complete 1.3 less years of schooling; (iv) female managers are 6.7 percentage points less likely to have access to credit services; and (v) female managers spend 8.5 fewer hours a week on agricultural activities (male managers spend 23 hours on average, while females spend 14.4).

With respect to field characteristics, Table 1 indicates that: (i) females manage fewer fields and smaller lands (females manage, on average, 11.9 fields and 1.1 hectares, while males control, on average, 13.2 fields and 1.4 hectares); (ii) males are more diversified in their production in terms of number of different products planted and likelihood of practicing intercropping<sup>19</sup> (on average, males plant 7.5 different crops and practice intercropping on 25 percent of their fields, while females plant 6.8 different crops and intercrop in 20.9 percent of their fields); (iii) males are more likely to have fruit bearing trees among their crops; (iv) males are 7.5 percentage points more likely to cultivate a rented field and 9.6 less likely to cultivate a field granted by local leaders; and (v) female-managed fields are closer to their home (on average, male fields are 1.9 kilometers away from their home, while female fields are only 0.8 kilometers away).

Regarding input use, female managers have lower access to agricultural tools, irrigation and agricultural use of livestock. Contrastingly, they use organic fertilizer more often. Information from Table 1 indicates that: (i) female managers live in households with less access to agricultural tools;<sup>20</sup> (ii) female managers have lower availability of oxen for agricultural purposes (on average, female managers manage 0.9 oxen per hectare, while male managers employ 1.3); (iii) fields managed by female managers have 1.1 percentage points lower access to irrigation, but overall access is low (only 2.8 percent of male managed fields have access); (iv) female managers are more likely to use organic fertilizer (35 percent of female managed fields report using organic fertilizer compared to 29 percent of male managed fields); and given their usual marital status, (v) female managers' labor comes to a lesser extent from male household labor which they substitute with a higher frequency of male exchange labor.

Finally, female managers inhabit smaller households with lower income and dependency ratios.<sup>21</sup> In this respect, Table 1 shows that: (i) female managers’ value of household total weekly consumption and self-produced consumption is lower than males’ (male managers’ households value of total and self-produced consumption is 234 and 155 Birr per week,<sup>22</sup> respectively, while females’ corresponding figures are 193 and 126 Birr per week); (ii) female managers live in households that are, on average, 1.7 members smaller than male; and (iii) male managers inhabit households with higher dependency ratios (male managers' households average 0.67 dependency ratio while female managers' households average 0.54) which might also be mainly explained by female managers' marital status.

Table 2 shows naïve estimates of gender productivity differences that result from adding fixed effects for crop products and different levels of geographical aggregation. Gender productivity differences resulting from these estimates range between 12.1 and 24.6 percent.<sup>23</sup> It is interesting to note that the proportion of explained variability (measured with the R-squared) dramatically

> 19 Intercropping refers to planting more than one crop on a single field. The alternative to intercropping is having a pure-stand field.

> 20 Measured with an "agricultural index" created using principal component analysis and dummies of holding of the following resources:

> (a) sickle, (b) axe, (c) pickaxe, (d) traditional plough, (e) modern plough, (f) water pump, and (g) agricultural livestock availability.

> 21 The dependency ratio definition used throughout the paper is number of children below age 10 over number of individuals above age 10 in a household.

> 22 The Birr to US Dollar inter-bank exchange rate as of March 2012 was 17.36 Birr per U.S. Dollar (consulted at www.nbe.gov.et)

> 23 Table A.2 in the Appendix shows that these estimates are sensitive to outlier exclusion and not to selectivity that results from covariate availability.

7