processing of milk and derivatives, corn, rice, fruits and meat; Small livestock and poultry care (especially chickens and pigs); Home-based agroindustry plants producing tortillas, vinegars, vegetables, soaps, sausages, dairy products and handicrafts; Fish products (salting and drying); Selling of vegetables, fruits, meats, and processed products in local markets; and business activities such as buying of inputs, rental of equipment, and payment of workers (SAG 2000).

In many contexts, there is significant overlap between economic activities that generate production for own-consumption and tasks that are identified as housework. Women doing these tasks might not recognize it as work beyond housework (Shah 1985) as it is informal, unpaid and flexible (Saxena 2012). <mark>This problem is aggravated when women’s</mark> work activity is combined and is intertwined with their household tasks, and as such is viewed as an extension of household duties (Donahoe 1999). Evidence from Bangladesh shows that women’s work on their husband’s farm might be considered part of household work though it generates income (Anderson and Eswaran 2009). One of the findings of the initiative Women’s Work and Employment<sup>9</sup> is that women who often helped with stocking, storing and other farm activities only reported these activities when they were specifically asked about them (Data2x 2017). A qualitative study in Malaysia listed different reasons for why working women called themselves housewives such as: “just helping”; “little business, not serious”; irregularity of income; lack of skills or formal training; not qualified (Franck and Olsson 2014).

Survey design also plays a role in the extent to which these activities are undercounted. The wording of questions meant to measure these activities has been shown to affect female labor force statistics more than statistics for the male population. Researchers have shown that keyword questions such as “work”, “job” or “main activities” produce greater variations in female relative to male statistics due to women’s widespread engagement in unpaid agricultural and family work (Bardasi et al. 2010). For instance, the term “main activity” to define employment status might lead women to report that they are housewives even if they produce goods for the market <mark>(Anker, Khan, and Gupta 1987; F</mark> ranck and Olsson 2014). Women who are involved in multiple activities are likely to have more difficulties in recalling and reporting economic activities that are relatively smaller parts of their daily routine (Franck and Olsson 2014). The ambiguity of the use of key terms can result in biases on the part of both the interviewer and the respondent which may exclude from consideration unpaid family labor and even part-time tasks done to earn money (Dixon 1982; Anker 1983). Likewise, the presence of others during interviews might also impact respondents’ answers (Franck and Olsson 2014).

There is a sizable literature on the importance of cultural factors in explaining female labor force participation (Algan and Cahuc 2005; Antecol 2003; Bayanpourtehrani and Sylwester 2013; Clark et al 1991; Feldmann Boeckmann et al 2014; Fortin 2005; Giavazzi et al 2009; Guetto et al 2015; H’madoun 2010; Nordenmark 2004; Steiber and Haas 2009; Uunk 2015). <mark>Cultural norms are important in shaping the perception that women’s work is less important or less appropriate to report (Anker 1983; Bardasi et al. 2011; Beneria 1999; Mata Greenwood 1999;</mark> Franck and Olsson 2014). Therefore, underreporting is more likely to occur in places where female work is considered undesirable for fear of loss in social prestige (Shah 1985; Rives and Yousefi 1997). For example, <mark>women may strategically label their activities as</mark> 9 Under the Women’s Work & Employment (WW + E) partnership, the International Labour Organization (ILO) has undertaken cognitive studies in 10 countries, finding that respondents reporting the same work both as employment and own-use production work was more common in rural areas and among less-educated respondents. FAO’s work with the WW+E partnership assessed some challenges to establish the boundary between own-use production of goods and employment. The technical summary of activities of Phase 1 of WW+E is described here: http://www.data2x.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/WWE-Technical-Summary-10.2017.pdf.

5