistency of supply inputs to be

the most important factor for enhancing the competitiveness of women

farmers. As shown in figure 4.7 and table 4.5, the priority weights were 0.540,

0.504 and 0.667 for researchers, extension workers and farmers respectively.

This is an important factor because often, farmers in Malawi have problems to

access inputs especially women and most of the times, the availability of the

inputs is not consistent. One of the major impediments to improved

smallholder agricultural productivity has been limited to indispensable inputs

such as improved seed varieties and fertilizer. Input supply problems have

been widely cited to explain why farmers do not purchase and use them.

Imports are often regulated and frequently there are bottlenecks in distribution

that are attributable to poor infrastructure. Increase in fertilizer prices further

disadvantage poor farmers especially women (Gladwin, 1992). Therefore, to

have a consistent supply of production inputs available at an affordable price

will help women farmer’s become more competitive.

4.3.5. Strategy, Structure and Rivalry

Figure 4.8 and table 4.6 provide a summary of experts’ priorities of

strategy, structure and rivalry factors that can help women farmers become

competitive. Researchers and farmers prioritized contract farming indicating

the weights of 0.347 and 0.557 for researchers and farmers respectively. On

the other hand, extension workers prioritized forming business alliances

(0.333) to be the most important factor.

69

Figure 4.8. Summary of Experts’ Priorities of Strategy, Structure and Rivalry

factors.

Table 4.6. Summary of Experts’ Priorities of Strategy, Structure and Rivalry

factors

Strategy, structure

and rivalry

Researchers

(n=5)

Extension

workers (n=10)

Farmers (n=30)

Weight Rank Weigh

t

Rank Weight Rank

Too many farmers 0.065 4 0.053 4 0.038 4

Forming business

alliances0.270 3 0.333 1 0.147 3

Low cost production

practices0.317 2 0.290 3 0.258 2

Contract farming 0.347 1 0.324 2 0.557 1

Inconsistencies (researchers = 0.10; extension workers = 0.00829; farmers =

0.10).

Maertens and Swinnen (2009) pointed out that contract farming can

help women farmers overcome barriers and transaction costs involved in

meeting the demand in domestic and international markets. In Malawi,

70

contract farming was developed to address the problem of lack of access to

domestic, regional and international markets which include developing an

efficient and effective Market Information System (MIS) through creating a

better marketing network which will link farmers to markets, strengthening

extension in grades and standards (Kumwenda and Madola, 2005). Despite

the potential of contract farming in commercialization and diversification of

smallholder agriculture, in Malawi contract farming has mainly been confined

to the production of Malawi’s traditional exports of sugar, tea and tobacco.

Therefore, women farmers are often excluded from contract farming since

they are concentrated in subsistence crops. This was also the case in Kenyan

fruit and vegetable export (Dolan, 2001) where women comprised less than

10 percent of the farmers involved in smallholder contract farming. Likewise

in Senegal, where only 1 of a sample of 59 farmers contracted to produce

French beans for the export sector was a woman (Maertens and Swinnen,

2009).

4.3.6. Government Role

Regarding the role of the government, the priorities of different experts are summarized in figure 4.9 and table 4.7.

Figure 4.9. Summary of Experts’ Priorities of the Role of the Government

The results indicate that researchers prioritized provision of micro-

loans (0.338) to women farmers to be the most important government

71

intervention. Extension workers and farmers prioritized provision of subsidies

and direct payments to be the most important government intervention with

the weights of 0.246 and 0.470 for extension workers and farmers

respectively.

Researchers’ choice is consistent with their choice of factor conditions

where they consider that women farmers can become competitive if they have

enough capital to fund their enterprises. One of the ways the government can

ensure this is by providing micro-loans to women farmers. Micro-loans are

often considered as an instrument that promotes empowerment and when well

managed is a sustainable development tool. It can stabilize livelihoods,

broaden choices, and provide startup fund for productive investment and help

poor people (women farmers) to be self-reliant.

Table 4.7. Summary of Experts’ Priorities of the Role of Government

Role of the government

Researchers

(n=5)

Extension

workers (n=10)

Farmers (n=30)

Weight Rank Weight Rank Weight Rank

Availability of budget

to implement policies

and programs

0.105 5 0.161 5 0.091 5

Enforcement of policies

and programs0.179 3 0.175 4 0.104 4

Provision of subsidies

and direct payments0.202 2 0.246 1 0.470 1

Provision of micro-

loans0.338 1 0.187 3 0.120 3

Provision of insurance

for protection 0.175 4 0.231 2 0.214 2

Inconsistencies (researchers = 0.01; extension workers = 0.10; farmers =

0.06).

72

On the other hand, extension workers and farmers consider that the

most important role of the government is to provide subsidies and direct

payments to women farmers. Direct payments are an effective means of

combating poverty and overcoming immediate challenges. Well designed

direct payments may provide a steady source of income (Molyneux, 2009).

Malawi government implements several subsidy programs under the Ministry

of Agriculture and Food Security (MoAFS). One of them is the Farm Input

Subsidy Programme (FISP) with the goal of enhancing food self sufficiency

by increasing smallholder farmers’ access to and use of improved agricultural

inputs, thereby boosting the incomes of resource-poor farmers. This

programme has yielded tangible results since its inception and most

households have achieved food security and boosted their incomes.

4.3.7. Results of the overall analysis

The overall output results are indicated in the appendix I. Table 4.8

shows the summary of the overall analysis results of the first five sub-criteria

prioritized by the respondents in their order of importance. The weights of the

overall levels (global weights) were obtained by multiplying the weights of

criteria by the weight of the sub-criteria. From the results, it can be pointed

out that according to researchers, the first five factors were: 1) availability of

markets for women farmer’s produce (0.161); 2) availability and consistency

of supply inputs (0.136); 3) financial and capital resources (0.087); 4)

property rights/legal protection (0.084); and 5) consumer preferences to safe

produce (0.081). According to extension workers, the first five factors in

order of their importance were: 1) availability and consistency of supply

inputs (0.104); 2) provision of subsidies and direct payments (0.075); 3)

provision of insurance for protection (0.070); 4) availability of on-job

education and training (0.064) s; and 5) forming business alliances (0.059).

On the contrary, farmers prioritized the following first five factors: 1)

contract farming (0.213); 2) low cost production practices (0.099); 3) natural

73

resources (0.095); 4) availability and consistency of supply inputs (0.081);

and 5) provision of subsidies and direct payments (0.080).

The overall analyses indicate that all the experts prioritized availability

and consistency of supply inputs in their first five priorities of factors. This

shows that this is a very important factor for enhancing the competitiveness of

women farmers in Malawi.

Table 4.8. Overall Analysis Results of the First 5 Priority Sub-criteria

(Inconsistencies researchers=0.07, extension workers=0.09,

farmers=0.05)

Respondents First 5 Sub-criteria Overall weights Order

Researchers

Availability of markets for

women farmers’ produce

0.161 1

Availability and consistency

of supply inputs

0.136 2

Financial and capital

resources

0.087 3

Property rights/legal

protection

0.084 4

Consumer preference to safe

produce

0.081 5

Extension

workers

Availability and consistency

of supply inputs

0.104 1

Provision of subsidies and

direct payments

0.075 2

Provision of insurance for

protection

0.070 3

Availability of on-job

education and training

0.064 4

Forming business alliances 0.059 5

74

Continuous Table 4.8

Farmers

Contract farming 0.213 1

Low cost production practices 0.099 2

Natural resources 0.095 3

Availability and consistency

of supply inputs

0.081 4

Provision of subsidies and

direct payments

0.080 5

4.3.8. Results of the Analysis of Alternatives

Figure 4.10 and table 4.9 show a summary of results on experts’

priorities of the alternatives to enhance women farmers’ competitiveness.

