BAHIR DAR UNIVERSITY

FACULTY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES

DEPARTMENT OF GENDER AND DEVELOPMENT STUDIES

WOMEN’S PARTICIPATION IN NON-FARM ACTIVITIES: THE CASE

OF SHEBEL BERENTA WOREDA, EAST GOJJAM ZONE, AMHARA
NATIONAL REGIONAL STATE

BY
EYAYU KASSEYE

JUNE, 2018
BAHIR DAR, ETHIOPIA

I
Women’s Participation in Non-farm Activities: The Case of Shebel Berenta
Woreda, East Gojjam Zone, Amhara National Regional State

A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Master of Arts in Gender and Development Studies

By
Eyayu Kasseye

Advisor
Sewmehon Demssie (PhD)

Bahir Dar University

Faculty of Social Sciences
Gender and Development Studies

June, 2018
Bahir Dar, Ethiopia

II
Thesis Approval

The thesis entitled with “Women‟s Participation in Non- Farm Activities: The Case of Shebel
Berenta Woreda, East Gojjam Zone, Amhara National Regional State” by Eyayu Kasseye is
approved for the degree of Master of Arts in Gender and Development Studies.

Board of Examiners’

Name Signature Date

Advisor _____________________ _________________ ________________

Internal Examiner __________________ _________________ ________________

External Examiner ___________________ __________________ ________________

_______________________ ________________________
Chair Person_________________________

III
Acknowledgements
Above all my deepest gratitude goes to the Almighty God for giving me all the endurance,
patience and strength to do this thesis against all odds. With Him everything is possible.
With great pleasure and indebtedness, I would like to express my sincerely gratitude to my
advisor Dr. Sewmehon Demssie for her unreserved assistance, timely guidance and comments
from the proposal development until completion of this thesis. Without her encouragement,
guidance and professional expertise, the completion of this work would not have been possible.
I am indebted to University of Gondar for funding me, and I would like to thank the Department
of Gender and Development Studies at University of Gondar in general and Bahir Dar University
in particular for giving me the opportunity to undertake this study and willingness to successfully
finalizes the thesis on time.

My sincerely thanks also goes to Dr. Arega Bazezew for his overall kindness, eagerness, courage
and support as well as teaching the basics of research which are really helpful for this study as
well. I am really thank you. I am not forgetting his eagerness and courage of Yohannes Mersha
(Assistant Professor) to teaching the overall basics of research. I would like to say thank you. I
am also very much indebted to all my friends for their encouragement and cooperation during
my work. In this regard, the guidance, encouragement, affection, and cooperation from
Lamesgen, Getachew,Yirgalem, Belste and Belete were so great and memorable. The motivation
and support from Sisay, Bimr, Alemeneh, Shishigu, Yared and Selamawit was unforgettable.

I want also to extend my gratefulness to Shebel Berenta Woreda Agriculture and rural
development officials, Technic, vocational and enterprise development officials, Women‟s and
children affairs officials, Kebele administrators of Aba Slma ena Daboch, Gebsit, Selelkulla and
Karma for their unreserved support and cooperation in collecting the necessary data for this
thesis. Without the kind cooperation of respondents and participants in Shebel Berenta Woreda,
this study would not be possible. In this regard, I would like to thank them for their willingness
and hospitality to take time to answer the questions forwarded. Here, I don‟t want to pass without
mentioning the contributions made by the enumerators who made easier the data collection. Last
but not least, my heartfelt thanks goes to my beloved families for their affection, invaluable
encouragements, unlimited supports and they always dream success for me. Thank you!

i
 Table of Contents
Contents Page

Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ i

Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................... ii

List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ vi

Lists of Figures ............................................................................................................................ vii

Acronyms and Abbreviations ................................................................................................... viii

Glossary of Amharic Terms ......................................................................................................... x

Abstract ........................................................................................................................................ xii

CHAPTER ONE ........................................................................................................................... 1

INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background of the Study ....................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Statement of the Problem ...................................................................................................... 3

1.3 Objectives of the Study ......................................................................................................... 7

1.3.1 General Objective of the Study ...................................................................................... 7

1.3.2 Specific Objectives of the Study .................................................................................... 7

1.4 Research Questions ............................................................................................................... 7

1.5 Significance of the Study ...................................................................................................... 7

1.6. Scope of the Study................................................................................................................ 8

1.7. Limitations of the Study ....................................................................................................... 9

1.8. Operational Definitions of Terms ........................................................................................ 9

1.9. Organization of the Study .................................................................................................. 11

CHAPTER TWO ........................................................................................................................ 12

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ............................................................................... 12

2.1 The Concepts and Definitions of Non-Farm ....................................................................... 12

ii
 2.2 Types of Non-farm Activities ............................................................................................. 16

