Chapter One
Introduction
Background information
Gender differentiated technology is not a new phenomenon. Indeed, most technologies are developed
and tailored according to the stereotyped roles of men and women in society. According to Kramarae(1988), women’s use of and associations with technology reflect their major occupations in life.
Telephones are used by women operators and receptionists and men repair them. Women frequently
use household appliances such as cookers, vacuum cleaners, washing machines, refrigerators, and soon, during their household chores and men purchase them, allocate them and make decisions aboutmaintenance and disposal.
Men on the other hand, are associated with computers in office work; bicycles, cars, motorcycles
and steamers in transportation and; combine harvesters and tractors for agricultural production. They
repair things, make furniture, take technical courses such as engineering, while women are believed toconcentrate on interpersonal relationships and emotional issues. Indeed, according to Benston (1988),
women are more of users of technology and rarely creators, shapers and producers. Men, on the other
hand, are the inventors and owners of technology.
This stereotyping of technological development and its use on the basis of gender, ignores the factthat the majority of scholars concentrate on male participation and achievements in technologicaldevelopments. Women’s role and the relevance of existing technologies to women are ignored.
Kramarae’s (1988) description of how nineteenth century western women were ridiculed when theyrode on bicycles, serves to illustrate this point.
In Africa, technological development has been modelled on western pre-selected packages andimplemented everywhere, irrespective of their appropriateness to the environmental, cultural andeconomic context. The perception of local communities about agricultural technology and their active
involvement in technological development, is largely lacking. Despite their active and continuousinteraction with the environment as food producers, concern regarding women’s technological knowledge
on seed selection practices, pest and weed control measures, and harvesting and food preservation
technologies, has never been included in policy making and implementation. This omission of theknowledge systems of a significant proportion of agricultural producers, makes it difficult to develop
relevant techniques for rural farmers in the continent. In those societies where agricultural production is
the mainstay of economic production, it is an acknowledged fact that men and women do different
things, have access to different resources and benefits, and play different roles in the production cycle.
While technological implications of the different spheres of operation exist, logically, one can assume
from these gender differences that the adoption, adaptation, allocation and utilization of the various

1

T HE GENDER VARIABLE IN AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY : A CASE OF RURAL FARMERS IN MACHAKOS DISTRICT - EASTERN KENYA
technologies, are directly related to the different activities in the production cycle. It is expected thatwhen men and women engage in the production of different crops such as cash crops and subsistencecrops, they will require different technologies in terms of farm equipment and input, storage techniquesand labour requirements.
The inter and intra-household decision making processes on the allocation and use of thesetechnological resources is also made along gender lines. Indeed, studies from Staudt (1977), Pala
(1980), Ventura Diaz (1985) and Njiro (1990), reveal that cash crop production which is dominated bymen is characterized by the availability and utilization of improved farm equipment, such as tractors
and combine harvesters, and farm inputs, such as fertilizers and pesticides. It is also associated withthe cash economy, where substantial financial benefits are obtained from agriculture. Subsistence
farming, on the other hand, which is usually dominated by women, is characterized by traditional farming
techniques, rudimentary farm technology and inadequate farm inputs.
A daunting realization about agricultural technology in the third world, is that it is largely skewed tobenefit males. Tasks performed by men, such as land preparation, harvesting and processing are theeasiest to mechanize. The abundance of tractors, combine harvesters and processing factories inmany countries attest to this fact. Women’s task, on the other hand, remain labour intensive and time
consuming. Furthermore, those female tasks which are mechanized often become male tasks. Whitehead(1980) gives examples of how rice milling employing male labour is replacing hand-pounding in Sri
Lanka, South India, Bangladesh and Java, thus decreasing employment for landless women.
Whitehead, however, does not point out that women lose out on new technology, because they lackthe skills and training which is required for the handling of these innovations. In Kenya, agriculturaldevelopment planners deliberately target men for agricultural training, because they argue that men
are the household heads and therefore the major decision makers for productive resources (Staudt,
1977).This view persists, despite the fact that women are the cornerstone of agricultural production in
the rural areas and make major decisions while their husbands are away from home. This factor becomes
particularly significant when one considers the fact that almost 30% of rural households in Kenya are
women (Annual Report of Kitui District 1991). In certain Districts like Machakos the figure rises toalmost 50%, because of the diverse ecological zones and proximity to urban areas (Machakos District
Development Plan, 1994/1995).
Another point of consideration emanates from the fact that the introduction of new technology either
improves the quality of work for the men or reduces their workloads, while increasing those of women.
Palmer (1978) describes the increased transplanting, weeding, harvesting and processing work done
by women, resulting from the increased hectarage created by tractorization during the Green Revolution.
In Kenya, the mechanization of large scale farms has resulted in a high migration of men from smallholder
agriculture to large scale farms, leaving women with an over-intensification of work-loads in thesubsistence sector. This increased workload prevents women from effectively adopting new agricultural
innovations, which according to Fortman (1978), is characterized by additional workloads and therefore
requires more time.
Another dimension of agricultural technological adoption and its use may be discerned from theincreased presence of female managed farms in the rural areas. These category of farmers include
defacto and dejure household heads: widows, and divorced and single women. While they are believed
to have full control of their resources, the poorer socio-economic circumstances of female headed
2

ATPS W ORKING PAPER N O. 38
households are indicative of poverty and dependence other than authority and autonomy (United Nations,
1981). This directly affects not only their adoption of various agricultural innovations, but also the utilizationof these technologies, since they lack adequate capital to purchase them. According to Mbiti and Mbale(1981), male headed households in Kenya own more land and equipment (bicycles, ploughs and wheelbarrows) than female headed households. These findings compare favourably with those of the Ministryof Transport and Communications (1980), which noted that male headed households had 87% moreploughs per family than female headed households.
It is worth noting that in the Kenyan scenario, the patriarchal nature of the society deny many
women full control of productive resources despite male absence in their lives. The ownership ofresources such as land, and purchase and utilization of oxen ploughs depend on the inter- and intrahousehold dynamics, where the presence of a male relative play a dominant role in decision making
processes. These cultural constraints prevent women from fully utilizing and making decisions about
available resources.
In conclusion, the reviewed literature reveals the following research gaps which were addressed bythis study:•
the dynamics that lead to the choice and utilization of technology in various categories ofhouseholds such as female headed, married, and defacto and dejure households, for purposesof agricultural programme planning and implementation.
•
the illumination and practical suggestions made for women’s perception and knowledge of
agricultural technology, which has previously been unrecognised and unacknowledged wasfor their inclusion in the development of appropriate technologies for men and women in Kenya.
•
the highlighting of points of departure in gender differentiated technology, which may exist
because of differences in environmental contexts, cultural and socio-economic value systems
and ideologies.

The problem statement
Paucity of literature on gender differentiated technology and its implications for increased food production
in rural communities is an acknowledged fact (Palmer, 1978; Whitehead, 1981). Considering the intercausal relationships that exists between men and women in all spheres of farm operations, it is surprisingthat planners, policy makers, implementers and scholars have either focused on men’s or women’sroles in agricultural activities, without considering both simultaneously. In Kenya, agricultural programmes
focus on men despite the predominant role played by women in the agricultural sphere.
The apparent failure of this approach has prompted scholars such as Palmer (1978), Whitehead(1981), Dias (1985), Oduol and Karugu (1993), to focus on technological innovations and women farmers.
However, the focus on women farmers is as incomplete as those studies which focus on male participationin agricultural production. This is because these kinds of studies are insensitive to the fact that men’s
and women’s roles and patterns of intra- and inter-household relations are embedded in farming systems.
They will have an effect on and be affected by changes in these systems (Fieldstein et al 1989).
Furthermore, these interrelationships are reinforced by cultural beliefs and practices, which determine
decisions on ownership, allocation and disposal of resources and the benefits derived from them. The
decisions on who may purchase and use particular farm equipment, fertilizer, pesticide, storage facilities
or who may go to farm demonstrations, farmers training centres and receive extension services, may
3

T HE GENDER VARIABLE IN AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY : A CASE OF RURAL FARMERS IN MACHAKOS DISTRICT - EASTERN KENYA
already be predetermined in the social dynamics of the society. It is, therefore, obvious that any study
which focuses on either male or female participation without consideration of both is incomplete.
Recent decades have seen a shifting of focus from either sex to the analysis of the gender variable
as a determining factor in the adoption and utilization of agricultural technology. However, this literature
has largely been general and theoretical, without providing case studies, which reveal the interactive
mechanisms that result in the allocation and use of technology along gender lines (see Fieldstein et al
1989; Cloud, 1985, 1988). This has obscured the vital role played by the gender variable in determining
the effective adoption and utilization of agricultural technology and its implications for increased foodproduction in the rural areas.
We have chosen to study the rural farming community of Machakos District of Eastern Kenya. The
District is ideal for this kind of study, because it is characterized by diverse ecological zones, which
dictate the type of farming systems that prevail in the area. It is one area where allocation and utilizationof resources along gender lines is determined by existing environmental factors and other external
influences such as the active participation of government and donor agencies in agricultural activities in
the area. From the high potential hill masses of Iveti, Maua and Kangundo, where cash crops predominate;
the horticultural irrigated areas along Tana River and Yatta Canal and to the semi-arid regions of Masinga,
farming systems differ according to the prevailing circumstances. Machakos District is also the area
which was formerly occupied by white settlers whose farms were allocated to landless squatters.
Despite the complexities that prevail in relation to agricultural technologies, there is lack of literature
to guide implementors in providing the right technologies for the diverse target groups. This in turn, notonly illuminates the gender parity in the district, it also serves to depress overall crop production in thearea. This rich diversity, therefore, provides an ideal setting for studying gender dynamics in theownership, distribution and allocation of technological resources.

Research objectives
General objective
Our objective is to find out the mechanism which influences the choice and use of agricultural technology
along gender lines and determine their implications for increased food production in the area of study.
Such mechanisms would include ownership of various forms of knowledge as well as the hardware
technology required for farm operations.

Specific objectives
Specifically, our objectives were to:• document male and female preferences and use of agricultural technology in the area of study.
• determine who has knowledge of and uses indigenous agricultural technology and what
implications this has for agricultural production in the area of study.
• determine who makes decisions about the technologies used in these spheres, purchases,
distributes, has access to and derives benefits from them and why.
• examine the effects of modern technology on division of labour along gender lines and determine
its implications for increased food production in the area of study.
4

ATPS W ORKING PAPER N O. 38• examine the processes underlying technological adoption and use in female and male headedhouseholds and determine their implications for increased agricultural production in the area ofstudy.
• determine the policy implications of gender differentiated technology.

Research questions
To fully explore the importance of gender variable in influencing decisions relating to agricultural
technology, the following questions became pertinent:• What types of agricultural technology do men and women prefer and why?
• Who purchases the technology, uses it, repairs and disposes of it?
• In which spheres of operation are these technologies utilized and who controls their use anddistribution?
• How does their adoption affect distribution of labour across gender lines and what are its
implications for the increased adoption of agricultural technology?
• Who derives benefits such as access to extension services, credit, attendance in farmer training
centres and why?
• Who retains knowledge of indigenous technology and what interactive processes occur as aresult of the blending of traditional and new technology?
The research topics identified for exploration were as follows:• Type of technologies used by men and women and why.
• Types of technologies used on the specific crop, by who and why.
• Who has access to and owns the knowledge on the types of technologies used.
• Channels of knowledge transmission on the basis of gender.
• Values placed on types of technology used between men and women and decisions relating totheir ownership, preservation and maintenance.
• Households spending patterns in relation to who provides income for expenditure and on whatitems.
• Who benefits from the use of agricultural technology and why.

Hypotheses
Following the literature review, the stated objectives and research questions, the following hypotheses
were tested in the area of study:• The gender variable does not affect the farmer’s decisions, preferences and use of agricultural
technology in various spheres of farm operations.
• The adoption and use of various types of agricultural technology does not depend on whether
the household head is a man or a woman.
• There is no relationship between division of labour and types of technologies used during farmoperations in the area of study.
• The benefits derived from and access to and use of agricultural technology, is not influenced bygender.
5

T HE GENDER VARIABLE IN AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY : A CASE OF RURAL FARMERS IN MACHAKOS DISTRICT - EASTERN KENYA
1.

The gender variable does not affect the farmer’s decisions, preferences and use of agricultural
technology in various spheres of farm operations.
This is a null hypothesis which postulates gender as the independent variable, and decision making,preferences and use of agricultural technology, as the dependent variables. The various spheres ofagricultural operations include preparing land, planting/sowing, harvesting, milking, and post-harvest
activities such as irrigating, weeding, thinning, and marketing and packaging. An alternative hypothesisis that gender does affect farmers decision-making, preferences and use of agricultural techniques in
Machakos in the various spheres of farm operations. Men and women in Machakos show differencesin decision-making, preferences and use of agricultural techniques in the various spheres of farmoperations. The hypothesis was to prove:•
Whether or not women or men dominate decision-making associated with agricultural production,such as use of technology in farming.
•
Do men and women have differing preferences of the various agricultural technologies (indigenous
and modern) in Machakos?
•
Whether women and men use agricultural technologies equally.
•
If there are differential uses of agricultural technologies in Machakos among male and female
farmers and what reason/factors account for such differences. Have they anything to do withgender?
•
Are there similarities (or unity) among women and men farmers as a group in terms of decisionmaking, preferences and use of agricultural technologies ( both indigenous and modern) in
Machakos? i.e. Are women and men farmers having similar/general behaviour in terms ofdecision-making, preferences and use of agricultural technologies? If not, what other factors
other than gender, account for the variations in decision-making, preferences and use of
agriculture technology even among the same sex?
2.

The adoption and use of various types of agricultural technology does not depend on whether
the household head is a man or a woman.
This is another null hypothesis which postulates that male- and female-headed households in Machakos
show no remarkable differences in terms of adoption and use of the various agricultural technologies.
That they adopt and use agricultural technologies almost equally and the agricultural technologies
adopted and used in male-headed households, are similar to those used in the households headed byfemales. The independent variable here is headship of household by gender and the adoption and useof agricultural technologies are dependent on it.
The alternative hypothesis is sex of the household head influences the type of adoption and use of
agricultural technologies. An assumption is that male and female headed households do not use
agricultural technologies equally and this is due mainly to the sex of the household head. The task is toprove:•
Whether male/female headed households adopt and use agricultural technologies equally. If
so, then sex of household head influences adoption and use of agricultural technologies in
Machakos.

6

ATPS W ORKING PAPER N O. 38•

Do households headed by same sex ( e.g. male headed households ) show any remarkabledifferences in terms of adoption and use of agricultural technologies? If yes, then sex of thehead of household is not a significant factor in determining adoption and use of agricultural
technology in Machakos. Other factors might have greater influence on adoption and use of
agricultural technology than the sex of the household head. The hypothesis required further
tabulation to check the association between sex of the household head and adoption as wellas use of agricultural technologies (Table 1.1a).

Table 1.1a: Gender and Use of Technology in Machakos Households
Sex of the household head

Adoption and use ofindigenous technology

Adoption and use ofmodern technology

Female-headed households
Male-headed households

A cross tabulation of a few farm tasks and implements used by both the female and male headedhouseholds to perform the agricultural tasks. Table 1.1b shows what was observed:
Table 1.1b: Gender and Use of Technology in Machakos Households
Type ofhousehold head

% Households using
modern implements
in land preparation(plough/tractor)

Male headed
Female headed

60 (24)20 (12)

mainly indigenous
implements in land
preparation(traditional hoes)
34 (14)79 (47)both modern Total
and traditional percentage
implements
6 (2)
1 (1)

100
100

In parenthesis are figures representing an actual no. of households selected for pretesting.
This table indicated that there is enough evidence that adoption and use of agricultural technology
between female and male headed households is not the same. It is also revealed that male-headedhouseholds are the greater adopters and users of modern agricultural technologies (60%) and only
20% of female headed households ever used modern implements. About 79% of female headedhouseholds adopt and use more indigenous implements in land preparation compared to 34% of maleheaded households. The next task was to find out why this is the state of affairs.