Researchers prioritized establishment of women farmers associations (0.284)

to be the most important alternative. Extension workers prioritized availability

of training and extension to women farmers (0.351) while farmers prioritized

formation of women farmers’ Production Marketing Teams (PMTs) (0.358)

as the most important alternative.

Figure 4.10. Summary of Experts’ Priorities of the Alternatives.

75

Table 4.9. Summary of Experts’ Priorities of the Alternatives

Alternatives

Researchers

(n=5)

Extension

workers (n=10)

Farmers (n=30)

Weight Rank Weight Rank Weight Rank

Formation of women

farmer’s Production

Marketing Teams

(PMTs)

0.249 3 0.228 3 0.358 1

Establishment of

financial institutions to

provide loans and other

financial related

assistance

0.268 2 0.138 4 0.179 3

Availability of training

and extension to

women farmers

0.162 4 0.351 1 0.323 2

Government to help

transfer women out of

farming

0.038 5 0.041 5 0.028 5

Establishment of

women farmers

associations

0.284 1 0.241 2 0.111 4

Inconsistencies (researchers = 0.02; extension workers = 0.10; farmers = 0.06)

These priorities are consistent with the priorities of the factors

discussed earlier. Researchers’ priority of the alternatives corresponds to the

farmers’ priority. One of the alternatives for women farmers to enhance their

competitiveness is through collective action by forming groups. Women’s

associations have the potential to raise the voice and visibility of women and

76

can provide many services and benefits to their members. Through collective

action, women associations are able to reach out to governments and private

sector NGOs and seek institutional support for women’s income generating

activities (FAO, 2011). Collective action is a powerful means for women to

increase production and access to markets. Supportive collective structures

help women farmers though economies of scale, greater bargaining power,

facilitating access to agricultural services. Groups empower women by

providing opportunities to participate in decision-making and take on

leadership roles. Functioning as production cooperatives, savings

associations and marketing groups, women groups can promote production

and help women maintain control over the additional income they earn as it

has been demonstrated by a project based around polyculture fish production

in Bangladesh (Naved, 2000). Achieving scale through pooling resources can

help women overcome some of the constraints faced by individual farmers

such as acquiring access to land, credit and information as it was the case in

Kenya (Spring, 2000). Therefore, women farmers can enhance their

competitiveness through working together as a group.

Extension workers prioritized availability of training and extension to

women farmers. In Malawi, extension staff to farmer ratio is very high due to

unavailability of qualified staff. This exerts more pressure on a few staff

members that are available and deny services to most smallholder farmers of

which the majority of them are women. The usefulness of extension and

related information services rests on both the farmers’ access to the source of

the information and its quality and appropriateness. Studies in Malawi found

that few women have contact with extension agents and that women’s

participation in agricultural training is limited (Hirschmann and Vaughan,

1984). Provision of services like training, working through groups rather than

individuals has been shown to increase women’s control over resources

(United Nations Development Program (UNDP), 2008). Therefore, it is

important that extension should focus on gender-sensitive, demand driven and

participatory approaches to impact on women. Extension agents should be

77

trained to meet specific needs of female farmers, provide extension messages

in the simplest way possible since most women are illiterate. This alternative

coupled with the others selected by researchers and farmers can yield good

results and help empower women farmers to attain competitive advantage.

From the results it was also noted that all the categories of respondents

indicated the alternative of the government helping to transfer women out of

farming as their last priority with the weights of 0.038, 0.041 and 0.028 for

researchers, extension workers and farmers respectively. This is so because it

is practically not possible because farming in Malawi is a tradition.

Households depend on agriculture as their major source of income and

livelihoods. Therefore, people are skeptical to move from the agriculture

sector to other sectors for fear of losing their source of income and food.

Efforts by government to develop the other sectors of the economy are yet to

produce tangible results in terms of moving people/labour from agriculture to

non-agriculture sectors. Unless the non-agriculture sectors are developed

enough it is almost impossible to move women farmers out of farming.

Apparently, it is imperative that government should work to improve the

agricultural industry through activities like value addition and production of

high value crops which will in turn help to motivate development of

manufacturing and other supply industries. In the long run these industries

will provide employment to women and eventually move them from actual

farming to other forms of employment.

78

79

5. Conclusions and Recommendations

This chapter presents conclusions and recommendations for this study.

In the first section, conclusions for major findings of the study are presented.

Recommendations which include limitations of this study are presented in the

second section and third section presents future research in relation to the

findings of the study.

5.1. Conclusions

This study illustrates the application of SWOT analysis, Porter’s

Diamond Model and AHP method to assess women farmers’ empowerment

through competitive analyses. A SWOT analysis was conducted to come up

with strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats for women farmers in

Malawi. Using the SWOT matrix, strategies for enhancing the

competitiveness of women farmers were formulated. A Porter’s Diamond

Model was used to identify factors of competitiveness for Malawian women

farmers and the Analytic Hierarchy process (AHP) approach was applied to

determine the importance of factors relating to the competitiveness of women

farmers. Researchers, extension workers and women farmers were considered

as key stakeholders (experts) of this process. Five researchers that work on

women issues, 10 extension workers working directly with women farmers

and 30 women farmers were selected as survey respondents for this study.

Results suggest that different stakeholders have different views

regarding the important factors to empower women farmers. This is the case

because for example researchers and extension workers have different focus,

approaches, knowledge and experiences in working with women farmers. On

the other hand, women farmers had different views because their experience

is different from those of researchers and extension workers.

80

The study has revealed that researchers prioritize factors related to the

availability of demand, markets and financial resources as the most important

81

for women farmers to become competitive in the agricultural sector. On the

other hand, extension workers prioritize factors related to government support

and interventions such availability of education, extension and training to

women farmers, provision of subsidies, direct payments and insurance as

important to empower women for them to be competitive. Farmers consider

their strategies, structure, rivalry, and related factors to be most important. For

example, they identified contract farming and use of low cost production

practices as the most important factors.

The study also revealed that researchers and farmers consider collective

action or women working as a group to be important alternative strategies for

empowering women farmers. These alternatives are establishment of women

farmers association and formation of Production Marketing Teams (PMTs).

On the contrary, extension workers consider availability of extension and

training to women farmers as the most important alternative.

However, in some cases, the priorities were the same for example; all

the stakeholders prioritized availability of markets for women farmers’

produce and availability and consistent supply of inputs as the most important

factor under related and supporting industries. This shows that these factors

are very important since all the stakeholders had similar views regarding these

factors.

According to the results, it can be concluded that the best alternatives

for empowering women farmers so that they can enhance their competitive

advantage are formation of women farmers Production Marketing Teams;

establishment of women farmers associations; and availability of extension

and training to women farmers. However, there is no single alternative that is

more superior hence a combination of these alternatives will enhance women

farmers’ competitiveness. There is need to help women farmers form

functional groups and train and educate them so that they can effectively and

efficiently carry out their activities as a group.

82

5.2. Recommendations

From the findings of this study, the following recommendations can be

drawn:

1. There is need for coordination among all the stakeholders (researchers,

extension workers and women farmers) for them to identify best

alternatives to empower women farmers and enhance their

competitiveness

2. All the stakeholders have a part to play in empowering women farmers

to enhance their competitiveness. Researchers need to conduct more

research on women issues to understand their situation more so that

they can communicate their findings to relevant stakeholders for

affirmative action. Extension workers need to focus on providing

relevant extension services to women farmers that will equip them with

knowledge and techniques for their various enterprises. Women

farmers need to organize themselves so that they can be able to utilize

the available resources and to take advantage of the opportunities that

exist for them to become more competitive in the agricultural sector.