2.3 Theories of Livelihood (Livelihood Framework) ............................................................... 19

2.4 Empirical Evidences on Participation in Non-farm Activities ............................................ 22

2.4.1. Gender and Participation in NFA ................................................................................ 22

2.4.2 Gender Roles in Non-Farm Activity Participation ....................................................... 24

2.4.3 Women and Non-Farm Activities in Rural Areas ........................................................ 26

2.4.4 Determinant Factors of Participation in Non-farm Activities ...................................... 27

2.4.5 Challenges and Opportunities of Women towards NFA Participation ........................ 29

2.4.5.1. Challenges of Women‟s in NFA Participation ..................................................... 29

2.4.5.2 Opportunities of Women‟s in NFA Participation ................................................. 31

2.5. Conceptual Framework of the Study.................................................................................. 32

CHAPTER THREE .................................................................................................................... 34

DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA AND RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ............. 34

3.1 Description of the Study Area ............................................................................................. 34

3.1.1 Location and Topography............................................................................................. 34

3.1.2 Landscape and Agro-ecology ....................................................................................... 34

3.1.3 Demographics and Socio-Economic Characteristics of the Study Area ...................... 35

3.2 Research Methodology……………………………………...………………………...……36

3.2.1 Research Method and Design of the Study .................................................................. 36

3.2.2 Sampling Techniques for Quantitative Component ..................................................... 38

3.2.3 Sample Size and Sample Size Determination............................................................... 38

3.2.4 Sampling Techniques for the Qualitative Component ................................................. 40

3.2.5 Data Sources ................................................................................................................. 41

3.2.6 Data Collection Instruments ......................................................................................... 41

3.2.7 Data Analysis Techniques ............................................................................................ 43

iii
 3.2.8 Descriptions of Variables for Quantitative Section and Working Hypothesis ............. 45
3.2.9 The Model Goodness-of-Fit (GOF) in the Study ......................................................... 49

3.2.10 Issues of Reliability and Validity for Quantitative Section ........................................ 49

3.2.11. Trustworthiness for Qualitative Section .................................................................... 50

3.2.12 Ethical Considerations ................................................................................................ 51

CHAPTER FOUR ....................................................................................................................... 52

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ................................................................................................. 52

4.1 Demographics and Socio –Economic Characteristics of Respondents‟.............................. 52

4.1.1 Age, Family Size and Marital Status of the Respondents‟ ........................................... 52

4.1.2 Educational Background of the Respondents‟.............................................................. 55

4.1.3 Respondents‟ Household head Status ........................................................................... 57

4. 1.4 Land Holding Size of Respondents‟ ............................................................................ 58

4.1.5 Access to Rural Water Supply ...................................................................................... 59

4.1.6 Membership in Social Groups (Association)................................................................ 60

4. 1. 7. Triple gender roles of Women‟s within the Household ............................................ 61

4.2 Institutional Characteristics of the Respondents‟ .............................................................. 61

4.2.1 Access to Non-farm Activity Training ......................................................................... 61

4.2.2 Access to Credit Services ............................................................................................. 63

4.3 Locational Characteristics of the Respondents‟ .................................................................. 64

4.3.1 Access of Road and its Distance to Residence of Respondents‟ .................................. 64

4.3.2 Distance of Nearest Main Market (DNMM) ................................................................ 66

4.4 The Status of Women Participation in Non-farm Activities in the Study Area .................. 67

4.4.1 Extent of Women‟s Participation in Non-farm Activities in the Study Area ............... 67

4.4.2 Women‟s Employment Status in Non-farm Activities in the Study Area .................... 71

4.4.3 Women‟s Participation in Non-farm Activities towards Location ............................... 73

iv
 4.5. Determinant Variables of Women‟s Participation in NFA in the Study Area ................... 74

4.6 Challenges of Women towards NFA Participation in the Study Area ................................ 79

4.6.1. Negative Outlook of the Society (Cultural myths) towards Handicrafts..................... 79

4.6.2. Absence of Institutional and Government Supports .................................................... 82

4.6.3. Shortage of Working Capital and Credit Services....................................................... 85

4.6.4. Absence of Local Infrastructure .................................................................................. 87

4. 6. 5. Limited Market Demand and Absence of Customer ................................................. 90

4.6. 6. Lack of Skill Development Non-farm Training ........................................................ 91

4. 6. 7. Absence of Technology and Technological Supports ............................................... 94

4. 6. 8. Laws and Regulations towards NFA ......................................................................... 96

4.7 Opportunities of Women‟s towards NFA Participation in the Study Area ......................... 97

4.7.1 Presence of Family Support .......................................................................................... 97

4.7.2 Availability of Natural Resources ................................................................................ 99

4.7. 3. Presence of Support in Business Plan Preparations and Management ..................... 100

4. 7. 4. Presence of Mutual Support in their own Association ............................................ 102