7

T HE GENDER VARIABLE IN AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY : A CASE OF RURAL FARMERS IN MACHAKOS DISTRICT - EASTERN KENYA
3.

There is no relationship between division of labour and types of technologies used during farmoperations in the area of study.
Alternative hypothesis is that there is a relationship between division of labour and types of technologies
used during farm operations in Machakos. The questions asked are as follows:•
How are the farm activities allocated and shared within the households in Machakos?
•
What contribution does each sex make in a given or specific task, eg who between womenand men contributes most in land preparation?
•
Which tasks are mainly performed by the men, women, children, young adults and older
people?
•If there is a difference in tasks performed based on age and sex, what technologies do thespecific groups utilize? For example, if men are the ones who dominate land preparation, do
they rely more on indigenous or modern technologies.
4.

The benefits derived from, access to and use of agricultural technology is not influenced bygender.
Another null hypothesis postulating the influence of gender on benefits from agricultural use of and,access to agricultural technologies. The questions asked are:•Who are the main adopters of modern agricultural technology men or women? Female headedhouseholds or male headed households?
•
In household where a certain agricultural technology exists, e.g. where ox-plough has been
adopted, who has access to it among the men and women households in Machakos?
•
In the areas of study, which households would one say have access to what it takes to adopt
modern technology e.g credit facilities? What is the rate of adoption?
•
Who between female/male headed households uses more modern agricultural technologies
or indigenous ones.

Conceptual framework: definition of concepts, terms and their operation
Conceptualizing technology
Like all commonly used concepts with highly generalized characteristics, the definition of technology
reveals a myriad of complexities which render the term both ambiguous and slippery. In general,technology means in a narrow sense, material artifacts — machines and other physical devices andproducts. In a broader sense, it means a particular kind of knowledge about how to produce desired
and intended outcomes, not only “knowing about” but also “knowing how to do” (Layton, 1974). In thisview, technology is not only material artifacts, but also social wisdom (Law and Bijiker, 1992). According
to Mackenzie and Wacman (1985), technology is composed of material objects, and scientific knowledge
and methodological processes utilized to transform them for individual and social needs. This definition
is consistent with Ottilienfield’s (1914) perception of technology as a refined totality of procedures andinstruments within a defined specified area of human activity. Rapp’s (1981) summarizes technology
as procedural knowledge and actual execution.
However, these definitions of technology do not encompass the interactive mechanisms that exist
between technology, human beings and other environmental, socio-cultural and political factors.
Humanistic proponents of technology perceive it as an integral part of human life shaping and being
8

ATPS W ORKING PAPER N O. 38
shaped by human influence. It is culture specific, environmentally tailored and malleable to socioeconomic and political circumstances. Indeed, according to Pfaffenberger (1988: 249), technology isdefined as a totality of social and cultural phenomenon, which blends the material, social and symbolic
in a complex web of associations. It is the social construction of nature around us and with us andtherefore a form of life. It is a symbolic reflection of people’s norms, values, beliefs, systems andcultural practices. It is also a reflection of human attempt to subdue and adapt to the environment.
Mcloughlin (1970) views technology as a social process or a set of problem solving ideas, skills anddevices. McDowell(1976) expanded this view further by pointing out that technology consists of skills,
techniques and artifacts. In this view, technology of a society is the tools, skills and techniques utilized
in that society for performing tasks such as storing food, raising crops, preparation of land for planting,threshing grain or carrying a load. Appleton and Scott (1994) are more systematic in their views ontechnology as consisting of four aspects, namely:•
Physical artifacts ( for example tools and equipment) sometimes referred to as hardware.
•
Skills and knowledge that enable artifacts to be used and production carried out.
•
The forms of organization (social and directly production related) needed to make use of the
hardware. These two (ii and iii) are referred to as “software.”•
The product itself, which has direct relationship with the techniques and skills required to
produce it (Wagner, 1989).
These views reiterate that technology is a systematic study of techniques of making and doing
things. The activity by which humans seek to change and or manipulate their environment. In
anthropological terms, it is the total system of means by which a given group interacts with its environment.
That technology includes: the use of tools, patterns of work, information or knowledge employed andorganization of resources for productive activity. In this view, technology is more than just material
culture.
This study contextualized technology from two broad dimensions:•
Modern agricultural technology embodied in the green revolution model, which promotes
hybridization, modern farm methods and the use of farm inputs and equipments.
•
Indigenous agricultural technology, which encompasses traditional farming techniques
accumulated over generations, based on local value systems, a wide experience and knowledgeof the environment, rituals and belief systems.
This knowledge is not static, but consists of dynamic insights and techniques, which are adapted toenvironmental and socio-economic circumstances. The variable was measured by asking the
respondents about the kind of technology they use, why and who makes the decisions about the purchaseand adoption of these technologies.
Farming technology means the way agriculture is done. It includes methods by which land is cultivatedand crops are harvested and also the way livestock is cared for. It includes the seeds, fertilizers, pesticides,
medicines and the fodder for livestock. Tools and implements the farmers use, and their source ofpower are also included. Enterprise combinations by which farmers seek to make the best use of theirlabour and land, should also be considered (Mosher 1966). Agriculture technology is thus a combination

9

T HE GENDER VARIABLE IN AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY : A CASE OF RURAL FARMERS IN MACHAKOS DISTRICT - EASTERN KENYA
of all management practices for producing or storing crop mixture ( also livestock; Either and Startz,
1984).

Indigenous technology
The term indigenous technology has been defined as that which originates, grows or lives naturally ina particular place (The Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English 1987). It is born or produced
naturally in a land or region; pertaining to or intended for the natives. When applied to population, it
refers to the original inhabitants of an area. It is sometimes synonymous with native (The Oxford English
Dictionary and Macmillian Dictionary of Anthropology). MacDowell(1976) defines indigenous technology
as locally generated/homegrown technology. This is to say, technologies developed within a society,were not necessarily brought out from outside and adopted. Thus, indigenous technology is homebased, grown from within a given society rather than imposed from without. These traditional technologies
are in most cases appropriate and simple and represent the use of non-cost materials fashioned withsimple tools or woven by methods handed down over the centuries. They have been tested in thelaboratory of survival. Traditional or indigenous technology form the fabric of culture.
Indigenous technologies are therefore viewed as those which have evolved within the communityand have been passed from one generation to another. Examples are the techniques and practices
employed in utilizing and managing fields, such as cropping methods, patterns, calender, and intensity,and cultivation, and milking, milk storage and fermentation techniques. Table 1.2 shows a set of
dichotomies about indigenous technology:
Table 1.2: A Set of Technology Dichotomies
Set OneIndigenous
Traditional
Local
Culture specific
ParticularSimpleOld

Set TwoModernWestern
Scientific
GeneralWorldly
SophisticatedNew

Characteristics of indigenous agricultural technology is simple and primitive to the western eyes,
but has been well-tried and proved reliable through the use by many generations. It is labour intensive,
self-sufficient, and relies on outside suppliers of materials or services (Ghatak, 1984).
Technology as conceptualized within this study is quite broad and general. This necessitated thenarrowing down of variables to obtain an in-depth analysis of the dynamic and interactive mechanisms,
which determine the choice and use of agricultural technology on the basis of gender. The variables
included seed selection practices, planting, weed management, pest control strategies, harvesting andfarm equipment.
Furthermore, it will be altruism that the type of technology used depends on the type of crops grown,
the availability of resources and the influence of the ecological zone. Since local farmers grow several
10

ATPS W ORKING PAPER N O. 38
crops simultaneously, it was only practical to study technological use on all the crops grown. Technologicalchoice on all crops grown and the livestock reared, were studied contrary to the earlier author’s intention,
only to select three crops for analysis. This way choice and use of agricultural techniques by both maleand female farmers were explored according to the different agro-ecological zones. Also, the diversitythat characterizes preferences, access and control of technology in the district were captured.

Farm household
Households are those individuals who farm a communal field under the juridiction of the household
head and who eat from the same cooking pot( Koeing 1980; Hunger and Moris, 1973; Norman, Simonsand Hays (1982). The individuals who eat and work together most of the time (Macmillian, 1983). Farm
household, therefore, can be viewed as a farm unit which comprises of a person or a group of persons
living together in the same house or in different houses in the same compound, are in one way or
another related to and /or answerable to the same head of household and may be sharing the same
source of food.

Agriculture
Agriculture concerns production based on the growth processes of plants and animals. Farmers manage
and stimulate plant and animal growth on their farms. Therefore, the elements of agriculture can beviewed as: farmers, farm, production process and farm business. Farm production uses inputs to produce
outputs. Farm inputs used in the production process include land, labour of the farmer’s family andworkers, and the mental effort of planning and managing the seeds, animal feeds, fertilizers, insecticides
and implements. All these constitute the inputs and technologies of the farm. The outputs are crops andlivestock products produced in the farm.

Division of labour
This is the extent and manner in which tasks are divided among men, women and children on a daily
basis. The variable was measured by asking the respondents what tasks they perform, who allocates
duties in the various spheres of operation and why. Attention was paid to household activities and offfarm enterprises in so far as they influence the time allocated to agricultural activities.

Benefits
This refers to the benefits associated with adoption of modern agricultural technology, such as income
from farm production, free provision of farm inputs by extension staff and from other sources, attendancein farmer training centres, farm demonstrations and other agricultural training and access to credit
facilities. The variable was measured by asking the respondents to identify those who benefit and why.

Expected results and impact
In recent years, there has been a growing recognition by planners, implementors and scholars that few
development programmes can succeed without considering the gender variable. Indeed, attempts havebeen made by government ministries and non-governmental organizations to include the genderdimension in programme planning and implementation.
11

T HE GENDER VARIABLE IN AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY : A CASE OF RURAL FARMERS IN MACHAKOS DISTRICT - EASTERN KENYA
A study such as this will not only supplement the literature that already exists on this subject, it
should also assist development planners in identifying the constraints that prevent the effective adoption
and utilization of existing agricultural technologies. This will, in turn, help them to develop appropriatetechnologies for the relevant target groups.
The information obtained from this study should clearly reveal to planners and implementors, theinter-causal relationship between men and women that prevail in all decisions affecting farm operations.
This information could be useful in the development of technologies that families can use to improvetheir welfare and reduce the gender parity that prevails in all spheres of development. Furthermore, it
may lead to the development of technologies which will reduce women’s workloads, save costs andtime, improve farm yields and generally result in a sense of well-being for the farmers.
Finally, the information generated from this diverse environment could also be generalised to thoseareas with similar characteristics, with the hope that the right technology will be targeted to the right
population during programme implementation.

Expected beneficiaries••••

The study will benefit researchers and scientists who are involved in developing agricultural
technologies for communities all over the country.
The Ministry of Agriculture will benefit with emphasis on the extension service system.
Farmers will benefit not only in the research area, but also in those areas in Kenya where
similar problems exist.
Institution and personnel: The sponsoring institution is the Institute of African Studies in the
University of Nairobi. This institution emphasises the socio-economic and cultural aspects ofproduction activities. It therefore complements the existing scientific and technological activities
being undertaken in other campuses of the university of Nairobi, such as Kabete Campus,
which specifically deals with agricultural activities. In addition, the Institute of African Studies
is the only institution in the university which provides gender and development courses, bothto undergraduate and graduate students. The findings generated from this research are of
direct relevance to the institute as reference material. The project will be housed in the physicalsetting of the institution and will enjoy access to office space and library facilities, including
departmental and main university libraries.

Problems encountered during the study
The area of this research is Machakos District at a time when prolonged famine had hit the people.
They were therefore very reluctant to answer most of the research questions as they felt they wereirrelevant to their famine situation. All visitors to the area were suspect unless they were bringing relief
food. Respondents demanded to be paid for spending time discussing with us. This was not possible as
there was no money for such unethical demands.
Questions about choice and use of agricultural technologies in a location such as Masinga were nottaken kindly as the farmers have been very frustrated for the two years of no rain. They found ourquestions too long and many and they did not see how they could be of use to them. Participatory
methods were also found to be time wasting and only the idle school leavers had time and energy to
12

ATPS W ORKING PAPER N O. 38
participate in them. The elderly people with the information about the historical perspective in the use of
agricultural technology were too busy travelling in search of food for their families.
Issues of politics of the area, particularly in Masinga, were rife during this study. They wanted us totell them what the government is doing to stop the famine once and for all. They were bitter at the way
the cabinet ministers in the area had piped the water from Masinga dam, which is the source of thewater to their constituencies, leaving them to wallow in a dry famine stricken area. They have to buy
water, fodder for their livestock, food for their families and all the other needs, such as fees and school
uniform, when they had no money for any of these.
It was difficult to obtain answers to the questions about the choice and use of such technologies,
such as application of fertilizers and pesticides. Many farmers did not receive any instructions as tohow, where and when to apply them. The difference between indigenous and modern agricultural
implements was another complex issue. It was difficult for the farmers to estimate their labour contribution
for the last six months when all they have done is wait in frustration. Farming, whether done withmodern or indigenous technology was not successful in any of the locations sampled in this study.
Farmers did not take kindly to questions to evaluate the determinants for choice and use of technologies.
These problems were resolved through dialogue which made the research take longer than was planned.
Waiting for compromise by research communities meant staying longer than budgeted in the researcharea. Analysis of data collected through participatory methods was not easy and it took many hours
making sense of the enormous information.
Transport within the research area was another problem as there are no vehicles in the area evenwhen it is not raining. We devised a method of hitching rides from tractors and carts. Walking was themain mode of travel and this is slow and it delayed the research further.

13

Chapter Two
Literature review
The following are the selected topics which were found relevant to this study:

Kenya's food policy and strategies
According to Sessional paper No.2 (Republic of Kenya, 1994) on National Food Policy, the major
objectives in Kenya’s development policy are: food self-sufficiency, food security, employment creation,
income generation, generation of foreign exchange earnings, rural urban balance and overall growth.
In view of the rapid population growth and the increasing demand for food, food production and foodsecurity will remain key priorities in the agricultural sector. Other important objectives of the sector willcontinue to be the generation of raw materials for domestic industry and agricultural exports andcontribution towards the national objectives.
The central objective of National Food Security Policy is to ensure an adequate supply of nutritionallybalanced foods in all parts of the country at all times. Food security at the national level will be achieved
through:•
Increasing food production in all areas of the country.
•
Promoting drought-resistant crops such as sorghum and millet in the dryland areas.
•
Rapid development of the country’s irrigation and drainage potential.
•
The establishment of a food commodity monitoring and reporting system.
•
Continued monitoring and forecasting of weather conditions in the main agricultural zones,
and wider dissemination of information on expected weather trends.
•
Improvement in the marketing, processing and distribution of food.
•
Adequate multi-commodity strategic reserves, including strategic reserves of milk powder,
will be maintained at all times to see the country through difficult times, such as droughts andpoor harvests.
•
Liberalization of marketing, including importation of food, subject to variable import duties
wherever appropriate.
Food security at the level of individuals and households will be improved through the following measures:•
Improvement of macro economic management for better economic performance.
•
Providing incentives to farmers for improved agricultural production.
•
Improved extension services on storage methods to reduce post-harvest losses.
•
Providing traders and commodity dealers incentives for improved marketing, storage anddistribution of food commodities.

14

ATPS W ORKING PAPER N O. 38•••

Improved health and nutrition education.
Provision of emergency food relief programmes.
Food-for-work programmes for the rural poor and other programmes targeting assistance toidentified vulnerable groups.