3. Policy makers need come up with policies that address the real needs of

women farmers that can empower them and enhance their

competitiveness. Policymakers need the right information needed to

inform policy development and more analytical statistics which can be

used to fine-tune programs and policies to reach the most vulnerable

and needy segments of population e.g. women farmers. Therefore, this

research will provide that information to policy makers for gender

responsive policy making.

4. The limitation of this study was lack of expert reasons for their choice

of the important factors, hence, there is need to use in combination with

the AHP based questionnaire, an open ended data collection tool like

focus group discussions to allow respondents to explain more about

83

their priorities of different factors. This will help to come up with a

strong basis for interventions and future research.

5.3. Future Research

Since this study was conducted just in one district and with a small

sample, the results may not reflect the situation of the whole country hence

there is need to replicate the study in other districts to understand the general

situation.

Research also needs to be conducted to assess the effectiveness of the

interventions by the government and Non-Governmental Organizations that

are in place and are being implemented to empower women farmers.

There is also need to evaluate the policies regarding women empowerment in Malawi to determine their effectiveness in addressing women farmers’ issues.

84

85

References

Afshar, H. 1998. Introduction: Women and Empowerment in Haleh Afshar

(Ed.), Women and Empowerment: Illustrative from the Third World,

Some Illustrative Studies. MacMillan Press. London, pp. 1-10.

Ahearn, M., D. Culver, and R. Schoney. 1990. Usefulness and Limitations of

COP Estimates for Evaluating International Competitiveness: A

Comparison of Canadian and US Wheat. American Journal of

Agricultural Economics, December.

Alcantara, R. L. C., M. M. P. Marchesini, H. M. S. Filho, and M. O. Batalha.

2009. Competitiveness of Brazilian Agri-Systems. VII International

Conference. Sao Paulo, Brazil.

Alvarano, I., K. Molina, and E. Bol. 2008. Determination of the

Competitiveness Linkages through the Agricultural Associative

Enterprises: The Case of the Communities on the Parismina River

Basin in Costa Rica. Ecologic Engineering 34:373-381.

Ayala-Garay, A. V., G. Almaguer-Vargas, N. K. Trinidad-Pérez, I. Caamal-

Cauich, and R. Rendon. 2009. Competitividad de la Producción de

Mango (Mangifera indica L.) en Michoacán. Revista Chapingo serie

horticultura. Retrieved on August 21, 2010 from the World Wide Web:

http://scielo.unam.mx/pdf/rcsh/v15n2/v15n2a5.pdf.

Balassa, B. 1965. Trade Liberalisation and ‘Revealed’ Comparative

Advantage. The Manchester School, Vol. 33: 99-123.

Balassa, B. and Associates. 1982. Development Strategies on Semi Industrial

Economics. A World Bank Research Publication. The Johns Hopkins

University Press.

86

Banse, M., M. Gorton, J. Hartell, G. Hughes, J. Köckler, T. Möllman, and W.

Munch. 1999. The Evolution of Competitiveness in Hungarian

Agriculture: From Transition to Accession. Paper presented at the

Sixth European Congress of Agricultural Economists, Warsaw, Poland,

24th-28th August.

Banterle, A. and L. Carraresi. 2007. Competitive Performance Analysis and

European Union trade: The Case of the Prepared Swine Meat Sector.

Food Economics – Acta Agricult Scand C, Vol. 4:159-172.

Barney, J. 1991. Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage.

Journal of Management, Vol. 17:99-120.

Barney, J., M. Wright, and D. J. Ketchen. 2001 The Resource-based View of

the Firm: Ten years after 1991. Journal of Management. 27:625 - 641.

Barney, J. B. 2001. Resource-based Theories of Competitive Advantage: A

Ten-year Retrospective on the Resource-based View. Journal of

management, 27:643-650.

Barrett, C. B. 2008. Smallholder Market Participation: Concepts and Evidence

from Eastern and Southern Africa. Food Policy 34:299-317.

Batra, A. and Z. Khan. 2005. Revealed Comparative Advantage: An Analysis

for India and China. New Delhi: Indian Council for Research on

International Economic Relations.

Bavorova, M. 2003. Influence of Policy Measures on the Competitiveness of

the Sugar Industry in the Czech Republic. Agricultural Economics –

Czech, 49(6):266-274.

Beintema, N. M. and F. Di Marcantonio. 2009. Women’s Participation in

Agricultural Research and Higher Education: Key Trends in sub-

87

Saharan Africa. Washington, DC, and Nairobi, IFPRI and CGIAR

Gender & Diversity Program

Beintema, N. M. 2006. Participation of Female Agricultural Scientists in

Developing Countries. Brief prepared for the meeting “Women in

Science: Meeting the Challenge”, an adjunct to the CGIAR Annual

General Meeting, Washington, DC, 4 December.

Boserup, E. 1970. Women’s Role in Economic Development. New York, NY,

St. Martin’s Press.

Braidotti, R. 1994. Women, the Environment, and Sustainable Development:

Towards a Theoretical Synthesis. London and New York: Zed Books,

pp. 83.

Brydon, L., and S. Chart. 1989. Women in the Third World: Gender Issues in

Rural and Urban Areas. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers

University Press.

Bureau, J. C., and J. P. Butault. 1992. Productivity Gaps, Price Advantages

and Competitiveness in E.C. Agriculture. European Review of

Agricultural Economics, 19(1):25-48.

Bureau, J.C., J.P. Butault, and A. Hoque, 1992. International Comparisons of

Costs of Wheat Production in the EC and United States. Staff Report

No. 9222, Economic Research Service, United States Department of

Agriculture, Washington D.C.

Burgess, J.C. 1991. Land Management and Soil Conservation in Malawi: A

Case Study. In Buchner et al.

Chang, Y. L. 1997. Research on Tourism Competitiveness and Performance

in Asian Countries. Master’s thesis. Taipei: Graduate Institute of

Tourism Industry, Chinese Culture University.

88

Chavas, J. P., R. Petrie, and M. Roth. 2005. Farm Household Production

Efficiency: Evidence from The Gambia. American Journal of

Agricultural Economics 87(1):60-179.

Cockburn, J. 1998. Measuring Competitiveness and its Sources: The Case of

Mali’s Manufacturing Sector. African Economic Policy Paper

Discussion, Nairobi, pp. 16-25.

Cromwell, E., and J. Winpenny. 1993. Does Economic Reform Harm the

Environment? A Review of Structural Adjustment in Malawi. Journal

of International Development, Vol. 5 (6).

Davis, K., E. Nkonya, E. Kato, D. Ayalew, M. Odendo, R. Miiro, and J.

Nkuba, 2009. Impact of Farmer Field Schools on Agricultural

Productivity, Poverty, and Farmer Empowerment in East Africa.

Research Report submitted to IFPRI, 31 August 2009.

Davison, J. 1992. Changing Relations of Production in Southern Malawi’s

households: Implication for Involving Rural Women in Development.

Journal of Contemporary African Studies 11(1): 72–84.

Diagne, A., M. Zeller, and M. Sharma. 2000. Empirical Measurements of

Household’s Access to Credit and Credit Constraints in Developing

Countries. FCND Discussion Paper No. 90, Washington, DC,

International Food Policy Research Institute.