CHAPTER FIVE ...................................................................................................................... 104

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................. 104
5.1 Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 104

5.2 Recommendations ............................................................................................................. 106

REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................... 108

APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................... 121

Appendix: i Interview Schedule ............................................................................................. 121
Appendix: ii Guide Lines for Interviews................................................................................. 130
Appendix: iii Background information, Date and Place of FGD participants of the Study….132
Appendix: iv Shebel Berenta Woreda Kebeles Agro –ecology classification and No, HH….134
Appendix : v: Chi-square Results output ................................................................................ 136
Appendix: vi. Binary Logistic Regression Output .................................................................. 138

v
 List of Tables Page

Table 2.1 Summary of distinction of activities based on sector, function and location……..….15

Table 3.1The summary of sampled women by Kebeles………………………………….…………. 40

Table 3.2 Descriptions of explanatory variables……………………………….………………..48

Table 4.1 Distribution of respondents‟ response to age, marital status and family size…………55

Table 4.2 Percentage distribution of respondents‟ response to status of household heads……....57

Table 4.3 Percentage distribution of respondents‟ response to size of land holding……………58

Table 4.4 Percentage distribution respondents‟ response to access to rural water supply………59

Table 4.5 Distribution of respondents‟ response to the membership in social groups..................60

Table 4. 6 Percentage distribution of respondent‟s response to triple gender roles……………. 61

Table 4.7 Percentage distribution of respondents‟ response to access to NFA training……...….62

Table 4.8 Percentage distribution of respondents‟ response to access of credit……………...…64

Table 4.9 Distribution of respondents‟ response to the distance of road from their Home….…..65

Table 4.10 Distribution of respondents‟ response to the distance of market from their Home.....66

Table 4.11 Extent of Women‟s participation in non-farm activities in the study area………..…70

Table 4.12 Respondent‟s response to where you undertake non-farm activities (Location)….…74

Table 4.13 Determinant variables of Women‟s participation in NFA …………………………...76

vi
 Lists of Figures Page

Figure 2.1 The Relationship between the Dependent and Independent variables ………………33

Figure 3.1 Location Map of the Study area (Shebel Berenta Woreda and Selected kebeles)…....35

Figure 4.1 Respondents‟ response based on their Educational level.......................................…..56

Figure 4.2 Distributions of respondent‟s response based on Employment status in NFA……....72

vii
Acronyms and Abbreviations
ACSI………………Amhara Credit and Saving Institution

BDS………………..Business Development Services

CSA………………..Central Statistical Agency

DFID………………Department for International Development

EPRDF……… …….Ethiopian People Revolutionary Democratic Front

FAO……………......Food Agricultural Organization

FDRE……………….Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia

FGD………………....Focus Group Discussion

FHH………………...Female-Headed Household

ICT…………………..Information Communication Technology

IDS…………………Institute of Development Studies

IFAD………………...International Fund for Agricultural Development

IFC…………………..International Financial Corporation

ILO……………….....International Labor Organization

IFPRI………………..International Food Policy Research Institute

KI…………….……….Key Informant

LSP…………………...Livelihood Support Programme

MHH………………...Male- headed Households

MOFA………………..Ministry of Food and Agriculture

MSME ………………..Micro-Small and Medium Enterprise

NFA…………………….Non-farm Activities
viii
NFE…………………….Non -farm Enterprises

NGO……………………Non-Governmental Organization

NRI …………………….Natural Resource Institute

ODI………………………Oversea Development Institute

RNFA……………………Rural Non- farm Activities

SARDP………………….Sida-Amhara Rural Development Programme

SIDA…………………….Swedish International Development Agency

SOFA…………………….State of Food and Agriculture

SPSS…………………… .Statistical Package for Social Science

SSA………………………Sub-Saharan Africa

TIMDO……………………Trade Industry Market Development Office

TVEDO…………………....Technic, Vocational and Enterprise Development Office

UK………………………….United Kingdom

UN………………………….United Nations

UNDP…………………........United Nations Development Program

UNESCO…………………..United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization

USAID…………………… .United State Agency for International Development

WB………………………....World Bank

WOE……………………….Women‟s Organization and Entrepreneurship

WP………………………Working Paper

ix
Glossary of Amharic Terms

Agelgil: A traditional material made up of grass used to put the whole course of a meal served as
a one plate

Ankelba : A traditional leather product used for carrying new born baby

Arata: A system in which women get loan to pay the money double for the future

Areki: is a local drink made up of Wheat, Maize, Sorghum and malt.

Buda: Insulting given to handicraft workers considered them as they have the magic power to
harm somebody by looking at them

Dubie: a system by which women get loan to pay the money for the future

Deben Ansa: Amharic Proverb and insulting given to leather workers or tanners

Dist: A traditional dish made up of mud used for cooking wet

Eje Seri: The nickname given to handicraft workers especially for blacksmith, pottery worker

Faki: The nickname given to leather workers as insulting

Gabi: is a white colored double shawl traditional wear in the local community especially

for men.