In order to meet the ealier mentioned measures, Kenya’s agricultural development strategy is aimed
at the continued expansion of productive investment through growth in agricultural outputs andconservation of scarce natural resources to ensure their sustainable utilization. There is a clear needfor the country to continue with the major policies spelt out in sessional paper no. 4 of 1981 on national
food security, which sets guidelines for decision making on all major issues related to food production
and distribution. The overall objectives of this policy were to:•
Maintain a position of broad self-sufficiency in the main foodstuffs, in order to enable thenation to be fed without using scarce foreign exchange on food imports.
•
Achieve a calculated degree of security of food supply for each area of the country.
•
Ensure that these foodstuffs are distributed in a manner that every member of the population
has a nutritionally adequate diet.
The food policy will continue to be sufficiently flexible to adjust to policy decisions taken in othersectors of the economy and to changes in the domestic and international economic environment. During
the next decade, expansion of food production will need to be based primarily on increases in yields.
The aim is to set rolling a "green revolution". This may be achieved by:•
Increasing inter-cropping.
•
Increased multiple cropping.
•
Improved soil analysis, and increased and efficient use of fertilizers.
•
Increased use of other inputs.
•
The progressive introduction of improved seeds and livestock breeds.
•
Other improvements in cultural practices.
•
Use of organic manure.
In addition to yield increases, the supply of food actually available for consumption can be increased
substantially through a reduction in storage and handling losses. These will be reduced by improved
extension advice and investment in on-farm storage facilities and by increased participation by theprivate sector in marketing, storage and processing.

Agricultural input policy
The central objective of the government’s agricultural and livestock inputs policy is to ensure that
adequate and quality inputs are made available to farmers and that, to the greatest extent possible,
they are used at the right time and in the correct quantities.
Fertilizer importation and distribution was liberalized in 1991 and in general, the market has performed
reasonably well. However, fertilizer use has been on a declining trend over the last 5 years, primarily
because of high relative prices. The government will ensure that importation of fertilizers and otheragricultural and livestock inputs is given priority in utilization of foreign exchange. Measures will also15

T HE GENDER VARIABLE IN AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY : A CASE OF RURAL FARMERS IN MACHAKOS DISTRICT - EASTERN KENYA
continue to be taken to ensure the adequate provision and optimum utilization of other agriculturalchemicals (to keep prices of agricultural chemicals low, the government will allow their importation freeof duty).
The main policy for seeds will be to ensure adequate supply of high quality seeds of improved
varieties of a wide range of crops. The objective of food crop research will be to continue the search formore productive and affordable crop varieties.
The main aim of the agricultural machinery policy will be to support the private sector in thedevelopment and wider distribution and maintenance of more appropriate technology, to increase labour
productivity and reduce the present emphasis on imported capital-intensive equipments.
The government will further seek to reduce their policies by waving VAT on those inputs, to encourage
farmers to intensify agricultural production through the use of agricultural and livestock inputs (fertilizers,
agro-chemicals, livestock drugs and farm machinery). The policy will also aim at increasing the availability
and quality of concentrates, compound feed and minerals required for increased livestock and poultry
production. To keep the prices of imported livestock drugs, semen and embryos low, the government
will allow their importation free of duty.
The Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock Development and Marketing will liaise with relevant institutions
to finalise the preparation of the National Agricultural Mechanization Strategy (NAMS). Through theimplementation of NAMS, the government will support the development of effective farm machinery
manufacturing, distribution and servicing system for the country’s needs and even for export.
It is essential that farmers have access to adequate financial resources, to continue making effective
use of improved supply of agricultural and livestock inputs. These resources will be provided by expanding
seasonal and long term move towards a decentralized agricultural finance system and to support the
expansion of informal credit.

Gender issues in agricultural technology
Kenya’s National Development Plan 1994-1996 (see Republic of Kenya 1994), stressed the need for
agricultural policy to be sensitive to the special needs of women and youth so that their contribution toagricultural development as well as their welfare can be enhanced. Required are policies that improve
the access by women and youth to information, land, credit and other resources. Such views were
earlier articulated by Appleton(1993) in her paper entitled “Women: Invisible women technologists”, inwhich she made the following observations:•
Women and men use and adopt technologies in different ways and have different priorities.
•
Women’s knowledge of production is rational and is based on a logical framework ofunderstanding.
•
The space in which women live affects their patterns of production and their use of technology,
as do external circumstances such as national disasters, conflicts, environmental changes
and market demands.
•
It must be understood that, technological use cannot be divorced from the rest of people’s
lives. Domestic violence in all parts of the world restricts women and limits their ability to adopt
and innovate technologies.
•
The innovations (and adoptions?) that women make, are based on their priorities in all aspectsof their lives and particularly on their understanding of the risks which are involved.
16

ATPS W ORKING PAPER N O. 38
•
•

•
•
•

Women’s perception, use and adaptation of agricultural technology is shaped by their evaluationof risk.
That decisions by women to reject particular technologies are often dismissed by others as
proof that women are “resistant to change” or conservative, but such decisions are actuallybased on women’s knowledge of their own environments, available resources, priorities andthe risks they can afford to take.
It is generally accepted that women have knowledge and skills in food production, processing
and marketing and that this plays a crucial role in household livelihoods and food security.
The national policy environment affects the ways in which women use, adopt and adapt totechnologies. This is to say that women do not use and adopt technologies in a vacuum,
without influence from both local and external factors.
Women are not high-profile users of technical hardware: machinery and equipment. The mostimportant components of women’s technology are the software elements: The expertise, skills,
knowledge, techniques and organization of production processes, are based on years ofexperience.

The same author jointly with Andrew Scott highlight issues in gender agricultural technology (ITDG,
1994). The authors argue that women’s priorities and expectations in relation to technology may befundamentally different from those of men. Also, traditional models of technology development may failwomen, simply because they do not address the differences between men’s and women’s technologicalneeds, uses and contributions. The implicit undervaluing of the skills, knowledge and organization oftechnology use has had serious implications for the status of women as technology producers andusers, and also for their involvement in technology development processes.

Gender and technology
People’s experiences in relation to technology are formed by their gender. Women and men from birthabsorb the norms and values of the society around them. They learn the roles and responsibilities,
skills, behaviour and expectations which relate to each sex and which define for each, their position insociety. T he technology which they use, and the technical knowledge to which they have access to, areshaped through this process, and also the potential which they have, to extend their knowledge andskills in any direction.
Similarly, although men and women live in the same place, each will experience differently the
economic, social, cultural, political and geographical environments around them. Different experiences
impact differently on their respective capacities and priorities in relation to the use and also the innovationof technology whether within enterprises or other activities. These sets of experiences can be identified
and conceptualized as separate frameworks of technology use. Relationships also exist between these
two sets of uses, which support hierarchies of access, ownership and control. These also affect theways in which technology is used and adopted, and how women and men perceive themselves inrelation to that use and adoption.

17

T HE GENDER VARIABLE IN AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY : A CASE OF RURAL FARMERS IN MACHAKOS DISTRICT - EASTERN KENYA

Different sets of technical knowledge
Men and women do different things or similar things in different ways, have different ways of organizing
or applying knowledge or different ways of preserving and transferring knowledge (Norem et al. 1989).
All these factors contribute to each sex building up different sets of skills and therefore knowledge. In
crop production, men and women may perform different tasks within a single crop system, or cultivate
different crops. They may well use and need different tools. Evidence shows that the development ofagricultural technology has focused on support for men’s tasks whilst women’s activities have received
less attention.
Women farmers in general work primarily with rudimentary tools and implements, since few poor
women have access to modern inputs, which would enhance productivity. Their incomes are primarily
allocated to pressing consumption needs; also appropriate inputs and technologies are seldom available
in rural areas. Rural women’s activities in animal husbandry, food processing, crop storage and marketing
similarly do not bereft from modern technology (IFAD, 1992). Women farmers are rarely reached byextension services and included in on-farm research programmes. Women’s crops and livestock activities,
especially crop processing and storage have received relatively little attention in agricultural researchand technological development programmes.
Women’s and men’s work is valued differently by development workers. Many of the tasks done by
women are not perceived to involve any form of technology or use of technical skills. They are undertakenin the private environment of the home or are of low status, because they are domestic.
Often, development programmes ignore the gender related nature of production. Sometimes thishas meant the introduction of new crop varieties like sugar-cane to men, which have had the effect ofincreasing women’s work (such as weeding), without giving them access to any of the benefits. In somecases, the introduction of new technology to men has brought about a loss of control for women over an
area from which they once gained an income. An example is the introduction of palm oil processing
machines and hybrid rice varieties in some countries in West Africa (Ashy, 1981; Doy, 1982).
Policies that hope to widen technology choice for agricultural production can only achieve this if
they include a commitment to understanding the different technical capacities, needs and priorities ofwomen and men. Ann Leonard (1992) gave further insights concerning this issue in an article in The
Seeds Magazine with a story of women in agriculture in western province, Zambia. She reiterated thatlike almost all women in Zambia, the majority of women in Zambia’s western province are farmers.
Hence, they have the following obligations:•
It is their duty to produce food to feed themselves and their children and to meet their basic
cash needs according to custom.
•
Women head over one third of all households in Zambia, in law or in fact.
•
Women as well as men find farming a worthwhile activity. In areas where soils are good,efficient agricultural services are available, and markets and inputs are accessible.
Allocation of work in the households is somehow skewed in that while some men help women toclear land for food cropping, they spend most of their time tending their animals, fishing, looking after
their own food plots and on cash cropping. In the past, women did not plough. It was a man’s skill anda woman’s touch of the plough was thought to bring misfortune and sickness. However, today, withmore women being sole providers, there is a growing recognition that women must also learn this skill.
18

ATPS W ORKING PAPER N O. 38
In Zambia’s western province, women are breaking through traditional barriers. They are doing a
job that was taboo, such as ploughing. Women rarely herd cattle, but almost one third of all women in
the province probably own cattle at some point in their lives through inheritance or as payment of bride
price. It is a widely held belief among men that women have little to do with the care and managementof cattle and that they are not interested in keeping them.
A survey of women’s work in rice production carried out by the Dutch advisors (to women’s extension
programme, WEP), revealed that a number of women already owned an ox or even a team, or hadaccess to one through relatives. However, they had no control over the oxen’s use and lacked the skill
to plough.

Women’s roles in the food cycle technologies
Ilkkaracan and Appleton(1994) in a study in Machakos, concluded that the introduction of modern
agricultural technologies has aggravated the consequences of lack of rainfall and here, local producers
are trying to return to traditional methods of cultivation. Technology programmes that are designed andconducted in a “gender neutral” way, end up having gender-segregated results and even among women,
there are different effects on different groups.
The technological invisibility of women has been supported by lack of acknowledgement, both atnational and international levels of women’s economic contribution. Similar views were propounded by
Ester Boserup (1989) when she wrote that Africa is the region of female farming per excellence. In
many African tribes, nearly all the tasks connected with food production continue to be left to women.
Female farming systems seem most often to disappear when farming systems with ploughing of
permanent fields are introduced in lieu of shifting cultivation. It is not an invariable rule that men operate
the plough right from the moment it is introduced. Among some Bantu people in Southern Africa, womensteer the plough. These women probably belong to tribes with female farming traditions, and such
examples are no more than sporadic exceptions to the general rule that ploughs are operated by men.

Barriers to access of rural women to land, livestock, other productive assets,
extension services and credit in selected African countries
In a study by United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (1991), the following were observed as
the main barriers to women’s agricultural roles:•
Women in rural areas of Africa carry the heaviest burden in terms of Agricultural production,
especially food production for the increasing population of the continent. Traditional division oflabour by gender in which women’s primary responsibility is usually food production, andpreparation and collection of fuel and water, has continued in the rural areas of the region.
•
In spite of the huge responsibilities shouldered by the female half of the region’s population, in
most cases they do not enjoy equal status as men when it comes to access to the resources
necessary for efficient agricultural production. Be it land, livestock, extension services, credit
or any other productive asset, there is marked imbalance in their accessibility between sexes.
Experience shows that improvements in agricultural inputs and services usually end-up in thehands of the rural men. Agricultural inputs and improvements tend to flow to the male-controlled
cash crops rather than to the female-dominated food production.
19

T HE GENDER VARIABLE IN AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY : A CASE OF RURAL FARMERS IN MACHAKOS DISTRICT - EASTERN KENYA
•

•

•
•

•

•

•

•

•

The fundamental problem of women’s limited access to land, credit, labour, technology andother productive assets, is linked to security of land tenure. Food production and food security
in the region has been hampered by the fact that women have not been able to fully participate
in many aspects of managing farms.
Women encounter barriers as far as access to new and improved technology and otherproductive assets is concerned. This is related to the fact that women do not have equal
access to land, and thus also not to credit. It follows that technologies and other inputs are notequally accessible or distributed to them.
Institutional constraints and regulations, some of which originate in the land tenure systems
prevalent in many African countries, limit women’s access to credit, productive assets, andextension services and training, which therefore tend to be provided to men.
There is often a distinct division between men and women in rural Africa as to the types oftools and animals they are responsible for. For example a man is generally in charge of thelarger animals which include cattle and oxen to pull the ploughs, while women take care ofsmaller animals such as chicken and goats, which produce eggs, and milk and meat,
respectively.
Men also tend to obtain the newer or more sophisticated technology and tools, leaving theolder and less efficient types to the women. Women have been displaced from their traditional
domains by the introduction of more sophisticated technologies, because these newer gadgets
have usually been taken over by the males in the community. It is further more clear that the
problem of obtaining new or improved productive assets by women is related to the barriers toaccess to credit and extension services and also has its roots in the fact that women have lesscollateral, such as land.
Food production in the region is primarily the rural women’s responsibility and technologicalchange has not displaced women from this activity, nor has it provided significant relief fromtheir burden. Women’s work has increased due to the high rate of male out migration to theurban areas or in search of non-farm occupations. Women are often excluded from new
productive assets and technologies, because they are not trained to utilize it, nor do they havethe financial resources to obtain and maintain technologies.
Male domination of large livestock, agricultural technologies and other inputs such as fertilizers,
also extends to the access of information about these productive assets. That information
regarding fertilizer, seeds, and mechanization, is largely limited to men, both in the formal
education system as well as in the informal networks that revolve around teashops or market
places.
Women also do have limited access to agricultural technologies. Such access to technology
implies the economic ability to pay for such inputs, and physical access to inputs. These are
only available at a distance, meaning women will not be able to benefit from their use. Technicaltraining programmes frequently discriminate against women by exclusion, since it is assumed
or culturally defined, that mechanization and technology are a male domain.
That if women are to not only gain equal access to productive assets to increase foodproductivity, but also to gain equal access to cash crops, the traditional gender-based divisionof labour between the two sectors (food crop Vs cash crop?), will have to be broken down. To
20

ATPS W ORKING PAPER N O. 38•

achieve this, the women would have to gain access to the inputs required, to succeed in this
sector. These include credit, technology, fertilizers, extension services, institutional supportand hired labour.
When decisions are made by a rural community (in Africa) as to what technologies and other
inputs to be obtained, there is often a bias in favour of the men. This often results in thepurchase of or demand for goods which the men deem as necessary or prestigious. This is tothe detriment of the women, because it leaves less resources for inputs which would increase
the productivity of crops grown by women or help alleviate their workload.

In conclusion, it seems clear that agrarian reforms in African countries have reduced prospects for
women. The provisions of the reforms have only recognized only men as the heads of rural farmer
households and therefore as the sole recipient of agricultural inputs, such as deeds to land, credit,
productive assets and extension services.