Dolan, C. S. 2001. The “good wife”: Struggles over Resources in the Kenyan

Horticultural Sector. Journal of Development Studies, 37(3): 39–10.

Dolan, C. S. 2004. “I sell my labour now”: Gender and Livelihood

Diversification in Uganda. Canadian Journal of Development Studies,

25(4): 643–661.

89

Doss, C. R. 2001. Designing Agricultural Technology for African Women

Farmers: Lessons from 25 Years of Experience. World Development,

29:2075-2092.

Due, J. M., and C. H. Gladwin. 1991. Impacts of Structural Adjustment

Programs on African Women Farmers and Female-headed Households.

American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 73:1431-1439.

Due, J. M., F. Magayane, and A. A. Temu. 1997. Gender Again – Views of

Female Agricultural Extension Officers by Smallholder Farmers in

Tanzania. World Development, 25: 713-725.

Engberg, L. E., J. H. Sabry, and S. A. Beckerson. 1988. A Comparison of

Rural Women’s Time Use and Nutritional Consequences in Two

Villages in Malawi. In Poats et al.

Fafchamps, M., and R. V. Hill. 2005. Selling at the Farm Gate or Travelling

to the Market. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 87(3):

717-734

FAO. 1993. Agricultural Extension and Women Farm Workers in the 1980s.

Rome.

FAO. 1997. Higher Agricultural Education and Opportunities in Rural

Development for Women. Rome.

FAO. 2010. The State of Food and Agriculture- Women in Agriculture,

Closing the Gender Gaps in Agriculture. Rome.

FAO. 2010a. Roles of Women in Agriculture. Prepared by the SOFA team

and Cheryl Doss. Rome.

FAO. 2011. World Census of Agriculture: Analysis and International

Comparison of the Results (1996-2005). FAO Statistical Development

Series No. 13. (Columns 3 and 4).

90

FAO. 1996. World Food Summit Plan of Action. Rome.

Fertö, I., and L. Hubbard. 2003. Revealed Comparative Advantage and

Competitiveness in Hungarian agri-food sectors. World Economy,

26(2):247-259.

Fletschner, D. 2009. Rural Women’s Access to Credit: Market Imperfections

and Intrahousehold Dynamics. World Development, 37(3): 618–631.

Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), 2005. Breaking Ground: Gender

and Food Security. Rome: FAO.

Foss, N. 1997. Resources, Firms, and Strategies: A Reader in the Resource-

Based Perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.

Gilbert, R. A., W. D. Sakala, and T. D. Benson. 2002. Gender Analysis of a

Nationwide Cropping System Trial Survey in Malawi. African Studies

Quarterly, 6 (1&2): 223–243.

Gladwin, C. H. 1992. Gendered Impacts of Fertilizer Subsidy Removal

Programs in Malawi and Cameroon. Agricultural Economics 7: 141–

53.

Gorton, M., S. Davidova, M. Banse and A. Bailey. 2006. The International

Competitiveness of Hungarian Agriculture: Past Performance and

Future Projections, Post-Communist Economies, 18(1):69-84.

Gorton, M., A. Daniłowska, S. Jarka, S. Straszewski, A. Zawojska, and E.

Majewski. 2001. The International Competitiveness of Polish

Agriculture, Post-Communist Economies, 13(4):445-457.

Gorton, M., S. Davidova, and T. Ratinger. 2000. The Competitiveness of

Agriculture in Bulgaria and the Czech Republic Vis- à-Vis the

European Union (CEEC and EU Agricultural Competitiveness),

Comparative Economic Studies, XLII (1):59- 86.

91

Government of Malawi (GOM). 1994. Demographic and Health Survey

1992, National Statistical Office, Zomba, Malawi.

Government of Malawi (GOM)/UNICEF. 1987. The Situation of Children

and Women in Malawi, Lilongwe.

Government of Malawi (GOM). 2008. Population and Housing Census 2008.

National Statistical Office, Zomba, Malawi.

Hoskisson, R., M. Hitt, W. Wan, and D. Yiu. 1999. Theory and Research in

Strategic Management: Swings of a Pendulum. Journal of

Management. 25:417-456.

International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). 2001. The

Challenge of Ending Rural Poverty. Rural Poverty report, Rome, Italy

International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). 2002. Cutting Hunger in

Africa through Smallholder-led Growth.

Kabeer, N. 1995. Reserved Realities: Gender Hierarchies in Development

Thought. London: Verso.

Kabira, W. M., E. W. Gachukia, and F. O. Matiiangi. 1997. The Effect of

Women’s Role on Health: The Paradox. International Journal of

Gynecology and Obsterics, 58: 23-24.

Keller, B., and D. C Mbwewe. 1991. Policy and Planning for the

Empowerment of Zambia's Women Farmers. Canadian Journal of

Development Studies 12 (1): 75-88 [as cited in Rowland’s, Jo. 1995. ''

Empowerment examined.'' Development in Practice 5(2): 101-107].

Kennedy, E., and P. Peters. 1992. Household Food Security and Child

Nutrition: The Interaction of Income and Gender of Household Head.

World Development, 20 (8).

92

Kindness, H., and A. Gordon. 2002. Agricultural Marketing in Developing

Countries: The Role of NGOs and CBOs. Social and Economic

Development Department, Natural Resources Institute, University of

Greenwich, London, UK. (Policy Series No 13)

Koopman, J. 1993. The Hidden Roots of the African Food Problem: Looking

within the Rural Household, pp. 82-103. In: N. Folbre et al., (Eds.)

Women’s Work in the World Economy. University Press, New York,

NY.

Kumwenda I. and M. Madola. 2005. The Status of Contract Farming in

Malawi. Food, Agriculture and Natural Resources Policy Analysis

Network.

Kurttila, M., M. Pesonen, J. Kangas, and M. Kajanus. 2000. Utilizing the

Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) in SWOT Analysis—A hybrid

Method and its Application to a Forest-certification Case. Forest Policy

and Economics, 1:41–52

Lee, W., Y. Chen, Y. Lee, and C. Liao. 2003. The competitiveness of the Eel

Aquaculture in Taiwan, Japan and China, Aquaculture 221:115-124.

Li, D., and M. Tian. 2012. Empirical Study of Performance Evaluation on

Specialised Cooperative Organisations of Farmers in Sichuan by AHP.

Journal of Management and Sustainability, 2(1).

Maertens, M., and J. F. M. Swinnen. 2009. Are Modern Supply Chains

Bearers of Gender Inequality? Paper presented at the ILO-FAO

workshop “Gender Dimension of Rural Employment”, 30 March–3

April 2009, Rome.

Markusen, J. R. 1992. Productivité, compétitivité, performance commerciale

et revenue réel: le lien entre quatre concepts", Conseil économique du

Canada, Ottawa, 1-12.

93

Masozera, M. K., J. R. R. Alavalapati, S. K. Jacobson, and R. K. Shrestha.

2006. Assessing the Suitability of Community-based Management for

the Nyungwe Forest Reserve, Rwanda. Forest Policy and Economics

8(2):206–216.

Masters, A., and A. Winter-Nelson. 2000. Evaluating the Economic

Efficiency of Agricultural Activities in Developing Countries:

Domestic Resource Cost and the Social Cost-Benefit Ratio. In: ROSE,

R.,C. TANNER & M. BELLAMY (eds.): Issues of Agricultural

Competitiveness: Markets and Policies. International Association of

Agricultural Economist’s Occasional Paper No. 7:395-405.