Gan: a traditional large pot used for processing local drinks and as a water container

Got: The smallest kebele subdivision comprising of four villages on average

Idir: is a mutual self-help institution of the communities in the villages.

Iqub: is voluntary money pooling institution rotating the sum among the members.

Jendi: A traditional leather products used for sleep on it.

Mahber: feasts provided by the voluntary association members in the name of Saints

x
Masero: traditional clay product used for fetching water

Meher: The name given to the main growing season in Ethiopia from December up to February.

Mitad: A large pan used for baking an Ethiopian flat cake or Injera

Netela: is a white colored single shawl traditional wear made in the local community for women

Set Adari: The local name given to female-headed households in the study area

Teff : A cultivated crop used for preparing an Ethiopian common food ,injera

Tej :is a local drink made up of Honey and malt.

Tella: is a local drink made up of grain (wheat, sorghum, maize) and malt.

Tikur Enchet: A thin and long forest product used for sale of firewood and production of
charcoal

Timad: A local unit measurement of land that refers to the land plots by a farmer with couple of
oxen in one day and is equal to 0.25 hectare.

xi
 Abstract

It is universally accepted the fact that agriculture sector is incapable of creating sufficient
gainful employment, food security and spurring economic growth in rural areas of developing
countries. Even if our country Ethiopia practice agriculture for a long period, expected outcome
is not attained on sustainable basis to the livelihood of the households and food insecurity until
now a day due to limited attention for the high potential of the non-farm sector in the
government policies and strategies. Having this rationale, very little is known about women’s
participation in non-farm activities in the rural economy of Ethiopia. Hence, the general
objective of this study was to assess women’s participation in non-farm activity in Shebel
Berenta Woreda. Mixed research method with concurrent parallel research design was
employed for data collection and data analysis. The interview schedule was collected from 267
systematically selected women from randomly selected four rural Kebelles in the study area.
Qualitative data was collected from seven key informants, 28 focus group discussants and
observation and the data analyzed via thematically. Descriptive and inferential statistics were
used to analyze the collected quantitative data. Binary logistic regression model was employed
to identify the factors that determine women’s participation in NFA in the study area. The result
showed that more than half (51 %) of respondents participate in NFA and their employment
status showed high in self-employment while limited saying in wage employment. Their extent in
NFA revealed that many of the respondents (25%) regularly participate in trade, (16%) in sale
of local drinks and (14%) in daily laboring in NFA. The result of binary logistic regression
model showed that women’s age, marital status, educational status, land size, credit, non-farm
training, and having triple gender roles were the major determinants of women’s participation in
NFA in the study area. The result also revealed that negative outlook to handicrafts, shortage of
working capital, limited market demands, absence of institutional support, lack of skill training,
absence of technology, and laws and regulation were challenges women faced to participate in
NFA. While, the presence of family support, natural resources, business plan preparation and
mutual support in their own association were the opportunities for women to participate in NFA.
In line with the problems identified, the local government should work on awareness creation
and education, provision of support, built local infrastructure, provision of credit and training.

Key words: Activity, Non-farm activity, Participation, Shebel Berenta Woreda, Women.

xii
 CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Study

Agriculture is an important sector for majority of the rural populations‟ livelihood in developing
countries. It has been the predominant activity for most rural households in Sub-Saharan Africa
(SSA) that offers a strong option for spurring growth, overcoming poverty and enhancing food
security (World Bank, 2008). However, farming as a primary source of income has failed to
guarantee sufficient livelihood for most farming households in Sub-Saharan Africa countries as
Babatunde (2013) indicated.

This is because the agricultural sector is facing a serious of challenges such as low productivity,
inadequate investment, changes in climatic conditions, postharvest losses, diseases and pest
infestation in developing countries (FAO, 2012). By implication, agriculture cannot support
livelihoods in many developing countries and transitional economies on a sustainable basis and
therefore diversification of livelihoods is critical (Ellis, 2000; Barrett et al., 2001).

Cognizant with the above, one of the ways subsistence households diversifies their livelihoods is
through pursuing non-farm activities (Gordon and Craig, 2001; Brycelon, 1996 cited in Hussein
and Nelson, 1998). According to MOFA (2011), the non-farm sector plays a critical role in
poverty reduction, consumption expenditure and food security especially in developing
countries. The contribution from the rural non –farm activities alone is 30–40% in South Asia,
40–45% in Latin America, South East Asia, and Sub-Saharan Africa. Including urban income,
total rural non-farm activity contributions may be closer to 70% in some cases (DFID, 2002).
However, there is a wide difference between literatures regarding the share of non-farm income
in total household income in Ethiopia. Barrett and Reardon (2000) reported that the share of non
and/off-farm income in rural Ethiopia averaged about 36% in 1989/90 fiscal year. On other hand,
Reardon et al., (2006) found that non-farm share of total income in rural Ethiopia was about 20%
in 1999 fiscal year. Despite the differences in the percentage of income share derived from non-
farm employment, the role of non-farm income in total household income is significant.