Situation analysis of women and children in Kenya
A focus on Kenya was done by UNICEF and Cenral Bureau for Statistics (CBS, 1984) in their Situation
Analysis of Children and Women in Kenya. They confirmed that small holding households headed by
women tend to be poorer than those headed by men. Women who are heads because they have nohusbands (through death, divorce or separation), are more firmly trapped by the conditions of poverty
than women who head the family and farm in their husband’s absence. Slightly over a quarter of therural small households are headed by women. Female-headed households can be fitted into two major
categories: permanent and temporary — a female (wife) heading household during absence of themale head (husband).
The study revealed that the proportion of small holding households headed by women by Kenya’s
provinces as of 1984 was as follows: Coast (12.2%), Eastern (22.9%), Central(31.1%), Rift Valley(21.1%), Nyanza (32.6%), Western(32.8%) and North Eastern (27.3%). The study also found that there
were economic differences within female-headed small holdings and they are not homogenous. The
economic position of women who head rural households, because they currently do not have husbands
tend to be more adverse than that of women who head households in their husbands' absence.
Smallholdings headed by women whose husbands are absent are disadvantaged in comparison withthose headed by resident males.
Barnes and Werner(1982) of US Agency for International Development (USAID) study of Kenya
found that almost all women who headed households (95%) classified farming as their main occupationand that households studied tended to have more resident women than men. Three types of households
were studied namely: those headed by married men, married women and unmarried women.
A study showing percentage of distribution of improved cattle, revealed that improved cattle, were
present more in the households headed by married men than in those headed by married women.
Unimproved cattle were found more in households headed by married women than in those headed bymarried men. The conclusion is that there appears to be a relationship between type of cattle (improvedor unimproved) and type of household.
On percentage distribution of expenditure on fertilizer by the same types of households, the same
study found that although a higher percentage of married women than unmarried women reported
21

T HE GENDER VARIABLE IN AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY : A CASE OF RURAL FARMERS IN MACHAKOS DISTRICT - EASTERN KENYA
buying fertilizer, the percentage of married men purchasing fertilizer is higher than married women.
About 78% of households however, reported no expenditure on fertilizer. The conclusion is that,households headed by married men use fertilizer (modern agricultural technology), more than households
headed by married women. Also there is a relationship between the use of modern agricultural
technologies (fertilizer) and type of households depending on who heads the farm household.

Social and economic constraints for women in farm household economy
A study by Mathangani (IDRC, 1989) disclosed some anthropological studies which identify a distinctive
traditional division of labour among most Africans societies. Such arrangement charged men with basic
responsibility of providing security and defence and the clearing of virgin land. As providers of subsistence,
women performed all the related tasks of planting, weeding and harvesting. Women have been
established as prime movers in the activity of food production. Thus, any effort seeking solutions to thefood crisis in Africa, would have to take into consideration the primacy of women in this activity, while
giving recognition to their total contribution to development.
Boserup (1970) had clearly demonstrated the way traditional division of labour between sexes inAfrican societies have had (and continue to have) influence upon women’s roles in agriculture and on
food production in particular. She discussed the division of labour in African agriculture and noted that
virtually all rural women in Africa take part in farm work, and the agricultural labour force is predominantly
female as shown in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1: Division of Rural Labour by Task and Sex in Africa, Percentages of Total Labour in Hours% Total Labour
Men

Task

Cuts down forest, stakes out fields
95
Turns the soil
70
Plants the seeds
50
Weeds
30
Harvest40
Transports crops from fields
20Stores the crops
10Markets the excess
40
Source: Women in Developing Agriculture, FAO 1984. ( Also see Boserup 1970).

Women
5
30
50
70
60
80
90
60

According to this report, introduction of cash crops took men further away from the area of foodcrop. The present situation is that women specialize/predominate in food production and men in cashcrop
production. Hanger (1973) also found similar constraints in her studies in Embu, Kenya and Mukono,
Uganda. She had the following major findings:•
In a household with the husband working full time on the farm, the husband was the one
running the farm and the woman was not unduly pressed with farm work. That the wife normally
had rights over the allocation of certain resources and power to dispose of certain crops.

22

ATPS W ORKING PAPER N O. 38
•

•
•
•

In a household consisting of more than the simple nuclear family, the control patterns constantly
changed as the family matured. The stage of each farm in the development cycle determined
to what extent control over the land and farming practice was shared between different membersof the family.
Work in the fields was largely dominated by women so that innovations in agriculture can only
be successfully introduced if women become acquainted with new methods and convinced of
their expediency (Molnos, 1968).
The making of farm decisions or the acceptance of innovations, can be influenced by very
many factors. Some factors affect a farm family’s decision-making as a whole and others
affect more specific decisions.
There are various ways of grouping decisions when describing the patterns of control in a
farm household as follows:(i)Long term decisions such as allocation of land or cultivation of permanent crops.
These are likely to fall within the area of responsibility of the head of the household(farm unit).
(ii)
Mid-term decisions eg. those taken each season concerned with product mix, i.e.
what to produce, how much of each, factor proportions (how to produce, when andby what methods), the distribution of the product (for whom to produce and where todispose of product).
(iii)
Day to day or short-term decisions. Minor decisions which have less effect on thewhole farming system.
(iv)
Decisions made once as opposed to those which are of a more routine nature.
(v)
Decision, concerning an individual crop as opposed to others made for the whole
farm.
(vi)
Other classifications of farm decisions.

Often farm decisions are the responsibility of several different people, and in many cases, it isdifficult to define exactly where responsibilities lie. Decision-making responsibilities may be categorized
as follows:•
Husband in complete control.
•
Husband in control, but wife having some say.
•
Husband and wife jointly responsible.
•
Wife mainly in control, but husband sometimes influencing decision.
•
Wife entirely responsible for decisions, usually as a result of death or absence of husband forlong periods.
Generally, it was found that in many cases, all the land that a wife controlled was planted with foodcrops and the rest of the farm, if under the husband’s control, to cash crops. In all the households in
Embu, the woman said she decided for herself what she would do. However, in 62% of the households,
the husband decided on all the things of operations concerning cash crop and the women predominatedon food crop operations. It appeared (for both Embu and Mukono) that female control in the farm

23

T HE GENDER VARIABLE IN AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY : A CASE OF RURAL FARMERS IN MACHAKOS DISTRICT - EASTERN KENYA
household did follow some recognizable patterns and was affected to a larger extent by both the presenceor absence of husband on the farm, and the availability of employed labour.
A woman’s decision-making is governed to a certain extent by what she herself or her children will
receive from each of the alternative choices. Where a family functions as a unit and the wife knowsthat the money she makes from the cash crops will be spent on the children’s education, clothing or her
own needs, she will more readily allocate time to the task. The women’s actions were not governed firstand foremost by economic considerations. Farmers in Mukono knew more about better methods ofproduction, but very few of the women were putting their knowledge into practice. It seemed the teaching
they had received (from agricultural extension services) had not been sufficiently related to what they
did on their own farms. Thus, although they could recite what they learned(including rather large errors
in some cases), they did not see the relevance to their own situation.
In a situation where the women were already under pressure of work sometimes in the year, adopting
a new method might put further pressure of work on them. They might not even have the time to think
it worth trying the new method. The sample size in the studied areas, however, were too low, n=20
households in Buganda and Embu.
Barnes in a paper edited by Achola-Pala (1978) agreed that it is in the smallholder agricultural areas
where women predominate. The 1969 census shows that about one third of rural households areheaded by women. Land ownership among women (also property) is not extensive.
Management and decision-making of farm and farm issues is as follows:(i)Male managed farms(ii)
Female-managed farms.
(iii)
Jointly managed farms where both wife and husband perform decision-making roles overcertain agricultural activities. The husband may or may not be living on the farm.
(iv)
Corporately managed farms where two generations i.e. mother/father and son/daughter-inlaw have a role in the management of the farm, which they jointly share.
There is evidence to indicate that when a cash crop under male control competes for labour withfood crops under female control, the cash crop tends to be neglected until work on the food crop iscompleted. Moreover, women may refuse to work on a crop or do so inefficiently when the income will
go to the male household head.
The responsibilities of women tend to increase with the introduction of labour-intensive crops,
education of children and off-farm employment for men. Women are dependent on their spouses foraccess to land, and social sanctions operate to prevent them from interfering with this right. However,customary law and customs are eroding and this right is jeopardised.

Gender and farming in the future
An introduction to low external input and sustainable agriculture (ILLEIA, 1992), has highlighted thesocio-economic, cultural and political characteristics, which form the human setting of a farm household
apart from its biophysical setting Each household is a unique combination of men, women, adults andchildren, who provide management, knowledge, labour, capital and land for farming, and who consume
at least part of the produce. Thus, the farm household is a centre of resource allocation, production andconsumption.
24

ATPS W ORKING PAPER N O. 38
The decision-making process in the farm household is influenced by the culture of the community towhich the household belongs. In patriarchal societies, decisions are taken by the household head, aman. In matriarchal societies, this may be true only to a lesser extent and only with respect to certain
distinct responsibilities. However, the personalities of the different household members will also affectdecision-making. The man may be the formal decision maker, but in reality it may be the woman in thehousehold who determines what is done.
Feldman and Welsh(1995) describe the farm as the site of production and the place from which
ideas are produced. Kloppenburg( 1991:528) argues:
it is the locality of such knowledge production, which most completely intimate the many
dimensions of its character. Such knowledge is local in the sense that it is derived from thedirect experience of a labour process, which is itself shaped and delimited by the distinctive
characteristics of a particular place, with a unique social and physical environment.

Division of labour on-farm in the future
Adding gender variable to dominant research perspectives has led to recognizing that Agricultural
production on small family farms cannot be realized by activities of the farmer alone, but requires thecontribution of many farm household members (Rosenfield, 1986; Jones, 1986). Women are relevant
and active agents in constituting meaning and activities of social life. In an analysis of agriculturalmodernization in Greece, Shatagaki (1988) observed that women remain in the house and perform
reproductive activities after they have been replaced by labour-saving machinery.
Relation of gender, generation, power and authority within the farm household, conditions the kindsof claims and challenges households take against strategies to industrialize production or generate
and implement alternative agricultural practices. Household relations affect farm characteristics. Meara(1992) has argued that farm households reflect different patterns of negotiation and resolution about
who should participate in the farm operation. This diversity of intra-household relations, conditions
specific characteristics, such as age and education, and affects decision about (on and off-farm)
employment.
Thus, gender relations are part of a process of negotiation and reconstitution that frame household
relations and household based activity (Dwyer & Bruce, 1988; Sen, 1990). Industrializing of agricultural
production contributes to a shift in familial relations (Fink, 1986) as the adoption of scientific management
and technologies, and increasing specialization, restructures farm relations and re-organizes productive
activities. According to Jones and Rosenfeld (1984) and Poole (1981), there is a correlation between
the centrality of women’s role in the production and decision-making. Women’s desire to retain control
may explain why some farmers choose not to adopt many of the new technologies and techniques ofmodern farming. Knowledge, decision-making authority and control of the production process, varies
according to the farm task, and life cycle, and the differing situations of farm household members.
Gender and technology choice is, therefore, determined to some extent by division of labour along
gender lines. Household members make decisions about whether to accept, reject, or seek alternative
to the conventional or normative model of agricultural production. Mcloughlin ( 1970) outlines factors
influencing farmers’ decisions to adopt new technology (constraints on the adoption of new technology)as:25

T HE GENDER VARIABLE IN AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY : A CASE OF RURAL FARMERS IN MACHAKOS DISTRICT - EASTERN KENYA••

The farmer: Technology may not be known or understood, by the farmer who may also lackmanagerial competence. The innovation may not be socially, culturally or psychologically
acceptable.
The innovation may not be economically feasible, technically viable and/or adequately
adaptable. All elements in the new package may not be available.(inadequacy of supply orservices).

The process of adoption of new ideas and practices was outlined by Lion Berger (1960) as constituting:•Awareness stage — learning•
Interest stage — developing interest•
Evaluation stage — evaluating information and the technology•
Trial stage — trying the technology•
Adoption — adopting
In planning technologies appropriate to farmers, CIMMYT (1980) gave some concepts and procedures
as follows:•
That many factors affect the choice of a technology for the target crop, because of interactionsin the farming system. This is to say that various circumstances affects farmers' choice of acrop technology. Farming system as the totality of production and consumption decisions of
the farm household, include the choice of crop, livestock, off-farm enterprises, and foodconsumed by the household.
•It can be said, therefore, that a farmer’s decision to choose or use an innovation is influenced
by a myriad of factors, such as the following:(i)
Farmer’s decisions and management practices are determined by natural andeconomic factors/circumstances. Very little is said of the cultural factors.
(ii)
Natural circumstances influence farmers’ decisions by imposing particular biologicalconstraints on the crop (e.g. pattern of rainfall affects decisions on time of planting).
The circumstances of most farmers are such that they adopt technologies in piecemeal,
because of:(a) scarcity of capital,(b) inability to withstand large risks, and(c) a learning-by-doing approach.

Conclusions from the reviewed literature
A future can only be built on the past and present, and to plan for the future without facts is to build ahouse without a foundation. Assembling and collecting data on the participation of women and men insociety is therefore a must, if the whole is to provide a complete picture of their contributions to thenational development and therefore, bestow on everyone (especially her) that great honour she always
deserved (Barnes in Achola Pala et al. (eds), 1978).
Most farmers and their families live on the farm or in a nearby village. Therefore, any new practice/technology must also be acceptable to the farm families social situation, personal beliefs, customs,
attitudes, religion, culture and overall way of life.
26

ATPS W ORKING PAPER N O. 38
Different people know different things in different places and learn new things in different ways.
Knowledge is not a stock, but a process. The issue is not just whose knowledge counts? but who
knows, has access to and can generate what knowledge and how? Knowledge is bound to action.
What people do, is not necessarily what people consciously know (Scoones and Thompson, 1994).
Most societies have a complex division of labour and women work in separate spheres, in analmost segregated manner from men. This separation permits the development of what can be termed
a woman’s subculture. In a woman’s subculture, separate group activity, status systems, and support
networks operate. Such sex segregation system poses many constraints to access, use and benefits towomen in agriculture (Staudt,1976).
Household gender division of labour contributes to the choices household members make about
whether to accept, reject or seek alternatives to the conventional or normative model of agricultural
production (Rural Sociology Journal, Spring 1995).
Most outstanding features of agricultural policies in Africa is their attention to gender issues inagriculture, namely lack of emphasis in policy documents of recognition of women’s contributions inagriculture, needs and prospects. Most often, women only receive only paragraphic attention indevelopment plans and policy documents. Hence, it is not a surprise that agricultural development
programmes have tended to ignore them.
Gender bias and blindness are evident throughout the agricultural and food systems and farmer isusually perceived as either genderless or male (Scoones and Thompson 1994). Women are both farmworkers and decision-makers, at least to some extent. if this is true, it is doubly important that theyknow, understand and accept the new ideas, which improve farm family welfare (Hanger ,1973).
Knowledge is held, controlled and generated by different people in a society and is nor evenly
distributed. Different individuals are recognized as specialists in particular fields and are key in thetransmission and interpretation of knowledge within a community or family (Swift ,1979).
Farm families’ social, personal beliefs, customs, attitudes, religion, culture and overall way of life,
affect farm practices that would be found in a given farm household. Besides these, government plans,
policies and agricultural programmes affect adoption of farm technology. To understand and influence
patterns (and the various aspects of production, consumption and investment, including purchases offarm inputs), we must move beyond the single dwelling unit or household. We must look inside the“node”, i.e investigating intra-household relations and the place of gender in farming systems (Moock,1989).
Farmers’ attitudes towards taking risk will also determine farmers’ decision whether or not to takenew technology. Also, adoption of agricultural technologies is dependent on government plans, policies
and agricultural programmes.