Mathijs, E., and L. Vranken. 2001. Human Capital, Gender and Organisation

in Transition Agriculture: Measuring and Explaining Technical

Efficiency of Bulgarian and Hungarian farms. Post-Communist

Economies, 13(2):171-187.

Meinzen-Dick, R., A. Quisumbing, J. Behrman, P. Biermayr-Jenzano, V.

Wilde, M. Noordeloos, C. Ragasa, and N. Beintema. 2010.

Engendering Agricultural Research. IFPRI Discussion Paper No. 973.

Washington DC, IFPRI.

Mkandawire, R. M. 1989. Invisible Farmers: Women in Agriculture in

Southern Africa: A Case Study of Malawi. Journal of Extension

Systems. Vol 5 (1).

Molyneux, M. 2009. Conditional Cash Transfers: a ‘Pathway to women’s

empowerment’? Pathways of Women’s Empowerment. Pathways brief

5, IDS, Brighton.

Moser, C. 1993. Training Strategies for Gender Planning: From sensitising to

skills and techniques, in Moser, C. 1993, Gender Planning and

Development: Theory, Practice and Training, Routledge, London.

94

Mulder, N., A. Vialou, B. David, M. Rodriguez, and M. Castilho. 2004. La

Compétitivité de l’Agriculture et des Industries Agroalimentaires dans

le Mercosur et l’Union Européenne dans une Perspective de

Libéralisation Commerciale, Working Paper/Document de travail

N°2004- 19, Centre d‟Etudes Prospectives et d‟Informations

Internationales (CEPII), Paris, France, November.

National Statistical Office, 2002. 2002 Malawi Core Welfare Indicators

Questionnaire Survey: Report of Survey Results, Zomba: NSO.

Naved, R. T. 2000. Intra-household Impact of the Transfer of Modern

Agricultural Technology: A Gender Perspective. Food Consumption

and Nutrition Division Discussion Paper No. 85, Washington, DC,

IFPRI.

Padilla-Bernal, L.E., A. Rumayor-Rodriguez, O. Perez-Veyna, and E. Reyes-

Rivas. 2010. Competitiveness of Zacatecas (Mexico) Protected

Agriculture: The Fresh Tomato Industry. International Food and

Agribusiness Management Review. Vol. 13(1).

Pearson, S. R., and R. K. Meyer. 1974. Comparative Advantage among

African Coffee Producers. American Journal of Agricultural

Economics, 56:310–313.

Porter, M. E. 1990. The Competitive Advantage of Nations. Macmillan,

London.

Poulton, C., J. Kydd, and A. Doward. 2006. Overcoming Market Constraints

on Pro-poor Agricultural Growth in sub-Saharan Africa. Development

Policy Review 24(3): 243-277

Powell, T. C. 2001. Competitive Advantage: Logical and Philosophical

Considerations. Strategic Management Journal, 22:875-888.

95

Quaddus, M. A., and M. A. B. Siddique. 2001. Modelling Sustainable

Development Planning: A Multicriteria Decision Conferencing

Approach. Environment International. 27, 89–95.

Quisumbing, A. 1996. Male-female Differences in Agricultural Productivity:

Methodological Issues and Empirical Evidence. World Development,

24(10):1579-1595.

Razavi, S., and C. Miller. 1995. From WID to GAD: Conceptual Shifts in the

Women and Development Discourse. Occasional Paper No. 1 for

Beijing, Genva: UNRISD.

Reve, T., and L. Mathiensen. 1994. European Industrial Competitiveness.

Bergen Foundation for Research in Economics and Business

Administration.

Rochman, N.T., E. Gumbira-Sa’id, A. Daryanto, and N. Nuryartono. 2011.

Analysis of Indonesian Agro-industry Competitiveness in

Nanotechnology Development Perspective using SWOT-AHP Method.

International Journal of Business and Management, 6(8).

Saaty, T. 1980. The Analytic Hierarchy Process. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Saaty, T. 1990. Multicriteria Decision Making: The Analytic Hierarchy

Process. USA: RWS Publications, Pittsburgh, PA, 1990

Saaty, T. 2008. Decision Making with the Analytic Hierarchy Process.

International Journal of Services Science, 1:83–98.

Saito, K., H. Mekonnen, and D. Spurling. 1994. Raising the Productivity of

Women Farmers in sub-Saharan Africa. World Bank Discussion

Papers, Africa Technical Department Series No. 230. Washington, DC,

World Bank.

96

Segal, M. T. 1986. Land and Labor: A Comparison of Female- and Male-

Headed Households in Malawi’s Small-Holder Sector., WID Forum X,

Office of Women in International Development, Michigan State

University.

Shen, J. C., and J. Y. Hsieh. 2002. Study on Prediction Model of International

Tourism Competitiveness. The Second Conference on Sustainable

Operation of Tourism, Leisure and Food Industry, Kaohsiung: National

Kaohsiung Hospitality College.

Shen, J. C., and N. R. Tsai. 2001. Study on National Competitiveness of

Principal Tourism in West Europe-Application of the Weights. Chiayi:

Nan Hua University. Collection of Papers for a Conference on

Environment, Sustainable Tourism and Management.

Siggel, E., and J. Cockburn. 1995. International Competitiveness and its

Sources: A Method of Development Policy Analysis. Concordia

University, Department of Economics, Discussion Paper 9517.

Sinn, R., and S. Wahyuni. 1996. Women, Gender Issues and Goat

Development. In: Proc. VI International Conference on Goats, 6-11

May 1996, Beijing, China: 240-244.

Sirikai, S. 2006. Competitiveness Analysis: An AHP Approach for the

Automotive Components Industry in Thailand. Thammasat Review.

Spring, A . 2000. Agricultural Commercialization and Women Farmers in

Kenya. In A. Spring. 2000. Women farmers and commercial ventures:

increasing food security in developing countries. Boulder, USA, Lynne

Rienner Publishers, Inc.

Spring, A. 1988. Using Male Research and Extension Personnel to Target

Women Farmers. In Poats et al.

97

Stoelhorst, J. W., and E. M. van Raaij. 2004. On Explaining Performance

Differentials Marketing and the Managerial Theory of the Firm.

Journal of Business Research. 57: 462 - 477.

Swann, P., and M. Taghavi. 1992. Measuring Price and Quality

Competitiveness: A Study of 18 British Product Markets, Avebury

Press, Aldershot.

Tapscott, D. 2001. Rethinking Strategy in a Networked World, Strategy &

Business, pp 34-41

Tavana, M. 2004. A Subjective Assessment of Alternative Mission

Architectures for the Human Exploration of Mars at NASA Using

Multicriteria Decision Making. Computers and Operations Research,

31(7):1147-1164.

Thorne, F. 2005. Analysis of the Competitiveness of Cereal Production in

Selected EU Countries. Paper presented at the 11th EAAE Congress,

Copenhagen, Denmark, 24-27 August.

Tiessen, R. 2008. Small Victories but Slow Progress. International Feminists

Journal of Politics, 10:198-215.

Timothy, A., and A. Adeoti. 2006. Gender Inequalities and Economic

Efficiency: New Evidence from Cassava-based Farm Holdings in Rural

South-western Nigeria. African Development Review, 18(3):428-443.

Trabold, H. 1995. The International Competitiveness of a Voppswirtschaft.

German Institute for Economic Research. Quarterly Journal

of Economic Research (special issue in International

Competitiveness), Dunker & Humblot: Berlin, pp. 169 – 183

Udry, C. 1996. Gender, Agricultural Production and the Theory of the

Household. Journal of Political Economy, 104(5): 1010–1045.