1
Non-farm sector is also an important source of employment for rural women (World Bank,
2003). Nevertheless, around the world, resilient and resourceful rural women contribute in a
multitude ways through different livelihood strategies to lifting their families and communities
out of poverty. They work as unpaid and own-account or self-employed on-farm and non-farm
laborers, as on- farm and non-farm wage laborers for others in agriculture and non-agriculture; as
entrepreneurs, traders and providers of services (FAO, 2011a). Typically, rural women‟s roles
and status in agriculture as well as their roles in non-farm activities and employment vary widely
from region to region. Across regions, they are engaged in on- and non-farm activities as Hill
(2011) stipulated.

Hagglablade et al., (2010) also strengthen that women account for about one-quarter of the total
full time rural non-farm employment workforce in most parts of the developing world. Griffith et
al., (1999) cited in Gordon and Craig (2001) reminds us, the majority of the poor in sub-Saharan
Africa are women. Therefore, they have greater need than most for the income that can be secure
through involvement in the non-farm sector. However, women have long been constrained in the
activity in which they are permitted or able to participate by tradition, religion or social mores.

Historically much of women‟s work is undervalued, because it is typically unremunerated or

under-remunerated and often confined to the domestic or household realm. Moreover, their time
to engage in waged market opportunities is often limited compared to men. Yet, accessing decent
and productive rural employment and income-generating activities is still a great challenge for
rural women as pointed out by FAO, IFAD and ILO (2010).

In similar manner, the involvement in non –farm work is skewed in favor of men and against
women. Despite of this, in Africa many women are engaged in lowest levels of micro-
enterprises household based income generating activities (Haggblade et al., 2007). On the other
ways, women play an important role if they involve in non-farm activities to increase household
income, improve family welfare and nutrition. However, high return non-farm activities have
certain requisites to enter in this activity includes among others education, skills and investments
(IFAD, 2004 cited in Worku, 2016). In line with this, Davis and Bezemer (2004) also strengthen
and state that in several societies being female represents an important „barrier to entry‟ to non-
farm employment. To this effect, participation in non-farm activities is determining through the

2
possibility to overcome the required entry barriers. When entering in non-farm activity requires
substantial investments, liquidity constraints will hamper household‟s heads with restricted
assets to enter in these activities. The ability of households‟ heads to overcome these entry
barriers depends on their capacity variables such as collateral requirements, market imperfections
and differences in repayment capacity make credit constraints more severe for poor households
than for rich (Davis et al., 2009).

Yet, in rural Ethiopia, farm households because of rural population growth, farm fragmentation
and declining agricultural productivity and urban or local demand can leads to non-farm
activities to enhance the household‟s economic standing. Accordingly, households have been
found to diversify their income sources through engaging in a variety of non-farm activities
including food-for-work schemes, grain trading, petty trading, migration, liquor sales and the
sale of handicrafts (Yared, 1999; Degefa, 2005 cited in Prowse, 2015).

Analogically, in Amhara Region, even people with enough land find it increasingly difficult to
rely solely on agriculture. Therefore, rural people need to earn income in other ways. One option
is to start their own trade, manufacturing or service enterprises as SARDP (2010) noted.
Likewise, in the study area (Shebel Berenta Woreda), farm households in general and women in
particular engage in non-farm activities due to much of their farmland being extremely depleted,
deforested and eroded, food insecure(Hugo Rami, 2002). In addition, farming households
producing crops which have low economic returns and highly dependent on rain –fed
agricultural production systems (Adamu, 2010). Principally, due to the absence of labor force
and insufficient land resource, patriarchal agricultural system, women are obliged to engage
outside agricultural activities. Even though, they are involving in non-farm activities; their
participation into non-farm activities is determined via different factors and deep-rooted
challenges in the study area.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

Women represent almost half of the world population (Holmes and Jones, 2010). In this regard,
Sara (2007) indicated that in rural Ethiopia, women comprise almost half of the population.
However, in many countries, gender-based stereotypes and discrimination deny rural women
equitable access to and control over land, labor, asset and opportunities for employment and

3
income-generating activities (UN, 2008). Similarly, Goitom and Kalpana (2017) stipulated that
women in Ethiopia occupy the low status in the society; they are discriminated both socially and
economically. Moreover, they have also less access to education and income generating facilities
than men due to cultural restrictions. Sara (2007) also strengthen that even though, women are
vigorously involved in all socio-economic and cultural aspects of society; the effects of poverty
have been more serious for women than men. Hence, due to lack of destiny of access to land and
formal employment, women are involved in casual, informal and unregulated labor as way of
generating income. Principally, as a survival strategy and as a means of improving their
livelihood, the rural communities in general and women in particular either engaged in various
non-farm and/or off-farm activities or migrated to the nearest urban areas.