27

Chapter Three
Methodology
The research site
This study was carried out among farmers in Machakos District of the Eastern Province of Kenya. The
District is in the semi-arid zone of Eastern Kenya, bordered by Kajiado District to the West, Taita-Taveta
District to the East, Embu and Mbeere Districts to the North-East, Muranga to the North, Kiambu District
and Nairobi Province to the North-west (Figure 3.1).
Its total area is approximately 5,818 sq km ranging from 125 km wide in the north and less than 20
km wide in the south (Machakos District Development Plan, 1994/1996). The population projections by
the Machakos District Development Plan of 1994 estimates the population to have risen from 876,242
in 1993 to 903,378 people in 1994.
The District is divided into three physical regions. The high potential zone roughly covers 54% of
the agricultural area. The medium potential zone covers 38.2%, and the low potential zone covers
56.4% of the total land mass. The land productivity varies from zone to zone with those areas in zone
II having a high degree of crop expectancy, because they have higher and more reliable rainfall. Theirsoils are also better suited for agricultural production. The medium potential zone is suited for growing
a variety of crops including sorghum and animal husbandry. In low potential zones the rainfall is erratic
and unreliable, so they concentrate on drought resistant crops such as sorghum, millet, pigeon peas
and katumani maize variety.
The District usually has two rainy seasons, one between March and April and another between
November and December. Rainfall in the District varies with altitude. The average annual rainfall ranges
from 1000 mm in some of the highlands to slightly below 500 mm in the low-lying south and south-east
parts of the District (Machakos District Development Plan, 1989/1993).
The district has six divisions, namely, Central, Kangundo, Kathiani, Mwala, Yatta and Masinga. The
divisions are divided into 28 locations and the locations, in turn, are sub-divided into 130 sub-locations.
Kangundo, Yatta and Masinga are the divisions where this study took place.

Sampling procedure
The three divisions that were selected for this study have diverse agro-ecological zones, which allowed
a focus on different agricultural activities and technologies. Furthermore, during the research activity,emphasis was placed on capturing the diversity that exists in the community, based on age, gender andstatus. Stratified sampling will be used to collect data from various categories of community members.
They include married couples where men live with their wives and family, defacto and dejure female

28

ATPS W ORKING PAPER N O. 38
headed households, men, women, people of different economic status, extension agents, and nongovernmental organization and church representatives.
This desegregated data illuminated the differences in people’s access to and allocation of resources,
and their influence on technological adoption and use.

Research protocol and data collection techniques
The major research methodology to be used is the participatory approach. The philosophical basis forthis approach is derived from the fact that the respondent participation must be at the centre of every
development effort. Authentic development originates from collective imagination, thoughts, ideas,
convictions, visions, experiences, decisions and practical actions of people. These experiences andactions not only reveal people’s perception of the issues at hand, but they are culture specific, relevantto the environmental and economic circumstances, and provide the link between people’s needs,
indigenous value systems and biophysical resources.
The participatory approach necessitates the involvement of local community, selected development
planners and implementors, and those who participate in production activities, such as extension agents,
agricultural research station staff and non-governmental agencies.
In Machakos, these organizations include:•
Dryland farming research station in Katumani (DFRS), in central division, Machakos town.
•
National horticulture research station in Machakos town.
•
Ruiru coffee research station•
Churches•
Food Relief Agencies
Informal research methods, such as informal interviews, focused group discussions, key informant
techniques and direct observation were applied. Where appropriate, selected Participatory Rural Appraisal(PRA) tools were utilized, such tools as, preference ranking, transect walks, participatory modellingand mapping, seasonality calendars, daily routines and activity profiles, were practised. These PRA
tools, not only facilitated the process of rapport building between the actors in the research process, itempowered the community to shape the research process by providing their perception of the issues athand and developing action plans for implementation purposes.
The survey method was also used to obtain generalized data on household composition, family
size, marital status, and activity profiles. The method has the major advantage of facilitating thecomputation of summary statistics on a more representative basis. To more effectively tap genderspecific information without regressing into generalities, the questionnaire included the Gender Analysis
Framework. The tool which was designed by Fieldstein et al. (1985, 1989); Cloud (1985, 1988) andPoats (1989), facilitates the collection of gender specific information on division of labour in farming
operations, household chores, off-farm enterprises and choice and use of different technologies. The
strength of the tool lies in highlighting the diversity and differences that exists amongst categories of
farmers, such as single women, divorcees and dejure household heads. An illustrative sample of theactivity profile is shown in Table 3.1.

29

T HE GENDER VARIABLE IN AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY : A CASE OF RURAL FARMERS IN MACHAKOS DISTRICT - EASTERN KENYA
Table 3.1: Activity Profile
Crop
Production
Crop

Gender
F
A

M
A

BOTH

FC

MC

BOTH

EQUI

TIM

LOCU

Task 1
Task 2
Task 3
Household
ChoresTask 1
Task 2
Task 3Off-farm
Enterprise
Task 1
Task 2
Task 3
Source: Adopted from Overhault et al. (1985) A paper prepared for Havard Institute for International Development
Case Study and Training Project, USAID.
Key: FA-Female Adult, MA-Male Adult, FC- Female Child, MC- Male Child

Data analysis techniques
Both qualitative and quantitative data analysis techniques were utilized. Qualitative techniques included
detailed description of people’s attitudes and feelings towards resource allocation, and its use andbenefits derived from it on the basis of gender. Content analysis helped to make sense of the massive
information gathered through participatory approach. Quantitative analysis was used to measure theextent to which the different sexes have adopted agricultural technology and the characteristics of the
adopters. This analysis required intensive use of frequency distributions, cross tabulations, means andaverages. Illustrative methods such as bar graphs, pie charts, maps and line graphs were applied whenappropriate.

30Chapter Four
Findings
Characteristics of the study sample
Sample size n= 96 (general sample). Sample n is individual items varied with the maximum being 96.
Proportions used are therefore those applying to individual items out of the total actual responses.

Sex of respondents
Majority of study respondents were men. The distribution is shown in Table 4.1.
Table 4.1: Sex of Respondents
Sex

Number % Total

Male
Female
Total

51
43
94

54.3
45.7
100

n=94 as sex for two cases was not indicated.

Age of respondents
The range of those interviewed was from 15-64 years. The distribution of the study respondents by age
is shown in Table 4.2.
Table 4.2: Respondents by Age
Age Group
15-24
25-34

Number5
16% Total
5.2
16.7

35-44
45-54
55-64
64 and over
Total

17
22
18
18
96

17.7
22.9
18.8
18.8
100

31

T HE GENDER VARIABLE IN AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY : A CASE OF RURAL FARMERS IN MACHAKOS DISTRICT - EASTERN KENYA

Marital status
The distribution of study respondents by marital status is shown on Table 4.3.
Table 4.3: Distribution of Respondents by Marital Status
Marital status
SingleMarriedDivorced
Widow/Widower
Total

Number981
1
596% Total
9.4
84.4
1.0
5.2
100

It is evident that the majority of the study respondents were married people. Many were therefore
mothers and fathers. Respondents who were interviewed were few, about 9.4% of the sample. Only 1% were divorced, while 5.2% were either widows or widowers

Status of respondents in households
Majority of the respondents were heads of households. The distribution of respondents in relation to thestatus held within the households is in Table 4.4.
Table 4.4: Status Held in Households
StatusHousehold head
Other (eg. wife/son)
Total

Number % Total
61
64.2
34
35.8
95
100

The status for one case was not entered.

Household size
All the study respondents came from households with more than two members. The smallest householdinterviewed had three members and the largest had 20 members. Majority of households interviewed
had between seven to nine members. This represented 37.2% of total households interviewed. About
62.8% of total households interviewed had between three to nine members.

Ethnic group/background
Almost all the study respondents were Akamba. The distribution of the respondents by ethnic group is
in Table 4.5.

32

ATPS W ORKING PAPER N O. 38
Table 4.5: Ethnic Background
Ethnic Group
AkambaOther
Total

Number
93.0
0.3
96% Total
96.9
3.1
100

n=96

Religious affiliation
Majority of respondents were Christians. The distribution is in Table 4.6.
Table 4.6: Religious Affiliation
Religion
Christian
Other
Total

Number94
02
96% Total
97.9
2.1
100

Residence
Those interviewed ranged from those who had been in their present site for only one year to some who
had been living in their present site for 99 years. Respondents, therefore, were composed of bothrecent immigrants and those who had been in the specific study sites for many years. (n=83). About
47.9% of the respondents have had previous residence in other parts of Ukambani, meaning they wereactually migrants who had settled in these specific study sites.

Education background of respondents(a)(b)

About 83.7% of the respondents had received some form of formal education, 16% had informal
education. (n=92) and four respondents did not indicate the type of education received.
A large portion of those respondents who had some form of formal education had received
primary education. A good number had also received secondary education. The distribution of
respondents by level of formal education is shown in Table 4.7.

Table 4.7: Education status of the Respondents
Level of Formal Education
NumberUniversity
2
College
7
Secondary34
Primary
34
Other
1
None
12
Total
90
n=90. level of education for 6 cases( respondents) not indicated33% Total
22
7.8
37.8
37.8
1.1
13.3
100

T HE GENDER VARIABLE IN AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY : A CASE OF RURAL FARMERS IN MACHAKOS DISTRICT - EASTERN KENYA

Main occupation (economic activity)
Majority of the respondents did farming as their major economic activity. They were mainly engaged incrop production. Other respondents were involved in paid up employment and others in business. The
distribution of the respondents by main economic activity performed is shown in Table 4.8.
Table 4.8: Economic Activities
Economic Activity

NumberAgricultural
Crop Cultivation
83
Livestock farming including poultry
02
Paid employment
01
Business
02
Others02
Total
90
n= 90. The main activity of 6 cases ( respondents) was not indicated.

% Total
94.4
1.1
2.2
2.2
100

General information on agricultural production (economic activity)
About 94.4% of the respondents(excluding those whose main economic activity was not indicated)were involved in agricultural production. Some households earned Kshs 1,500 per year from agricultural
production and others as much as Kshs 400,000 per year. This indicates, therefore, that there is a wide
disparity among farmers in the study area on the amount of money they earned per year from involvementin agricultural production. Households (41.6%) interviewed earned between Kshs 1,500 to Kshs 30,000
per year.

Land size
Respondents mentioned possession of land on which their households were established. The smallest
were 0.3 and the largest 137 acres; only one household owned 137 acres. About 78% of the studied
households owned land between 0.3 and 10 acres and 54% of total households owned land between
0.3 and 5 acres (Table 4.9).
Table 4.9: Acreage
Size of land
Number% TotalLess than 1
1
1 .1
1-2
25
2 7.5
3-5
15
2 6.3
6-10
21
2 3.1
11-15
8
8.8
16-20
3
3.3
Over 20
9
9.9
Total
91
100
n=91. The size of land owned by households represented by 5 respondents is not indicated.

34

ATPS W ORKING PAPER N O. 38

Main agricultural activities carried out
The main agricultural activities carried out by the respondents were listed in order of importance as:•
Food production (subsistence farming)•
Cash crop production•
Poultry keeping•
Horticulture•
Beekeeping
Generally, farmers whose main agricultural activity was crop production had maize and beans as themain crops grown. The overall distribution of responses regarding the main crops is in Table 4.10.
Table 4.10: Percentage of Food Crops Grown
Main Crop
Maize
Beans
Maize and beans
BananasSugar-cane
Others
Total

Number
58
8
13
5
1
4
91

% Respondents
63.7
8.8
14.3
5.5
3.3
4.4
100

Utilization of land by type of crop including land under grazing
The number of acres under food, cash crop and grazing land is varied. The largest portion of land
mentioned to be under food crop was 30 acres and the smallest was 0.3 acres. The largest piece ofland under cashcrops was 20 acres and the smallest 0.2 acres. On the other hand, some respondents
mentioned having grazing land measuring 92 acres and the smallest was 0.2 acres (Table 4.11a).
Table 4.11a: Farming Activity and Land Size
Activity Smallest Pieces
Food Cropping
0.3 acres
Cash cropping
0.2 acres
Grazing
0.2 acres

Largest Piece of Land30 acres20 acres
92 acres

Distribution of acreage under food crops, cash crop and grazing land by households is in Table 4.11b.

35

T HE GENDER VARIABLE IN AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY : A CASE OF RURAL FARMERS IN MACHAKOS DISTRICT - EASTERN KENYA
Table 4.11b: Distribution of Food Crops
Food Crop% Total Households
Less than 1 acre
21.0
1-3 acres
40.6
4-6 acres
20.0
7-9 acres
6.5
10 acres12.0
n=91. Majority of the households (61.6%) had between 0.3-3 acres under food crops.
Cash Crop
Less than 1 acre
1-3 acres
4-6 acres
7-9
10 and aboven=81% Households
20
31.0
29.6
3.7
15.7

Grazing Land
Less than 1 acre
1-3 acres
4-6 acres
7-9 acres
10 acres and aboven=54% Households
40
37.0
7.4
14.9

Differential tending of crops
The study reveals that there is no marked differential in tending of crops by sex. However, 51.3 % of
respondents felt that there were crops which were tended by more male/female members of thehouseholds. Those who said that male/female members tended certain crops, also mentioned thecrops in order of importance as: sweet potatoes, arrowroots (23%), food crops (8.6)% and cash crops(5.7) .

Differential tending of animals by sex
Respondents (73.9%) felt that there were no animals kept on their farms, which were tended exclusively
by female /male members of their households. Only 20.4 of the respondents felt that such animals
existed and mentioned cattle as one type of such animals, mainly tended by men.

Ownership and land acquisition on agriculture
Generally, the majority of respondents owned the land on which they carried out the agricultural activities.
they mentioned participating in food and cash crop and livestock (including poultry) production. Majorityof farming respondents acquired their land through inheritance. (Table 4.12).

36

ATPS W ORKING PAPER N O. 38
Table 4.12.: Percentage of Ownership and Acquisition of Land
Mode of Acquisition of Land
Inheritedbought
Allocated(eg by government)
Other% Total Respondents
52.4
26.0
18.1
3.5

About 58.7% of respondents (n=92) mentioned having more than one piece of land, ranging from 0.3 to888 acres.
Very few of the interviewed respondents, 9.6% mentioned using land as security to acquire a loan.

Trends in gender variables in agricultural technology
Preference and use of indigenous agricultural technology
(a)

(b)

Data demonstrates that women have greater preference and use of indigenous agricultural
technologies than men. About 79.2% respondents mentioned women as users of indigenous
agricultural technologies. Only 8.3% of respondents mentioned men as having greater
preference and use of these types of technologies, compared to women. Respondents (31.1%)
felt that both sexes prefer and use indigenous agricultural technologies.
It is therefore clear that women tend to use indigenous packages. This point is further supportedby the fact that 40% of respondents (as opposed to 10% who mentioned female adults) feltthat male adults do not generally use indigenous methods of agricultural technologies.
A number of factors or reasons have been advanced to account for the differential preference
and use of indigenous agricultural technologies proposed by percentage respondents as follows:•
Some tools are more appropriate for women, while others suit men (32%)•
The amount of energy to be expended on using a particular technology (implement)(12%)•
The level of access to a technology e.g. women have greater access to indigenous
technology than modern ones (17%)•
The level of technological knowhow determines use (4.0%)•
The level of men/women’s involvement in agricultural production (activities) eg. men
are often busy on non-farm activities (40%)•
The kind of posture that the use of a given agricultural technology (implement)
demands of the user eg. men do not like bending. Hence, would have less use oftools (implements) that require them to bend (most of these would be traditional
tools) (4.0%).
•
Tradition i.e. people having inclinations to prefer/favour and subsequently use thatwhich has always been there (19.0%).
•
Availability i.e. indigenous agricultural technologies are much more available thanmodern ones (14.3%).

37

T HE GENDER VARIABLE IN AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY : A CASE OF RURAL FARMERS IN MACHAKOS DISTRICT - EASTERN KENYA•

Level of access to the technology in question (among women and men), depending
on costs involved.
•
Physical make up of the technology.
•
Culture of the people (users of technology).
(c)
In general, farmers (men and women) show preference for a wide range of indigenous methods
and implements. These include the following (in order of importance):•
The jembe (23.8%), panga (23.8%) and mixed cropping (23.8%).
•
Digging sticks, fencing stick, strip grazing, and broadcasting.
•Indigenous breeds in livestock production. The main reasons being that: they arecheaper to acquire and maintain, and withstand the environment better.
The first two methods are preferred because they are relatively cheaper, farmers have experience intheir use, are easier to use, have not been supplemented and the land is scarce for use of modern
technology.