98

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). 2008. Innovative

Approaches to Promoting Women’s Economic Empowerment: Paper

for the Partnership Event on September 25, 2008: MDG3 – Gender

Equality and Empowerment of Women – A Prerequisite for Achieving

all the MDGs by 2015 (New York, 2008), UNDP, New York.

United Nation Development Programme (UNDP). 1995. Human Development

Report. New York: Oxford University Press. Washington, DC, World

Bank.

van Duren, E., L. Martin, and R. Westgren. 1991. Assessing the

Competitiveness of Canada’s Agri-food Industry. Canadian Journal of

Agricultural Economics, 39:727-738.

Vargas, H. 2006. Ventajas Comparativas Reveladas de la Producción

Agroindustrial Guatemalteca. Guatemala: IICA.

Viaene, J., and X. Gellynck. 1998. Small Firms, Old Traditions Equals Low

Profit: Pig Meat Processing in Belgium, in: Traill, B., Pitts, E. (eds),

Competitiveness in the Food Industry, Blackie Academic &

Professional, London, Chapter 5, pp. 149-178.

Vollrath, T.L. 1989. Competitiveness and Protection in World Agriculture.

Agricultural Information Bulletin No. 567, Economic Research Service

(US Department of Agriculture: Washington DC).

Vollrath, T.L. 1991. A Theoretical Evaluation of Alternative Trade Intensity

Measures of Revealed Comparative Advantage. Weltwirtschaftliches

Archive, 130:265-279.

Weihrich, H. 1982. The Tows Matrix – A Tool for Situational Analysis. Long

Range Planning,15(2):54-66, Pergamon Press Ltd.

99

Weihrich, H., M. V. Cannice, and H. Koontz. 2008. Management -

Globalization and Entrepreneurship Perspectives. 12th ed. Beijing:

Economic Science Press; 2008.

Wernerfelt, B. 1984. A Resource-Based View of the Firm. Strategic

Management Journal. 5:171-180.

Wijnands, J., H. Bremmers, B. van der Meulen, and K. Poppe. 2008. An

Economic and Legal Assessment of the EU Food Industry’s

Competitiveness. Agribusiness, 24(4):417-439.

World Bank. 1991. Women and Development in Malawi: Constraints and

Actions, Population and Human Resources Division, Southern Africa

Department, World Bank, Washington, D.C.

World Bank. 2000. Engendering Development—Through Gender Equality,

Resources, and Voice. Policy Research Report. World Bank,

Washington, DC.

World Bank. 2001. World Development Report 2000/2001: Attacking

Poverty, New York: Oxford University Press.

World Bank. 2007b. Promoting Gender Equality and Women’s

Empowerment. In: Global Monitoring Report 2007: Millennium

Development Goals: Confronting the challenges of gender equality and

fragile states, pp. 105– 148, Washington, DC.

World Bank. 2010. The Malawi Third Integrated Household Survey.

National Statistical Office (NSO), Zomba, Malawi.

World Bank, FAO, and IFAD. 2009. Gender in Agriculture Sourcebook.

Washington, DC, World Bank.

World Economic Forum. 1995. The World Competitiveness Report.

International Institute for Management Development. Genève.

100

Zeller, M., G. Schrieder, J. von Braun, and F. Heidhues. 1997. Rural Finance

for Food Security for the Poor. Washington, DC, International Food

Policy Research Institute.

101

102

Appendices

Appendix I. Data Analysis Outputs

Figure A1. Researchers’ Priorities of the Criteria (n=5).

Table A1. Pair-wise Comparison of the Criteria for Researchers (n=5)

Figure A2. Extension Worker’s Priorities of the Criteria (n=10).

Table A2. Pairwise Comparisons of the Criteria for Extension Workers (n=10)

Figure A3. Farmers’ Priorities of the Criteria (n=30).

103

Table A3. Pairwise Comparisons of the Criteria for Farmers (n=30)

Figure A4. Synthesis Summary of Sub-criteria for Researchers (n=5).

Figure A5. Synthesis Summary of Sub-criteria for Extension Workers (n=10).

104

Figure A6. Synthesis Summary of Sub-criteria for Farmers (n=30)

105

106

Table A4. Synthesis Summary of Sub-criteria for Researchers (n=5)

Criteria Criteria weights Sub-criteria Sub-criteria weights Overall weights Order

Factor

conditions0.231

Human resources 0.123 0.028 13

Natural resources 0.077 0.018 19

Technique and equipment 0.121 0.028 14

Financial and capital resources 0.377 0.087 3

Farm location 0.082 0.019 18

Marketing resources 0.220 0.051 7

Demand

conditions0.299

Availability of markets for

women farmer’s produce0.540 0.161 1

Consumer preference to safe

produce0.272 0.081 5

Consumer preference to value

added produce0.188 0.056 6

Related and

supporting

industries

0.251 Availability and consistency of

supply inputs0.540 0.136 2

Availability of on-job

education and training

0.121 0.030 11

107

Property rights/legal protection 0.338 0.084 4

Continuous Table A4

Strategy,

structure and

rivalry

0.104

Too many farmers 0.065 0.007 21

Forming business alliances 0.270 0.028 12

Low cost production practices 0.317 0.033 10

Contract farming 0.347 0.036 9

Government

role0.115

Availability of budget to

implement policies and

programs

0.105 0.012 20

Enforcement of policies and

programs0.179 0.020 16

Provision of subsidies and

direct payments0.202 0.023 15

Provision of micro-loans 0.338 0.039 8

Provision of insurance for

protection 0.175 0.020 17

108

Table A5. Synthesis Summary of Sub-criteria for Extension Workers (n=10)

Criteria Criteria weights Sub-criteria Sub-criteria weights Overall weights Order

Factor

conditions0.206

Human resources 0.198 0.041 14

Natural resources 0.127 0.026 17

Technique and equipment 0.259 0.053 8

Financial and capital resources 0.229 0.047 13

Farm location 0.104 0.021 19

Marketing resources 0.082 0.017 20

Demand

conditions0.109

Availability of markets for women

farmer’s produce0.437 0.048 12

Consumer preference to safe produce 0.215 0.023 18

Consumer preference to value added

produce0.348 0.038 16

Related and

supporting

industries

0.207

Availability and consistency of

supply inputs0.504 0.104 1

Availability of on-job education and

training0.310 0.064 4

Property rights/legal protection 0.186 0.039 15

109

Continuous Table A5

Strategy,

structure and

rivalry

0.176

Too many farmers 0.053 0.009 21

Forming business alliances 0.333 0.059 5

Low cost production practices 0.290 0.051 10

Contract farming 0.324 0.057 6

Government

role0.303

Availability of budget to implement

policies and programs0.161 0.049 11

Enforcement of policies and

programs0.175 0.053 9

Provision of subsidies and direct

payments0.246 0.075 2

Provision of micro-loans 0.187 0.057 7

Provision of insurance for protection 0.231 0.070 3

110

Table A6. Synthesis Summary of Sub-criteria for Farmers (n=30)

Criteria Criteria weights Sub-criteria Sub-criteria weights Overall weights Order

Factor

conditions0.218

Human resources 0.086 0,019 16

Natural resources 0.436 0.095 3

Technique and equipment 0.195 0.043 9

Financial and capital resources 0.095 0.021 14

Farm location 0.118 0.026 12

Marketing resources 0.070 0.015 19

Demand

conditions0.109

Availability of markets for women

farmer’s produce0.455 0.050 8

Consumer preference to safe produce 0.185 0.020 15

Consumer preference to value added

produce0.360 0.065 6

Related and

supporting

industries

0.121 Availability and consistency of

supply inputs0.667 0.081 4

Availability of on-job education and

training

0.229 0.028 11

111

Property rights/legal protection 0.103 0.012 21

Continuous Table A7

Strategy,

structure and

rivalry

0.382

Too many farmers 0.038 0.015 20

Forming business alliances 0.147 0.056 7

Low cost production practices 0.258 0.099 2

Contract farming 0.557 0.213 1

Government

role0.171

Availability of budget to implement

policies and programs0.091 0.016 18

Enforcement of policies and

programs0.104 0.018 17

Provision of subsidies and direct

payments0.470 0.080 5

Provision of micro-loans 0.120 0.021 13

Provision of insurance for protection 0.214 0,037 10

112

Fig

ure A7. Researchers’ Priorities of Alternatives (n=5).