Concerning to such cases, in several categories of income-generating jobs, women in the rural
non-farm employment sector are predominantly in the informal economy and this is associated
with serious concerns over women‟s rights and social protection (Fontana and Paciello, 2009
cited in UN, 2009). Yet, the productive role especially non-farm work done within the household
by women has been ignored and not much attempt has been made to incorporate in the value of
such activities within the national accounts (UNDP, 1995 cited in Ojulu, 2015). Thus, it needs to
conduct a study to make visible women‟ non-farm work both in home and outside in rural areas.

Several studies and reports have been conducted in relation to non-farm activity. For instance,
Varsha (2016) studied on “A Case study of the growth & challenges of non –farm activities in
Gujarat”. The result shows that, the rural nonfarm sector is increasingly playing a vital role in the
development of rural areas in Gujarat and in Indian villages regions. High cost of raw materials
and migration of rural people, infrastructural problems and market are constraints of non-farm
sector. However, the study did not incorporate women‟s participation and their challenges
specifically. Hossain et al., (2013) conducted on “The participation of rural women in farm and
non-farm activities in Bangladesh” and their main focus of study is only married women: the
result indicates that age of the respondent and husband incomes have negative and significant
impact on their participation in economic activities. Whereas, no infant, no children, no school
going children and wage of women labor have positive influences on their participation in
economic activities. However, the study failed to included and blankly stated about female-
headed households since the study only included (married women) as a unit of analysis. Having

4
this gap, it failed to determine the status of women, their challenges and opportunities in non-
farm activity participation. Further, the study did not examine their extent in NFA. The study
failed to consider the variability of factors among farm activities and non-farm activity; used
similar factors for both of them. The study failed to considered the classification of NFA
(sectorial, functional, and location) regarding women participation; seen only as the major
economic activity on factors of married women participation. Methodologically, only
quantitative method employed; overlooked qualitative research method. Cognizant such gaps,
this study attempted to include both women in male-headed and female-headed households to
determine the status of women in NFA towards employment status, their extent in NFA,
challenges and opportunities, and locational classification using mixed research method.

“The Impact of non-farm activities on rural farm household income and food security in the
Upper East and Upper West Regions of Ghana” is a study done by Osarfo et al., (2016) and their
finding of the study show that non-farm employment has a statistically significant positive effect
on the income of households as well as their food security status. The study overlooked the
determinants of women‟s non-farm work participation. Shehu and Abubaker (2015) conducted
on “The determinants of participation of farm households in non-farm enterprise activities in
rural Nigeria”. The result shows that the NFE participation decision of the households was
determined through age, health status and educational qualification of the individual household
heads are having significant impact on non-farm enterprise decision. It is noting that, Authors
mainly identify the determinants of non-farm enterprise, which influence farm households. They
blend to enterprise owned activities; overlooked all types of non-farm activities in rural areas,
which are undertaken by women. Further, the challenges of women in NFA in particular and the
participation of women in NFA in general overlooked in the study.

“The contribution of rural non-farm activities in a household income generation: A study on

Khulna Region” is a study done by Nasrin and Wahid (2015) and their finding of the study
reveals that non-farm activities are playing a great role to create employment opportunity
consequently to reduce poverty in rural areas. The study mainly focused on the role of non-farm
activities to household income generation by comparing with farming activities. “The
determinant of employment participation in rural non-farm activities” is the study done by
Kalalto (2016) and the study finding shows that non-farm sector provides 70% part-time and 9%
full-time employment source with an average of 46% of the total household income. However,
5
variables like crop income, unearned income, access to social capital, and prestige in farming,
traditional caste systems and various shocks turn to determine peasant‟s decision. However;
women's crucial contribution in non-farm activities is uncovered in general and overlooked their
challenges and opportunities towards non-farm participation in particular. Tesfaye (2010) also
conducted on “The contribution, opportunities and constraints of rural non-farm activities in case
of Sinan Woreda” and the result shows that, rural non-farm activities of the study area are the
results of the absence of opportunities in agriculture and it is longstanding practices and still
makes an important supplementary income sources. However, both the assessment of such
remarkable participation and contributions of women‟s in NFA had not given due attention.