Knowledge and use of indigenous agricultural technologies
Who has knowledge of technology?
The study revealed that there is gender differential in the knowledge of agricultural technology. Womenin the study area use indigenous agricultural technologies more than men. Therefore, they can beperceived to have knowledge of various aspects of indigenous agricultural technologies. They know
how to use and produce them, knowledge on the origin of the technology, and the merits and demeritsof the technology.
All farmers interviewed have knowledge on the use of the following implements which they haveidentified as indigenous: the jembe (hoe), digging stick, panga, fencing stick, beating stick, herding
stick, cutlass, axes, mattocks. Panga and jembe are generally viewed by farmers as indigenous whileothers see them as foreign.
Indigenous agricultural activities which farmers have knowledge of include: use of manure, tethering(of animals), strip grazing, rearing of indigenous breeds, dehorning, tilling land, mixed cropping,broadcasting, open grazing, burning of land (in readiness for planting), application of ash as pesticideand shift cultivation.
Farmers identified the following to be implements and methods which have a foreign origin: tractors,
disc-plough, mono cropping, fertilizers, ox-plough, sprayers, use of pesticides, pesticides, spade, growingof cash crops (e.g. coffee), pangas, wheelbarrow, irrigation, mulching, zero grazing, milking machines,
mattock, crop rotation, drenching, dipping, exotic breeds, knapsack sprayers and use of HYV seeds.

Use of indigenous agricultural technology
It has already been identified that women use indigenous agricultural technologies. However, a fuller
confirmation of this need to be made by looking at the various farm operations (tasks), eg. who performs
the tasks, and what are the implements and methods they use? Use of indigenous agricultural
technologies is not confined only to farmers practising crop production but also on the side of livestock
production. It is confirmed by 82.8% of respondents that they kept indigenous breeds.
In the various farm operations, trends in respect to the use of indigenous agricultural technologies
have been observed as follows:
38

ATPS W ORKING PAPER N O. 38

Land preparation
This activity is performed predominantly by men. Responses revealed that male hired labour makes
27.6%, male adults 24.1% and female adults 10.3%. Major implements in order of importance in land
preparation are: Jembes and pangas (17.2%), cutlass and jembes (17.2%), slashes cutlass and jembe(17.2%), and jembes and mattock (13.8%). Most of these implements have been identified as being
foreign i.e. not indigenous among the Kamba. Both modern and indigenous agricultural technologies
are used in performing this task.
Basically, the top ranking reason why farmers prefer and use the implements mentioned earlier inland preparation, is their availability (8%). The other reasons are that the implements are appropriate(39.3%) and affordable (10.7%).

Planting
This activity is mainly performed by female adults (39.3%) and male hired labour (17.9%), followed byfemale hired labour and female adults (10.7%). It therefore means that planting is mainly a woman’sjob, though men also perform it.
The ox-plough (51.7%), jembe (17.2%), panga (13.8%) and tractor (10.3%) are the major implements
used in planting. Interestingly, most of these implements have been identified by majority of farmers as
being foreign, i.e. not indigenous. Row planting (53.6%) and ox-ploughing (21.4%) are the major methodsof planting as reported by farmers. Again, foreign use of agricultural technology (methods) is evident.
Major reasons for preference and greater use of these implements (most of them foreign) in planting
is the availability of implements (37.0%), their appropriateness (29.6%) and convenience (25.9%).

Weeding
This is mainly performed by female adults (17.9%) and male hired labour (17.9%). Farmers also feltthat combinations of female hired labour and female adults (10.7%) and male adults and male hiredlabour (10.7%) are also important in weeding. This activity appears to be performed equally by both
men and women. (no clear cut allocation of this task along gender lines).
Weeding is mainly done traditionally eg. cultivating (61.5%), tilling (15.4%) and mechanical weeding(15.4%) is also practised. Implements used in weeding are mainly modern, jembes (42.9%), panga andjembe (32.1%) and jembes and ox-ploughs (17.9%).
Both indigenous and modern implements are used in weeding because of the convenience (57.7%),
availability (26.9%) and affordability (15.6%).

Spraying
Spraying is mainly done by males, eg. male hired labour (41.4%), male hired labour and male adults(31.0%) and male adults (10.3%). Spraying of crops is a widespread practice among farmers in the
study area. Respondents (69%) mentioned its use.
Most of the implements used in spraying are modern (foreign to Kamba). The major ones are
knapsack sprayer (48.3%); spray pump (13.8%); bucket and twigs (3.4%) and sprinkler (3.4%). The
main reasons for preference (and use) of these implements (technologies) are: safety in use (19.2%);
availability (19.2%) and convenience in use (11.5%).
39

T HE GENDER VARIABLE IN AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY : A CASE OF RURAL FARMERS IN MACHAKOS DISTRICT - EASTERN KENYA
Spraying which is dominated by men, is mainly effected by utilizing modern technologies. Moreover,spraying by itself is not an indigenous agricultural activity among the Kamba.

Manuring
This is performed by male hired labour (31.0%). Female adults (17.2%) and male adults are also
involved in manuring of crops.
Most of the implements (technologies) used in manuring, are modern. The main ones being:
wheelbarrow and cart (33.3%); wheelbarrow (22.2%); wheelbarrow and bucket (22.2%). Others aretractors and shovels. These implements are modern. Main reasons for preference (and use) of theimplements used in manuring are: convenience (44.0%); availability (28%); and efficiency (28%). Row
manuring (41.7%); spreading (33.3%); broadcasting (16.7%); ridge manuring (4.2%) and mechanicalmanuring (4.2%) are the major manuring methods used.
Irrigation
It is not a widespread practice among the farmers, with only 34.5% of the respondents representing
households mentioning practising it. Male hired labour dominantes (20.7%).
Gravitational irrigation (20.7%) is the most popular method of irrigation, followed by overhead irrigation(6.9%). Farrow irrigation is also done. Most of the implements used in irrigation are modern ones:
sprinklers, water pump machines and channels. They are preferred due to their availability (3.7%) andease of use (3.7%).

Harvesting
Female adults (13.8%) and hired male and female labour (13.8%) perform harvesting. Other groups
are male hired labour and female adults (20.7%), and male hired labour (10.3%).
Both indigenous and modern methods and implements are utilized in performing this task: pangas,
jembes, sacks, wheelbarrows and carts. The methods of harvesting commonly used (in order ofimportance) are: gathering, plucking and mechanical harvesting. Preference is due to affordability(37.5%), efficiency (29.2%), availability (20.8%) and ease of use (12.5%).

Post harvesting activities
The single most important group/category mentioned as the main performer of post-harvesting activities
are the female adults (14.8%), and male hired labour and female adults (14.8%)
The activities include; threshing, packaging, plucking, and the major implements mentioned inperforming these tasks include: beating sticks, sacks and carts. These implements are preferred mainly
because: they are the only methods known (47.6%), convenient to use (28.6%) and available (14.3%).

Tending animals
Tending of animals in the area of study is carried out by men (29.6%) as male hired labour. However,
14.8% felt that it was male adults (general) and 11.1% felt all the household is involved. Women are
involved in tending animals to a less extent, compared to men.

40

ATPS W ORKING PAPER N O. 38
Animals are mainly tethered (37.0%). Open grazing (33.3%), zero grazing and strip grazing arealso practised. Ropes are commonly used in the tendering of animals (66.7%). Also used are feeds,
pastures and trough. Preference for these implements (inputs) are mainly because they are affordable(40%) and appropriate (24.0%).

Milking
Mainly performed by female adults (85.2%) However, male hired labour, female hired labour, and female
children have also been mentioned by 14.8% of respondents as being involved in milking. Milking is
mainly done manually (96.3%). Major implements used in milking include the bucket (34.6%), jug(26.9%), cups and kettle (19.2%).
Preference for use of these apparatus by farmers is mainly due to affordability (65.4%); availability(15.4%) and convenience use (11.5%).

Treating of animals
Mainly performed by male adults as mentioned by 37.0% of farmers interviewed and 33.3 mentioned
male hired labour. Women, eg. female adults (3.7%), are also involved in the treating of animals.
Injection (48.1%) and drenching (40.7%), are the main methods used in the treatment of animals.
Drenching gun (40.7%) and the syringe (18.5%) are the main instruments used in the treatment ofanimals. Preference for these instruments is mainly due to their availability (20.0%), affordability (16.0%)
and convenience (8.0%).

Dipping
Mainly performed by male hired labour (29.6%). Female adults (3.7%) are not important performers of
this task. However, the dipping of animals is not a common practice among farmers, 48.1% of respondents
keeping animals mentioned non-use of dipping. Dips (50.0%) and spraying with knapsack sprayer(34.6%) are the main instruments used. Dipping as opposed to spraying is the dominant method used.
Availability of implements (26.9) is the dominant factor determining farmers preference of implements.

Dehorning
It is not a common practice among the farmers (70.4%). The activity has been identified as indigenous.
Male hired labour (22.2%) is the single most dominant group performing the task.
Dehorning is mainly done by cutting horns (29.6%) with the hack-saw (29.6%). Farmers prefer thehacksaw mainly due to: its appropriateness (14.8%), convenience (9.4%), availability (8.7%) andaffordability (3.7%).

Selling of animals
Mainly performed by male adults (55.6%). Female adults as well as other household members are,however, also involved at a lesser degree when compared with men. Animals are mainly taken to themarket whereby open air bargaining is the dominant mode of selling.

41

T HE GENDER VARIABLE IN AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY : A CASE OF RURAL FARMERS IN MACHAKOS DISTRICT - EASTERN KENYA

Who makes decisions on the use of indigenous and modern technologies
The study demonstrates that decisions regarding agricultural production are made in collaboration withboth women and men (57.1%). However, 42.9% of the respondents stated that decisions on agricultural
production are made by one person. The areas of food production in which decisions are made by one
person include: deciding on the planting time, selling, weeding, harvesting and tending of animals.
Majority of the respondents (57.7%) felt that decisions about planting and tending of animals aretaken by one person. According to the respondents, men and women are the main regular decision
makers in the activities shown in Table 4.13.
Table 4.13: Percentage of Decision-making in Households
Activity
Clearing
Breaking the land
Planting
Weeding
Manuring
Harvesting
Packing
MarketingLand preparation
Time to plant
Land preparation

Men(%)
55
62
33.3
6.3
37
34.6
41.7
15.6
26
64.3
25

Women
15
8.3
55.6
12.5
25.9
42.3
33.3
3.1
4.2
21.4
75

These data indicate that men are regular decision makers on land clearing, breaking the land,
manuring, packing, marketing, and land preparation. Conversely, women are regular decision makers
in issues to do with planting, weeding and harvesting. However, the women are consulted more by men
regarding land preparation.
The study also revealed some gender differences in the decisions about the timing of agriculturalactivities (Table 4.14).
Table 4.14: Percentage of Timing of Agricultural Activities
Activity timing
Land preparation
Planting
Manuring
Weed control
Spraying
Harvesting
Processing
Purchase and repair
Sale of produce

Men% responses
86.2
55.2
64.3
51.7
66.7
42.1
60.0
73.3
79.3

Women
% responses
13.8
37.9
35.7
41.4
7.4
57.9
33.3
20.0
10.3

42

ATPS W ORKING PAPER N O. 38
According to this study, hired male are also regularly involved in decision making in the following
activities as reported by the respondents: clearing (25%), breaking the land (4.3%), planting (7.4%),
weeding (17.2%), manuring (11.1%), spraying (23.3%) and harvesting (7.7%).

Purchases, access and benefits of agricultural technologies used
The respondents reported the gender associated purchase of implements as given in Table 4.15.
Table 4.15: Gender Associated Purchase of Farm Implements
Implements
Cutlass
Stick
Ox-plough 59.3
TractorResponse %purchase by men
78.6
14.3
7.4
22.2

Response %purchase by women
10.7
28.6
-

Most farm implements except for the digging stick are purchased by men. These implements are
generally purchased from the sale of agricultural products. The respondents stated that the source of
the income to purchase the implements is shown in Table 4.16.
Table 4.16: Percentage Source of Salary to Purchase Technology
Implements

Cutlass
Stick
Ox-ploughTractor

Income source fromsale of agricultural
products % responses
64.2
21.4
67.8
17.9

Salary% responses

Spouse

Loan

25
21.4
28.6
7.1

7.1
-

75

There is likely to be an association between men’s dominance in relation to their decision overmajor issues such as marketing, timing of harvesting, processing and sale of produce and their purchasesof farm implements. Perhaps the stick is the cheapest, hence it can be bought directly by more womenfrom either salary or sale of agricultural products On the other hand, the stick is the simplest technology
and can easily be made as reported by 25% of the respondents. Agricultural implements are eitherbought or hired. Thus, more men have access to most of the implements due to their access to financial
resources either from agricultural sales and/or salary. The data indicates that adult men are the mainowners of farm implements (Table 4.17).

43

T HE GENDER VARIABLE IN AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY : A CASE OF RURAL FARMERS IN MACHAKOS DISTRICT - EASTERN KENYA
Table 4.17: Gender-based Ownership of Farm Implements
Implement
Cutlass
Stick
Ox-ploughTractor

Owner
Men
82%
22.2%
53.6%
-

Women
7.1%
25.9%
7.9%
-

Women own only crude indigenous technology such as the digging stick. Additionally, the datashows that women are the users of the digging stick as reported by 29.6% of the respondents compared
to 25.9% of them who said men are the users of the stick. It can, therefore, be argued that men havemore access to advanced technology and they derive more benefits from it than women.
The sale of agricultural products is usually decided upon by men. Since they make most of theimportant decisions on the farms which require finances, it is more likely that they keep most of the
returns from their farms. Hence, they benefit more from the farm technologies than women.