Table A7. Pairwise Comparisons of Alternatives for Researchers (n=5)

Fig

ure A8. Extension Workers’ Priorities of Alternatives (n=10).

Table A8. Pairwise Comparisons of Alternatives for Extension Workers (n=10)

Fig

ure A9. Farmers’ Priorities of Alternatives (n=30)

113

Table A9. Pairwise Comparisons of Alternatives for Farmers (n=30)

Appendix II. Questionnaire for Researchers and Extension Workers

Thank you for taking time to respond to this questionnaire. The

information provided will be used in an MSc thesis to study women farmers’

Empowerment in Malawi through competitive analyses.

There are 2 sections in this questionnaire. Section A seeks to obtain

background information and section B seeks your opinion on the elements of

competitiveness. All information provided will be kept confidential and only for

the use in this thesis.

Best regards.

Student: Loveness Msofi

Advisor: Dr. Rebecca Chung

Department of Tropical Agriculture and International Cooperation

National Pingtung University of Science and Technology

114

Please put a check mark √ or specify in the blank that most applies:

Section A: Respondent’s Demographic Data

1. Name of the respondent

2. Gender

□(1) Male □ (2) Female

3. Education

□ (1) Certificate □ (2) Diploma □ (3) Bachelors degree

□ (4) Masters degree □ (5) Ph.D. Degree

4. Occupation

□(1) Extension worker/officer □ (2) Researcher

5. Your job title: ___________________________

6. Department/Institution: ___________________ (whatever is

applicable)

7. How long have you been working with women farmers or on women

farmer’s issues? years

115

Section B: Elements of Competitiveness

1. What is your opinion about the statements below regarding women farmers?

Statements Strongly

disagreeDisagree Neutral Agree

Strongly

agree

There are adequate

production factors available

to women farmers

□ □ □ □ □

There is enough demand for

produce made by women

farmers

□ □ □ □ □

Related and supporting

industries’ cooperation is

needed in women farmers’

production

□ □ □ □ □

The strategies and structures

are important to empower

women farmers

□ □ □ □ □

The government’s role is

very important to empower

women farmers

□ □ □ □ □

116

117

2. For the competitiveness elements below, could you please rate each of the (A items) against each of the

corresponding (B items) in order of their importance to women farmers.

A items A is more important

than B

B is more important than A B items

Factor conditions

9:1 7:1 5:1 3:1 1:1 1:3 1:5 1:7 1:9

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Demand conditions

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □Related and supporting

industries

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Strategy, structure and rivalry

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Government role

Demand conditions

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □Related and supporting

industries

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Strategy, structure and rivalry

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Government role

Related and supporting

industries

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Strategy, structure and rivalry

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Government role

Strategy, structure and

rivalry□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Government role

118

3. For the factors conditions, could you please rate each of the (A items) against each of the corresponding (B

items) in order of their importance to women farmers.

A items A is more important

than B

B is more important

than A

B items

9:1 7:1 5:1 3:1 1:1 1:3 1:5 1:7 1:9

Human

resources

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Natural resources

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Technique and equipment

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Financial and capital resources

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Farm location

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Marketing resources

Natural resources

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Technique and equipment

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Financial and capital resources

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Farm location

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Marketing resources

Technique and

equipment

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Financial and capital resources

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Farm location

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Marketing resources

Financial and Capital

resources

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Farm location

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Marketing resources

119

Farm location □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Marketing resources

4. For the demand conditions, could you please rate each of the (A items) against each of the corresponding (B

items) in order of their importance to create competitive advantage for women farmers.

A items A is more important

than B

B is more important

than A

B items

9:1 7:1 5:1 3:1 1:1 1:3 1:5 1:

7

1:9

Availability of market for the

produce by women farmers

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □Consumers’ preference to

safe produce

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □Consumers’ preference to

value-added produce

Consumers’ preference to safe

produce□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □

Consumers’ preference to

value-added produce

120

5. For the related and supporting industries, could you please rate each of the (A items) against each of the

corresponding (B items) in order of their importance to women farmers.

A items A is more important

than B

B is more important than A B items

9:1 7:1 5:1 3:1 1:1 1:3 1:5 1:7 1:9

Availability and consistency of

supply inputs (seed, fertilizer,

and chemicals)

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □Availability of on-job

education and training

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □Property rights/legal

protection

Availability of on-job education

and training□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □

Property rights/legal

protection

121

6. For strategies, structure and rivalry for women farmers, could you please rate each of the (A items) against

each of the corresponding (B items) in order of their importance to create competitive advantage for women

farmers.

A items A is more important

than B

B is more important

than A

B items

9:1 7:1 5:1 3:1 1:1 1:3 1:5 1:7 1:9

Too many farmers

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Form business alliance

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Low cost production practices

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Contract farming

Form business alliance□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Low cost production practices

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Contract farming

Low cost production

practices□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Contract farming

122

7. For the government role, could you please rate each of the (A items) against each of the corresponding (B

items) in order of their importance to women farmers.

A items A is more important

than B

B is more important

than A

B items

9:1 7:1 5:1 3:1 1:1 1:3 1:5 1:7 1:9

Availability of budget to

implement policies and

programs

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □Enforcement of policies and

programs

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □Provision of subsidies and direct

payment

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Provision of micro-loans

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Provision of insurance for protection

Enforcement of policies and

programs

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □Provision of subsidies and direct

payment

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Provision of micro-loans

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Provision of insurance for protection

Provision of subsidies and

direct payment

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Provision of micro-loans

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Provision of insurance for protection

Provision of micro-loans □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Provision of insurance for protection

123

8. For the decision alternatives, could you please rate each of the (A items) against each of the corresponding

(B items) in order of their importance to enhance women farmer’s competitive advantage?

A items A is more

important than B

B is more important

than A

B items

9:1 7:1 5:1 3:1 1:1 1:3 1:5 1:7 1:9

Formation of women

farmer’s Production

Marketing Teams (PMTs)

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □Establish financial institutions to provide

loans and other financial related assistance

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □Availability of training and extension to

women farmers

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □Government to help transfer women out of

farming

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □Establishment of Women Farmer’s

Association

Establish financial

institutions to provide

loans and other financial

related assistance

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □Availability of training and extension to

women farmers

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □Government to help transfer women out of

farming

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □Establishment of Women Farmer’s

Association

124

Availability of training

and extension to women

farmers

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □Government to help transfer women out of

farming

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □Establishment of Women Farmer’s

Association

Government to help

transfer women out of

farming

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □Establishment of Women Farmer’s

Association

125

Appendix III. Questionnaire for Farmers

Thank you for taking time to respond to this questionnaire. The

information provided will be used in an MSc thesis to study women farmers’

Empowerment in Malawi through competitive analyses.