From different literature in relation to NFA, women‟s participation in non-farm activities did not
addressed in a comprehensive way (status of participation, their extent in NFA, determinant
factors, challenges and opportunities to participate in NFA was overlooked). The aforementioned
studies focus on the roles, growth, determinants of NFA to economic growth and household
income, and impacts of NFA. More importantly, the studies indicate so far were not able to
investigate all rural non-farm activities pursue by women, who have strong linkage with
traditional non-farm activity specifically; failed to consider the heterogeneity of NFA country-to-
country and region to region. It is because of this practical research gap that the researcher
triggered to conduct a study on the issue to explore and recognize the traditional NFA that is
pursue by women in rural areas is justified. Furthermore, no efforts or intervention has been
taken to examine factors that determine women‟s involvement in NFA in the study area; more
importantly focused on farming activities with little attention given to non-farm activities by
researchers and policy makers in the study area in particular and in Ethiopia in general.

As far as the writer‟s experience is concerned, there is little information concerning women‟s
participation in non-farm activities in Shebel Berenta Woreda, East Gojjam Zone, Amhara
National Regional State of Ethiopia. Hence, this study was intended to fill these gaps and would
add knowledge to the existing literatures. However, from the point of view of non-farm
livelihood activities, policy makers or practitioners in Ethiopia take gender issue as one of the
core issues in the non - farm economy. In view of the above, therefore, the findings of this study
could play an important role in filling the existing knowledge gap, providing information on the
nature of rural non-farm activities and women's involvement in non-farm activity in the study
area as well.
6
 1.3 Objectives of the Study

1.3.1 General Objective of the Study

The general objective of this study was to assess women‟s participation in non-farm activities in
Shebel Berenta Woreda, East Gojjam Zone, Amhara National Regional State.

1.3.2 Specific Objectives of the Study

Based on the general objective, the specific objectives of this study attempted to:
 Examine the extent of women‟s participation in non-farm activities in Shebel Berenta
Woreda
 Identify factors that determine women‟s participation in non-farm activities in the
study area
 Explore the challenges and opportunities of women to participate in non-farm
activities in the study area.

1.4 Research Questions

The following research questions answered after the analysis of the data:

 To what extent women participate in non-farm activities in Shebel Berenta Woreda?

 What are the factors that determine the participation of women in non-farm activities in
the study area?
 What are the challenges and opportunities of women to participate in non-farm activities
in the study area?

1.5 Significance of the Study

Barrett et al.,(2001) study showed that it is difficult to imagine an effective rural poverty
reduction and food security strategy for Africa that does not aim to harness with the potential of
the non-farm sector. Here again, Boserups (1970) also indicated that economic development is
unthinkable without looking the contribution and role that played by women both in the
productive and reproductive spheres. Then, we should start to be acquainted with both on
recognizing the essence of non-farm and productive roles of women or the types of non-farm

7
activities that are pursue by women and recognizing their participation in the sector since women
often play multiple roles in the society. Thus, this study would have the following importance:
First, the successful accomplishment of this study would provide information for local
government that acts upon to improve the livelihood prospects of women from non-farm
activities. Secondly, the findings of this study would use as a guideline information for policy
maker and local development actors and implementer to target women in rural non-farm
economy. Thirdly, the outputs of this study might contribute to theoretical understanding in
relation to women's involvement in various activities in the non - farm sector. In addition, this
study would provide clues on knowledge of the nature and concept of non-farm activities to
promote women's participation for the future in the study area.

Principally, this study hopes to provide necessary analytical insights for targeting NFA, which is
pursue by women for Technic, Vocational and Enterprises Development office, Agriculture and
Rural Development office, Trade, Industry and Market Development office and Women and
Children affairs office in the study area. Fourth, it might also give information to the next work
for forthcoming researchers who would like to conduct detailed and comprehensive studies in the
rural areas and other study area concerning to NFA. Lastly, examining and identifying the factors
that influencing women's participation in NFA would help for policy consumption.

1.6. Scope of the Study

Geographically, the study was conducted in rural kebeles, which are found in Shebel Berenta
Woreda; it did not include urban kebeles of the woreda. Conceptually, the coverage of the study
was limited to only on the women‟s participation in NFA in selected Kebeles with in Shebel
Berenta Woreda. Although there are different factors that determine the participation of women
in non-farm activities, but this study was delimited to four general factors; namely, demographic
factors, institutional factors, locational factors and socio-economic factors. In addition, the types
of non-farm activities, challenges of women faced and opportunities gained to participate in non-
farm, and status and extent of women's participation in NFA were the scope of the content in the
study area. Concerning the target group, the study was delimited to women both in male- headed
and female headed- households in order to examine their status and for generalizing women were
included as the scope of the content in the study area.