Effects of modern technology on division of labour
The study reveals that some of the farmers adopt new agricultural technology through observation ofand interaction with other farmers in this area. About 17.2% of the respondents knew about new methods
from other farmers in this area. On the other hand, farmers from other divisions influenced 14.3% of the
respondents. Extension workers (58.6%) and other agricultural officers (17.9%) have played a bigger
role in teaching the people new methods. The respondents also indicate that seminars (35.7%) andagricultural shows (18.5%) have been important channels of communicating the use of new methods.
A majority of the farmers adopted the trials through consultation with the other farmers. This approach
was mentioned by 70% of the respondents. Out of 27 respondents, other channels of new methods
included immigrants (3.7)%, inter-farmers views (11.1%) and agricultural shows (18.5%). Most of these
respondents (70.4%) could recall some of the new methods they had learnt and tried in the recent past.
A majority of them (30.8%) had learnt of the Mexican marigold popes and tried it. The respondents gave
various reasons to explain the perceived differences in adoption of technology between female andmale household heads. The majority (53.6%) argued that both women and men adopt new methods
equally. Conversely, 21.4% of the respondents felt that men acquire and adopt new/modern methods
faster than women and 14.3% of them stated that women lack time and economic power to adopt/
acquire new methods of agricultural production. Some of the respondents (3.6%) observed that men
travel more than women. Hence, are more exposed to new technology. On the other hand, 3.6% of the
respondents felt that women have a negative attitude towards agriculture, hence, they could not acquire
new technology easily. Only 3.6% of the respondents said that women have access to new methods
through women’s groups.
The people of Machakos are educated about new methods through home visits by agricultural
officers. A majority of the respondents (69%) confirmed this. The approach of disseminating new methods
which were mentioned by the respondents (n = 29), include: the encouragement to use modern
technology (6.9%), plant exhibitions (10.3%), demonstrations (3.4%), and follow ups and guidance
44

ATPS W ORKING PAPER N O. 38(37.9%). About 10.3% of the respondents observed that indigenous methods of farming are usuallydespised by the agricultural education officers. A majority of these respondents (55.2%) confirmed thatthey also attended farming seminars, where the main topics included the advantages of using modern
farm inputs (mentioned by 14.3% of the respondents) and the use of pesticides. Respondents (3.6%)
attended a seminar on agroforestry while another 3.6% indicated that they learnt about soil conservation.
The study revealed that the perception of appropriate tools was associated with gender. Nearly all
the respondents (96.4%) stated that some tools are suitable for men and others for women. There wasa tendency to associate the tools with the perceived physical abilities of either gender as shown in
Table 4.18.
Table 4.18: Percentage of Perceived Physical Abilities by Gender
Response
Some tools need strong people
Long duration of particular tools
Men use heavy tools
Difference in physique
Difference in tasks
Women bend more than men% Frequency
40.7
18.5
7.4
11.1
7.4
14.8

The data further indicates that over half of the respondents (55.2%) consider purchasing what isperceived as suitable for their spouses. This consideration is basically based on the perceived efficiency
of using appropriate tools by either gender. About 21.7% of the respondents indicated that it wasnecessary to go for tools that make the work faster and less tiring. To 12.9% of the respondents, thepurchase of suitable tools was based on their goodness, perceived high productivity in using such tools
and the ability to use the tools. Respondents (34.8%) viewed the various tools as suitable for either
gender due to traditions. They found the tools appropriate, because their male spouses bought them.
However, most of the respondents (85.7%) indicated that they were constrained economically to buy
suitable tools for their spouses.
A majority of these respondents (59.3%) had never had access to credit. Only 11.1% of the
respondents agreed that credit was accessible to them, 18.5% did not have title deeds as security toacquire credit, and 3.7% of them avoid the strenuous repaying of loans.
The research finding indicates that the issuance of title deeds and provision of loans would assist
the people in improving their agricultural production. About 24% of the respondents suggested that the
government should provide them with loans and 17.2% recommended that training and financing should
be done by the government. To 10.3% of the respondents, water, title deeds and credit were the major
issues to be dealt with by the government.
This study indicate that men could adopt modern farming technology faster than women. Most
respondents indicated that male household heads were the users of modern agricultural technology;
32.1% of the respondents stated that men have economic power. In fact, 14.3% of the respondents
affirmed that the use of modern technology depended on economic status. Other respondents mentionedthat men use modern technology because they:45

T HE GENDER VARIABLE IN AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY : A CASE OF RURAL FARMERS IN MACHAKOS DISTRICT - EASTERN KENYA••••

participate more in agricultural production (67.1% of the respondents)
concentrate more on agriculture (3.6%)
are flexible (7.1%)
are more exposed (3.6%)

However, 32.1% of these respondents argued that men and women use modern agricultural
technology equally.
There are cultural beliefs that would hinder increased food production in the area as 51.7% of the
respondents confirmed and 17.2% support the fact that culture hinders the adoption of new methods.
On the other hand, 17.2% of these respondents were of the view that time is wasted on traditional
ceremonies. The belief that life is shorter as confirmed by 3.4% of the respondents would discourage
people’s efforts to increase production.
Culturally based gender differentiation would also affect agricultural productivity. In this regard, thedivision of labour along gender lines would hinder increased agricultural activities according to 3.4% of
the respondents. Respondents (44.8%) also claimed that the suppression of women would have anegative impact on agricultural production. Some 48.3% of the respondents did not give any suggestions
on how to eliminate the cultural hindrance; majority suggest that it can be eliminated by:•
Educating people to discard the cultural hindrance (41.3%).
•
Encouraging the use of modern tools (3.4%).
•
Encouraging the full participation of the whole household in food production (6.9%).

Processes underlying technological adoption
The use of modern technology has generally changed the modes of production and division of labour inthe study area. Majority of the respondents (93.1%) confirmed that there no longer exists separate land
portions for men and women. On the other hand, the use of farm implements is based on the demandsof different tasks rather than gender. Most of the respondents (66%) indicated that men rarely participatedin agricultural production during the last six months, but there is evidence that their overall participationin agriculture has increased. It could, therefore, be argued that there are changes in farming activities,
which have been facilitated by adopting modern technologies as confirmed by 89.7% of the respondents.
The data indicate that men are now more involved in tasks that were previously done by women.
About 40.7% of the respondents stated that men’s task is land preparation, 25.9% observed that men
are involved in planting, and 14.8% mentioned that they are involved in cultivating. The tasks of tilling,
poultry farming and milking were stated as men’s tasks by 3.7% of the respondents for each, 33.3%
viewed the tasks as culturally for females, 44.4% believe that men are stronger to perform them and5.6% stated that they are culturally for men. The tasks were previously performed by women as confirmedby 51.9% of the respondents.
The major female tasks are planting, land preparation, herding, erecting farm structures, ploughing
and weeding. While 44.4% of the respondents observed that these tasks were previously performed by
women, 29.9% of the respondents claimed that these were male duties. Culturally they are perceived
as both male and female jobs as indicated by the observation of 19% of the respondents for each.
Negligible proportions of the respondents indicated that these tasks may be culturally prohibited for46

ATPS W ORKING PAPER N O. 38
women, for reasons that climbing is an abomination for women, they should not bend for long hours
and are not strong enough for the tasks.
The data indicate that the use of HYV seeds, fertilizers and exotic animal breeds are most likely tohave led to an equal distribution of labour along gender lines. Conversely, the use of tractors, pesticides,
the plough and other technologies have been confined to men. To 66.7% of respondents, both men andwomen participate in the use of HYV seeds and 33.3% of the respondents (n = 18) observed that only
women participate in the application of the seeds. Both men and women participate in the use offertilizers according to 77.8% of the respondents. The rest of the respondents indicated the involvementin the application of the technology as follows: children (5.6%), men (5.6%) and women (11.1%). The
data indicates that men alone are more involved in the application of pesticides as stated by 78.9% of
the respondents. On the other hand, 86.7% of the respondents indicated that both men and women are
involved in the raising of exotic animal breeds. The participation of men in food production is most likely
to be motivated by the fact that fathers are culturally held responsible for food production according to
69% of the respondents and 55.2% indicated that it was for mothers. Only 20.7% of the respondents
supported that elder children are responsible for food production.
The use of modern methods have improved food production positively (Table 4.19.). All the
respondents (n = 28) argued that the use of these methods have led to a decrease in the workload;
majority of the respondents (61.5%), however, observed that the workload for women has decreased
due to the use of modern technology, 19.2% observed that the workload for both men and women has
been reduced, and 19.2% held the view that modern technology has reduced men’s workload.
Table 4.19: Effects of Modern Technology on Agriculture
Effects
Soil depletion
More food producedLess food produced
Maintain soil fertility
Efficiency in production(more produce, less workload)n = 27% Response
3.7
85.2
3.7
3.7
3.7

Another proportion of the respondents (3.7%) observed that modern technology has increased theacreage of land under cultivation.
Despite the fact that the local people perceived the advantages of modern technology, a majority of
the respondents (62.1%) observed that there are some indigenous farming methods that could be
improved to increase productivity. The main suggested improvements were the merging of indigenous
and new technology; shifting cultivation and using of natural manure as shown on Table 4.20.

47

T HE GENDER VARIABLE IN AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY : A CASE OF RURAL FARMERS IN MACHAKOS DISTRICT - EASTERN KENYA
Table 4.20: Indigenous Methods to be Improved
Indigenous methods to be improved
Using of natural manure
Awareness on dangers of modern
farming
Shifting cultivation
Merging indigenous and new technology
N/An = 28% Response
17.9
3.6
3.6
35.7
39.3

Policy implications of gender differentiated technology
Most farmers desire more accessibility to credit facilities. This was expressed in the respondentssuggestions that the government should issue them with title deeds, provide loans and reduce the priceof farm tools. There is also a need to intensify training activities through an increased number ofagricultural extension officers. The respondents also indicated that they would be motivated if thegovernment assisted in marketing their produce as well as easing their transportation problem (Table
4.21).
Table 4.21: Policy Issues
Suggested government assistance
Increase agricultural officers and reduce farm tool prices
Provide water, title deeds and seminars
Water, title deeds and credit
Transport improvement and titledeed provision
Loans and training
Provide seeds
Water, training and marketing
Loans and marketing
Reduce tool prices, improve transport and provide prompt
payment to farmers
Bring agricultural officers close to farmers and increasecoffee prices
Transport, water, title deeds, credit% Responses
3.4
13.8
17.2
3.4
17.2
10.3
6.9
10.3
10.3
3.4
3.4

n = 29Majority of the respondents (24%) suggested that the productivity of female headed households
would be improved if the government and/or NGOs provide loan facilities. Respondents (17.2%)
recommended that training and finance be availed to the households and 17.2% suggested a farmer’s
cooperative union be formed to cater for the female headed households. A combination of the provisionof water, title deeds and credit was given by 10.3% of the respondents as a way through which thegovernment/NGOs should improve agricultural production for female headed households. Interestingly,
48

ATPS W ORKING PAPER N O. 38
improvement of transport did not feature prominently as a way of helping female heads of households
augment their production.
There should be deliberate action to educate the people about the cultural practices and beliefs,
which hinder increased agricultural/food production. In fact, 51.7% of the respondents confirmed that
there are cultural beliefs that would retard food production. Most of these respondents felt that culture
hinders adoption of new methods and that the suppression of women would negatively affect foodproduction. Other cultural beliefs and practices which would hinder food production according to the
respondents include; the division of labour on gender basis, time wasting ceremonies and the belief
that life is short. These cultural hindrances can be eliminated by sensitizing the people to discard them,as 24.1% of the respondents argued. To 17.2% of the respondents, elimination of the cultural hinderances
could only be done through education. However, the majority (48.3%) of the respondents did not give
any suggestion on how to do away with cultural hinderances to production. This implies that the
government and/or NGOs need to devise ways of educating the people about the negative aspects ofculture, which interfere with agricultural productivity.

49

Chapter Five
Conclusions and summary
General overview on gender variable in agriculture technology
There seems to be an existence of differential use of agricultural technologies between men and women(non-equal use). Women appear to dominate in the use of indigenous agricultural technologies andmen are the least users of these technologies. The major factors accounting for such differential use oftechnology are:•
Perceived appropriateness of tools/implements for men and women, eg. some tools are
more appropriate for women and others are perceived to be good for men.
•
The amount of energy the use of a given agricultural technology requires of the user.
•
The level of access to a technology, eg. women have greater access to indigenous
technology, hence, their greater relative use of indigenous technology than the use ofmodern technology.
•
Other factors such as:(i)the technical knowhow the user has of the technology.
(ii)
the level of involvement in agricultural activities e.g. men are often busy elsewhereare mainly involved in off-farm activities.
(iii)
the posture a given tool demands of the user eg. men do not like bending, hence,
avoid implements that require them to bend.
•
Experience eg. indigenous methods are basically used by women.
•Land considerations e.g. scarcity of land under one’s possession determines the technology
to be used.
•
The need for change eg. men feeling that indigenous implements/methods have been in
use for a long time, hence, the need for change to newer methods/technologies.
In majority of the tasks (farm operations) where men predominate, there is a preponderate use ofmodern agricultural technologies. This suggests some association between type of task, type of performer
and the technology used. Tasks along the gender of the performer appear to influence the type oftechnologies used. Evidence from research shows that preference and use of technology is a functionof the type of task and the person who normally performs that task. The allocation of farm tasks along
gender lines is what determines the differential use of technology between women and men. Thisimplies, there is a connection between the perceived technology, gender of the user, level of use of thattechnology and the type of agricultural task performed.

50

ATPS W ORKING PAPER N O. 38
Gender, the socially and culturally construed roles for women and men, has a significant influenceon the preferences and general use of any agricultural technology. Gender influences the farmer's
choice and the level of use of a given technology.

Division of labour
In Machakos, like in most of rural Africa where farming is carried out, farm household members havedistinctive farm tasks to perform. Division of labour on the farm is based on sex and age of the household
members. It is not an invariable rule, however, that women and men have distinctive farm tasks toperform, which the other sex cannot be engaged in as follows:•
Men do land preparation tasks such as clearing the bush, breaking the ground (using oxplough at times), and construction of farm and storage facilities. On the other hand, womenappear to put more farm labour than men in weeding, sowing/planting, harvesting, andpost-harvest tasks.
•
Cultural prescriptions on what women or men have to do is eroding slowly and in someinstances, women are involved in land preparation using ploughs, which was previously
regarded as a taboo and a man’s domain.
•
Division of labour among rural communities in Africa is culture specific and is also affectedby individual farm household characteristics.
Some associations between agricultural technological use and sex of farmer is evident. However, thepreference and eventual use of a specific agricultural technology appear to be influenced by intermediatefactors as follows:•
Economic considerations eg. cost of the technology and ability of farmers to buy the technology.
•
Appropriateness of the specific technology.
•
The availability of technology in question (or availability of possible alternatives implied).
•
Convenience of the technology to the user.

Access to agricultural technologies, credit and extension services
The introduction of modern agricultural technologies has followed cash crop farming, which has alreadybeen identified as a man’s domain. A relationship therefore appears to exist between the application ofmodern agricultural technology and cash cropping on one hand and men farmers and modern agricultural
technologies on the other. Women and food production appear to have a close relationship with the useof indigenous agricultural technologies. This is evidenced by this study’s findings and literature. The
dominance of women using traditional technologies for food production is itself catastrophic for foodsecurity in African societies. .
The use of various agricultural technologies along gender lines closely relates to access to thesetechnologies. Women farmers have relatively limited access to modern agricultural technologies andhave to use more of indigenous technologies in farming. The study has confirmed that women farmers
have both physical as well as economic inaccessibility to modern techniques of farming.
Cultural prescriptions and restrictions denies them access to use of farm technologies such as theox-plough, like the Zambian women farmers have revealed that "ploughing" was a taboo, so only men
could use the plough. Economic access has to do with monetary constraints faced by women farmers
51

T HE GENDER VARIABLE IN AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY : A CASE OF RURAL FARMERS IN MACHAKOS DISTRICT - EASTERN KENYA
in their attempt to purchase technologies deemed by women as essential in raising farm productivity.
This economic constraint is more acute amongst female-headed households shown by the study andliterature to be critically disadvantaged in many areas of farming enterprise.
Culture limits women’s ownership of land, therefore, denying them access to title deeds which could
serve as collateral for taking loans to improve their farms. Among the studied Akamba community,
women do not own land, and access to credit by rural men and women farmers in Machakos is limited.
This has been identified as one of the constraints to agricultural development in Machakos District (see1994-1996 development plans). Relative to men, women have limited access to farm credits and hence,
limited capabilities to purchase and use modern technologies in their farms. Female-headed households
are more vulnerable to this constraint.
Agricultural extension and training to women farmers is also limited, resulting in low level or lack oftechnical skills and knowledge about the various technologies. Women farmers are ignored by agriculturalextension services and women farmers receive minimal agricultural training and hence, their prospects
to acquire technical skills and knowledge about use of various agricultural technologies is reduced. It isalso said that men rather than women, who dominate rural agriculture in Kenya and in Machakos, form
the bulk of extension workers. They have tended to be biased against women farmers, often viewing
them as less innovative, uninterested in agricultural training, and less enterprising on the farm and soforth.
Farm households in rural areas of Kenya are both female- and male-headed. In Machakos district,
it was found that female-headed households are more in urban centres, such as Machakos town,
Matuu, and Athi River other than in the rural areas. With increasing out-migration of rural populations(especially men of ages 15-59) from one rural area to towns, female-headed households are on an
increasing trend. It was also found that in comparative terms, female-headed households are
disadvantaged than male-headed ones in terms of access to, use of and benefits derived from modern
agricultural technologies found in the area.
They also have lower adoption rates, and knowledge of modern agricultural technologies. However,
it is noted that female-headed households cannot be taken to be a homogenous group registering
similar production patterns. This is because household behaviour is more dependent on household
characteristics and that of its members.