There are 2 sections in this questionnaire. Section A seeks to obtain

background information and section B seeks your opinion on the elements of

competitiveness. All information provided will be kept confidential and only for

the use in this thesis.

Best regards.

Student: Loveness Msofi

Advisor: Dr. Rebecca Chung

Department of Tropical Agriculture and International Cooperation

National Pingtung University of Science and Technology

126

127

Please put a check mark √ or specify in the blank that most applies:

Section A: Respondent’s Demographic Data

8. Name of the respondent

9. Age

□ (1) Aged under 25 □ (2) Aged 25-34 □ (3) Aged 35-44

□ (4) Aged 45-54 □ (5) Aged 55-64 □ (6) Aged 65 and older

10.Marital Status

□ (1) Single □ (2) Married □ (3) Widowed/ Divorced/ Separated

11. Education level

□ (1) Never attended □ (2) Primary school

□ (3) Secondary school □ (4) Tertiary education

12. Household Size (number of family members including yourself)

□ (1) 1 □ (2) 2 □ (3) 3 □ (4) 4 □ (5) 5 □ (6) More than 5

13. Annual household Income

□ (1) Less than MK 20,000 □ (2) MK 20,000 - 49,999

□ (3) MK 50,000 - 99,999 □ (4) More than MK 100,000

14.Main farming activity (tick all applicable)

a) Crops grown:

□(1) Tobacco □(2) Maize □(3) Beans □(4) Cassava

□(5) Soybeans □(6) Vegetables □(7) Others (specify):

128

b) Livestock kept:

□(1) Cattle □(2) Goats □(3) Sheep □(4)Pigs

□(5) chicken □(6) Ducks □(7)others (specify):

15.Sources of household income (tick all applicable)

□(1) Salary from off-farm employment □(2) Selling firewood

□(2) Beer brewing □(3) Selling fish □(4) Selling snacks

□(7) Others (specify):

Section B: Elements of Competitiveness

1. What is your opinion about the statements below regarding women farmers?

Statements Strongly

disagreeDisagree Neutral Agree

Strongly

agree

There are adequate

production factors available

to women farmers

□ □ □ □ □

There is enough demand for

produce made by women

farmers

□ □ □ □ □

Related and supporting

industries’ cooperation is

needed in women farmers’

production

□ □ □ □ □

The strategies and structures

are important to empower

women farmers

□ □ □ □ □

The government’s role is

very important to empower

women farmers

□ □ □ □ □

129

2. For the competitiveness elements below, could you please rate each of the (A items) against each of the

corresponding (B items) in order of their importance to women farmers.

A items A is more important

than B

B is more important than A B items

Factor conditions

9:1 7:1 5:1 3:1 1:1 1:3 1:5 1:7 1:9

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Demand conditions

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □Related and supporting

industries

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Strategy, structure and rivalry

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Government role

Demand conditions

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □Related and supporting

industries

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Strategy, structure and rivalry

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Government role

Related and supporting

industries

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Strategy, structure and rivalry

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Government role

Strategy, structure and

rivalry□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Government role

130

3. For the factors conditions, could you please rate each of the (A items) against each of the corresponding (B items)

in order of their importance to women farmers.

A items A is more important

than B

B is more important

than A

B items

9:1 7:1 5:1 3:1 1:1 1:3 1:5 1:7 1:9

Human

resources

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Natural resources

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Technique and equipment

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Financial and capital resources

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Farm location

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Marketing resources

Natural resources

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Technique and equipment

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Financial and capital resources

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Farm location

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Marketing resources

Technique and

equipment

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Financial and capital resources

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Farm location

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Marketing resources

Financial and Capital

resources

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Farm location

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Marketing resources

131

Farm location □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Marketing resources

4. For the demand conditions, could you please rate each of the (A items) against each of the corresponding (B items)

in order of their importance to create competitive advantage for women farmers.

A items A is more important

than B

B is more important

than A

B items

9:1 7:1 5:1 3:1 1:1 1:3 1:5 1:

7

1:9

Availability of market for the

produce by women farmers

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □Consumers’ preference to

safe produce

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □Consumers’ preference to

value-added produce

Consumers’ preference to safe

produce□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □

Consumers’ preference to

value-added produce

132

5. For the related and supporting industries, could you please rate each of the (A items) against each of the

corresponding (B items) in order of their importance to women farmers.

A items A is more important

than B

B is more important than A B items

9:1 7:1 5:1 3:1 1:1 1:3 1:5 1:7 1:9

Availability and consistency of

supply inputs (seed, fertilizer,

and chemicals)

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □Availability of on-job

education and training

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □Property rights/legal

protection

Availability of on-job education

and training□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □

Property rights/legal

protection

133

6. For strategies, structure and rivalry for women farmers, could you please rate each of the (A items) against each of

the corresponding (B items) in order of their importance to create competitive advantage for women farmers.

A items A is more important

than B

B is more important

than A

B items

9:1 7:1 5:1 3:1 1:1 1:3 1:5 1:7 1:9

Too many farmers

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Form business alliance

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Low cost production practices

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Contract farming

Form business alliance□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Low cost production practices

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Contract farming

Low cost production

practices□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Contract farming

134

7. For the government role, could you please rate each of the (A items) against each of the corresponding (B items) in

order of their importance to women farmers.

A items A is more important

than B

B is more important

than A

B items

9:1 7:1 5:1 3:1 1:1 1:3 1:5 1:7 1:9

Availability of budget to

implement policies and

programs

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □Enforcement of policies and

programs

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □Provision of subsidies and direct

payment

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Provision of micro-loans

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Provision of insurance for protection

Enforcement of policies and

programs

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □Provision of subsidies and direct

payment

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Provision of micro-loans

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Provision of insurance for protection

Provision of subsidies and

direct payment

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Provision of micro-loans

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Provision of insurance for protection

Provision of micro-loans □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Provision of insurance for protection

135

8. For the decision alternatives, could you please rate each of the (A items) against each of the corresponding (B

items) in order of their importance to enhance women farmer’s competitive advantage?

A items A is more

important than B

B is more important

than A

B items

9:1 7:1 5:1 3:1 1:1 1:3 1:5 1:7 1:9

Formation of women

farmer’s Production

Marketing Teams (PMTs)

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □Establish financial institutions to provide

loans and other financial related assistance

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □Availability of training and extension to

women farmers

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □Government to help transfer women out of

farming

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □Establishment of Women Farmer’s

Association

Establish financial

institutions to provide

loans and other financial

related assistance

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □Availability of training and extension to

women farmers

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □Government to help transfer women out of

farming

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □Establishment of Women Farmer’s

Association

136

Availability of training

and extension to women

farmers

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □Government to help transfer women out of

farming

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □Establishment of Women Farmer’s

Association

Government to help

transfer women out of

farming

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □Establishment of Women Farmer’s

Association

137

Bio-Sketch of the Author

Personal Information

Full Name: Loveness Msofi

Gender: Female

Nationality: Malawian

Date of Birth: April 25th, 1986

Email Addresses: lovenessmsofi@yahoo.com

lovenessmsofi@hotmail.co.uk

loveness.msofi@gmail.com

Education

2010-2012 National Pingtung University of Science and Technology, Taiwan

(MSc in Agribusiness Management).

2004-2008 Bunda College of Agriculture, Malawi (BSc in Agricultural

Extension).

Experiences

2009 to date Women’s Programmes Officer at Blantyre District Agriculture

Office (Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security).

2008-2009 Secondary School teacher at Chinsapo Secondary School (Ministry

of Education Science and Technology).

138

139