Decision-making in farm management and ownership of farm inputs/technologies
In the farm enterprise in the study area, both men and women are involved in decision making regarding
the various farm issues, like on-farm purchases, marketing, and planting techniques. It is further revealed
that certain decisions are made by men and others by women in the household. However, men are
generally the key decision makers on the farm. When both man (husband) and woman (wife) arepresent, the overall running of the farm is the man’s responsibility. However, both men and women may
have distinctive responsibilities on the farm and hence, are to be considered as the key decision makers
in the various spheres of production that they control.
It is also revealed that, while some decisions may be made by a man or woman alone, others may
be arrived at after consultations with other member(s) of the farm household. However, the study points
to a general agreement regarding the various farm operations and issues affecting the farm enterprise.

52

ATPS W ORKING PAPER N O. 38
The household head who could be a man or woman is considered as the sole decision maker for thewhole farm, although decisions for individual tasks/issues on the farm may be made by others.
It is also revealed that farm decisions (including those to do with choice of a technology), though
influenced by gender, are also affected by a myriad of other factors, including directives from cooperatives,
government policies, agricultural programmes in the area, and household’s level of income, social,
cultural and political setting.
Women and men own different things in the household. In most cases, ownership of land, cattle,
ploughs and farm implements and inputs viewed as important to the farm enterprise, is based on
cultural ownership laws or customs and deposits the right of ownership to the man. Men own large
animals and women own the smaller ones such as chicken. Women in Machakos, according to Kamba
tradition, do not own land. Such ownership patterns, influence women’s and men’s attitudes, perceptions,access to, uses and preferences for the various technologies found among the Akamba (as well as inother part of rural Kenya).
Socialization process for men and women in the community also influences to a great extent (andespecially among the illiterate and poor), the attitudes, perceptions, preferences and use of technologies
and this therefore determines their choices.
Households appeared to utilize hired labour (of both men and women) in the performance ofagricultural tasks. There is a general trend in the use of a combination of both indigenous and modern
technologies. This is suggestive that rapid adoption of new technology and rapid phasing out of indigenous
technologies is not the norm among the Machakos farmers. There is therefore coexistence of various
agricultural technologies.

Effects of modern technology
Modern technologies have been said to affect farm family household relations and may also affectwomen’s control of farms. Some authors have argued that the introduction of modern agricultural
technologies appears to replace female farming systems with male ones. The introduction of modern
technologies affects the existing labour divisions and often necessitates adjustments and re-allocationof labour. They therefore appear to affect the traditional division of labour which as in most Kenyansocieties goes along gender lines. To cope with changing situations, modern technologies often haverequired women to participate in operations previously restricted to men, for example, ox-ploughing as
in Zambia (also in rural Kenya).
Modern agricultural technologies affect women’s labour contributions in the farm, sometimes shiftingthem to new tasks, while in some other instances, it makes demand on their labour even more critical.
Introduction of a tractor, for instance, increases acreage of cultivated land, meaning a larger area for
women (who dominate in performing this task) to plant, weed, tend, harvest and process for the market.
Market-oriented farming and introduction to modern technology gives men more rights and less work in
the farms.

53

References
Annabel, R. (1992). Women and the Environment. London. Zed Books.
Appleton, H. (1993). Gender, Technology and Innovation. In Appropriate Technology Journal vol. 20 (2).
pp. 6-8. London. Intermediate Technology (IT) publications.
Appleton, H. (1993). Women: Invisible Technologists. In Appropriate Technology Journal vol. 20 (2).
London. I.T. Publications.
Appleton, H. and A. Scott (1994). Gender Issues in Agricultural Technological Development. London.
Intermediate Technology Development Group (ITDG).
Barnes, C. (1978). Women in Kenya’s Rural Economy. In Pala, A. et al. (eds), The Participation of
Women in Kenya Society. Nairobi. Kenya Literature Bureau.
Barnes, C. and L. Werner (1982). Kenyan Small Holders and the Division of Labour. Nairobi. Central
Bureau of Statistics and USAID.
Batic, S.S. and J.P. Marshall (1986). Agricultural Research Policy: Selected Issues. Blacksburg. Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University.
Beneria, L. (ed) (1985). Women and Development. New York. Praeger.
Benston, M. (1988). Women’s Voices/Men’s Voices: Technology is Language. In Kramarae C. (ed),Technology and Women’s Voices. New York. Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Boserup, E. (1989). Women’s Role in Economic Development. London. Earthscan Publications Ltd.
Brown, L.H. and J. Cochene (1973). A Study of the Agroclimatology of The Highlands of Eastern Africa.
World Meteorological Organization.
Burton, I.; R.W. Kates and G.F. White (1978). The Environment as Hazard. New York. Oxford University
Press.
Buttel, F.H and W.G. Gilbert (1984). The Sexual Division of Farm Household Labour Allocation Among
Farm Men and Women. In Rural Sociology Journal 49:183-209.
Carr, M. (Ed.) (1978). Appropriate Technology for African Women. Addis Ababa. UN Publications.
(1991). Women and Food Security: The Experience of SADCC Countries. London. Intermediate
Technology Publications.
Celis, R. et. al. (Eds) (1991). Adopting Improved Farm Technology: A study of Small Holder Farmers inEastern Province of Zambia. Washington, DC. International Food Policy Research Institute.
Chege, E. (Ed) (1995). Gender News. Issue Number 1. Nairobi. Winrock International.
Cloud, K. (1985). Women’s Productivity in Agricultural Systems: Considerations for Project Design. In
Overholt, C. et. al. (Eds), Gender Roles in Development Projects: A Case Book. West Hartford,
Connecticut. Kumarian Press.

54

ATPS W ORKING PAPER N O. 38(1988). A Teaching Module on Women and Agriculture: Household Level Analysis. Draft Prepared forthe International Workshop on Women, Households and Development: Building Data Base. Urbana
Champaign University of Illinois.
Coen, R. (1992). Farming for the Future: An Introduction to Low - External - Input and Sustainable
Agriculture. (LEIA) London: Macmillian.
Colman, Gould and S. Elbert (1984). "Farming Families: The Farm Needs Everyone". Research in
Rural Sociology and Development 1:61-78.
Cowan, A.B. (Ed) (1978). The Role of women in meeting basic food and water needs in developing
countries: Proceedings of the international conference on women and food held in Tsucon, Arizona.
Daily Nation (DNA) (1992). Impact of SAPS on Women. An article featured in theDaily Nation Newspaperof 6/9/1992 pp:12. Nation Media Group, Nairobi.
Edgerton, R.B. (1971). The Individual in Cultural Adoption. Los Angeles. University of California Press.
Elson, D. (1989). How is Structural Adjustments Affecting Women in Development? Lavoro Society forInternational Development. Paper No. 1.
Feldstein, Sims, H.; C.B. Flora and S.V. Poats (1989). The Gender Variable in Agricultural Research.
Ottawa: IDRC.
Feldstein, Sims, H. and S.V. Poats (Eds) (1989). Working Together: Gender Analysis in Agriculture.
West Hartford, Connecticut. Kumarian Press.
Feldman, S.H. and R. Welsh (1995) Feminist Knowledge Claims Local Knowledge and Gender Divisionsof Agricultural Labour: Constructing a Successor Science. InRural Sociology Journal vol. 60 (1): pp
23-43.
Flora, C.B. (1990). "Reconstructing Agriculture: The Case for Local Knowledge". In Rural Sociology
Journal. 57: 92-97.
Food and Agricultural Organization (F.A.O.) (1983). Women in Agriculture. Rome:. F.A.O.
Flora, C.B. (1985). Women in Developing Agriculture Rome:. F.A.O.
Gladwin, C.H. and K.A. Staudt (1987). Providing Africa’s Women Access: One Solution to the Food
Crisis. In Journal of African Studies. vol 13 (4).
Goody, J.R. (1971). Technology, Tradition and the State in Africa. London Oxford University Press.
Hanger, J. (1973). Social and Economic Constraints Aspects of the Contribution of Women to the FarmHousehold Economy: Two East African Studies. Unpublished Thesis, University of East Africa.
Ilkkaracan, I. and H. Appleton (1994). Women’s Roles in the Innovation of Food Cycle Technologies
London. Intermediate Technology Development Group (ITDG).
Jaetzold, R. and H. Schimdt (1983). Farm Management Handbook of Kenya. vol II: Natural Conditions
and Farm Management Information Part C: Eastern and Coast Provinces. Nairobi. Ministry ofAgriculture.
Jones, C.W. (1986). Intra-Household Bargaining in Response to Introduction of New Crops: A Case
Study from North Cameroon. In Moock, J.L. (Ed). Understanding Africa’s Rural Household andFarming Systems: pp 105-123. Boulder. Westview Press.
Kabeberi Macharia, J. (1995). Inequality: A Legal Analysis. In Gender Review 2 (4): 23-24.
Kabira, W.M. (1992). Story-tellers and Environment. In Khasiani, S. (Ed). Groundwork. Nairobi. Acts
Press. pp 7-18.
55

T HE GENDER VARIABLE IN AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY : A CASE OF RURAL FARMERS IN MACHAKOS DISTRICT - EASTERN KENYA
Kirjavairen, L.M. (1995). Rural Women, Food and Agriculture: Looking Beyond Beijing. Paper Presented
to the Beijing Women’s Conference on 7 September 1995.
Kraemare, C. (Eds) (1988). Technology and Women’s Voices. New York. Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Kumbler, V. (Ed) (1987). Farming Systems Research: Proceedings of the Workshop held on 17-21 Feb
1986. Panctancheru. I.A.R.C
Lele, U. (1975). The Design of Rural Development: Lessons From Africa. Baltimore, The John Hopkins
University Press.
Leonard, A . (Ed) (1992). Seeds Magazine. Number 14. New York.
Lewis, B.C. (1981). Invisible Farmers: Women and the Crisis in Agriculture. Washington D.C: Agency
for International Development (A.I.D.)
Lion Berger, H.F. (1960). The Adoption of New Ideas and Practices. Ames. Iowa State University Press.
MacDowell, J.M. (Ed.) (1976). Village Technology in Easter Africa: A Report of a UNICEF Sponsored
Regional Seminar on Appropriate Technology for the Rural Farmer held in Nairobi on 14-19 June
1976.
Mathangani, S.W. (1989). Information for Women in Food Production. Nairobi. I.D.R.C.
Mburugu, E.K. (1986). The African Household in Socio-Economic Change: A Conceptual Problem in
Research. In Bashir,O.M. et al (eds) Research Methods in the Social Sciences. pp 70-79. Addis
Ababa. Khartoum University Press.
McCarthy, F.D. and W.M. Mwangi (1982). Kenyan Agriculture: Towards 2000. Luxemburg. International
Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.
McLoughlin, P.M. (Ed) (1970). African Food Production Systems: Cases and Theory. Baltimore. The
John Hopkins University Press.
Moock, J.L. (Ed) (1986). Understanding Africa’s Rural Households and Farming Systems. Boulder.
West view Press.
Mosher, A.T. (1966). Getting Agriculture Moving: Essentials for Development and Modernization. New
York. Praeger.
Munro, F.J (1975). Colonial Rule and the Akamba Social Change in the Kenya Highlands. 1889-1939.
Oxford. Clerendon Press.
Njiro, E.I. ( 1990). Effects of Tea Production on Women’s Work and Labour Allocations: The Case of
Small-scale Tea Growers in Embu Eastern Kenya. M.A. Thesis: University of Nairobi, Institute ofAfrican Studies.
(1994). Food Culture and Environment. The Case of the Atharaka of Eastern Kenya. Ph. D. Thesis
University of Nairobi Institute of African Studies.
(1995). Gender and Farming Communities Among the Akamba of Makueni District. Rugby: ITDG.
Olorunnipa, Z. (1993). African Women and Agricultural Technologies. InAfrican Technology Forum, Vol
6 (1) Cambridge. A.T.F.
Pala, A.D. (Eds) (1978). The Participation of Women in Kenya Society: Proceedings of a Conference
held in Nairobi on 11-15 August 1975. Nairobi. Kenya Literature Bureau.
Pala, A.D. (1980). Daughters of the Lakes and Rivers: Colonization and the Land Rights of Luo Women.
In Etienne, M and Leacock, E. (Eds). Women and Colonization: Ethnological Perspectives. New
York. Praeger.

56

ATPS W ORKING PAPER N O. 38
Palmer, I. (1978). Women and the Green Revolution. A Paper Presented to the Conference on theContinuing Subordination of Women and Development Process. Sussex Institute of Development
Studies.
Palmer, I. (1985). The Impact of Agrarian Reform on Women. West Hartford. Kumaran Press.
Poats, S.V. (1988). Gender Issues in Forming Systems Research and Extension.
Raikes, P. (1988). Modernizing Hunger: Famine, Food Supplies and Farm Policy in the E.E.C. andAfrica. Ports Mouth (N.H): Heinmann.
Relf, C. (1984). Appropriate Rural Technology in Zimbabwe. Geneva.: I.L.O.
Reijntjes, C. et. al. (1992). Farming for Future: An Introduction to Low-external Input and Sustainable
Agriculture. London. Macmillian.
Republic of Kenya (1991). Annual Report of Kitui District. Nairobi: Government Printer.
Republic of Kenya (1994). Machakos District Development Plan for the Period 1994-1996. Nairobi.
Government printer.
Republic of Kenya (1994). National Development Plan for the Period 1994-1996. Nairobi. Government
Printer.
Republic of Kenya (1994). Sessional Paper No. 2 of 1994 on National Food Policy. Nairobi. Government
Printer.
Republic of Kenya (1993). Department of Agriculture Annual Report for Machakos District. Ministry ofAgriculture, Livestock Development and Marketing.
Republic of Kenya (1987). Socio-cultural Profile for Machakos District. Nairobi. Government Printer.
Rocheleau, D; F. Weber and A. Field-Juma (1988). Agroforestry in Dryland Africa. Nairobi. International
Council for Research in Agroforestry. (ICRAF).
Russo, S. (1989). Gender Issues in Agriculture and Natural Resource Management. Washington DC :USAID.
Scoones, I. and J. Thompson (Eds)(1994). Beyond the Farmer First: Rural People’s Knowledge,
Agricultural Research and Extension Practice. London. IT Publications Ltd.
Stamp, P. (1989). Technology, Gender and Power in Africa. Ottawa IDRC.
Staudt, K.A.1. (1976). Agricultural Policy, Political Power and Women Farmers in Western Kenya. PhD
Dissertation, University of Wisconsin - Madison.
Staudt, K.A.1. (1977). Inequalities in the Delivery of Services to a Female Clientele: Some Implications
for Policy. Discussion Paper No. 247, Institute for Development Studies, University of Nairobi.
Stewart, F. (1977). Technology and Underdevelopment. London. West view Press.
Sostheimer, S. (Ed.)(1991). Women and the Environment: A Reader: Crisis and Development in the
Third World. London. Earthscan Publications.
Timmer, C.P. et. al. (1983). Food Policy Analysis. Baltimore. The John Hopkins University Press.
Titmus, R.M. (1976). Commitment to Welfare. London. Allen and Unwin.
United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA) (1991). Barriers to Access of Rural Women
to Land, Livestock, Other Productive Assets, Extension Services and Credit in Selected African
Countries. Addis Ababa. UNECA.
Ventura-Dias, V. ( 1985). Modernization, Production, Organization and Rural Women in Kenya. In
Ahmed, I. (Ed.) Technology and Rural Women: Conceptual and Empirical Issues. London. Allen and
Unwin.
57

T HE GENDER VARIABLE IN AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY : A CASE OF RURAL FARMERS IN MACHAKOS DISTRICT - EASTERN KENYA
Weller, S.C. and A.K. Romeney (1988). Systematic Data Collection. London. Sage Publications.
Whitehead, A. (1981). Effects of Technological Change on Rural Women: A review of Analysis andConcepts. In Ahmed, I. (Ed.) Technology and Rural Women: Conceptual and Empirical Issues.
London. Allen and Unwin.

58