8
1.7. Limitations of the Study

This study has limitations that future studies need to address. Firstly, sample women for this
study were confined to rural area; but this is not to means that the problem of undermining
women non-farm work is restricted to rural areas only. More importantly, non-farm sector in
many urban parts of Ethiopia is not well studied. So, researchers will address the urban women‟s
participation in the future. On the other hand, comparing men and women's participation in non-
farm activities did not do this study. Rather, the study dealt with the participation of women only
because addressing large sample was difficult when the case of men was added for this study.
Hence, studies can be done by comparing the participation of men and women in NFA in the
future. Due to the heterogeneity of non-farm activities, this study only addressed sectorial,
functional and locational classification regarding women‟s participation by taking non-farm as a
one rural economic activity; but each classification might be an independent research for the
future forthcoming researchers. It is worthy note that, this study also did not address all rural
Kebeles, which is found in Shebel Berenta Woreda regarding women participation in NFA rather
than concentrated on four Kebeles due to the scarcity of time and resources. Nevertheless, to
compensate this limitation, the researcher took large sample size and used mixed research
approach to comprehensive analysis of the problem.

1.8. Operational Definitions of Terms

For this research context:

An activity: as Mphande (2016) clearly noted that activities--which encompasses what they do.
Some of the activities that fall under rural livelihood include: Apart from agriculture, it also
included non-agricultural activities: wage of labor, trading and hawking, artisan works, for
example, weaving and carving, pottery, bakery and basket making. Activities comprise all the
ways in which household members utilize their non-leisure time to support their livelihoods. It
includes work, care, employment, entrepreneurship, trade, and a range of other activities. The
engagement on activities both requires assets and may increase households‟ stock of assets as
Davis and Bezmer (2004) stipulated.

Non-farm activity: refers all economic activities undertaken at home or away from home, either
by self-employees or by wage laborers, other than production of primary agricultural
commodities (crop production and livestock production, forestry and fishery). Non-farm activity

9
also refers to an activity that is associated with wage work or activity undertaken by wage
laborers and self-employment activity undertaken by hired employees or without hiring
employees that is not in agriculture but located in rural areas (Lanjouw and Lanjouw, 2001).

Non-farm self-employment: refers non-wage activities such as pottery, trading,

weaving/spinning, basketwork, firewood& charcoal seller traditional healer, leatherwork,
artisanship or craftwork that are carried out through self-employees. It includes self-employment
involves the sale of labor services to oneself rather than working for an employer that pays a
wage or salary. Non-farm self-employment largely constitutes income earned from own-business
activities (Barrett et al., 2001).

Non –farm wage employment: refers to full-time or part-time employment into daily, weekly or
monthly paid jobs in the public or private sector carried out by wage laborers. In this study, wage
employment also involves an employer–employee relationship, where the employee sells labor
services to the employer in exchange for a wage or salary. Income is earned through activities
operated directly by the owner. Wage-employment involves (at least an implicit) employment
contract where the employer can give orders for the employee (Barrett and Reardon, 2000).

Participation: refers the involvement of women in non-farm activities or the act of taking part
an activity or processes by which women have shared from the involvement in non-farm work. It
is viewed as the involvement of women through devoting their time for non-farm activities by
considering either as a main job or as alternative tasks. Participation often means involvement in
externally conceived activities via contributions and benefits (Davis, 2003).

Gender Roles: a set of behaviors, norms, acts, roles and beliefs constructed socially and
culturally to be exercised by the respective sexes. It is a learned behavior in a given
society/community or other social group that condition the gender division of labor, i.e. which
activities, tasks and responsibilities are perceived as male or female. What women and men are
expected to do and how they are expected to behave towards each other. Gender roles change
over time in response to changing community circumstances and changing ideas about what is
acceptable and not acceptable behaviors and roles. Gender roles and characteristics affect power
relations between men and women at all levels and can result in inequality in opportunities and
outcomes for some groups (Kabeer, 1994).

10
Livelihood: a means of securing the necessities which comprise of the capabilities, assets
(including both material and social resources) and activities required for a means of living (Ellis,
2000).
Triple gender roles: are the productive, reproductive and community managing roles assigned
to women in gender-based division of work. The productive roles are those income-generating
duties of women; reproductive roles refer the biological reproduction as well as labor
reproduction responsibilities and community roles are tasks they do in social life like service
provisions and voluntary works. Historically, women‟s productive roles such as income-
generating activities have been ignored or under-valued, particularly in the non-farm sector and
subsistence agriculture since women‟s labor is undervalued (Reeves and Baden, 2000).
Kebele: is the smallest administrative unit in the current administrative arrangement of the
Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia
Kolla: an agro-ecological zone with relatively warm weather condition
Wereda: is an administrative unit comparable to a district, which covers a number of kebeles
and less than Zone.
Woyina-Dega: an agro-ecological zone having an average-between Dega and Kolla weather
condition.
1.9. Organization of the Study

This thesis is organized into five chapters supplemented with a list of references and appendices.
The first chapter deals with the background of the study, statement of the problem, objectives of
the study, research questions, operational definition of terms, significance of the study, scope of
the study and limitation of the study. The second chapter describes review of related literature
and conceptual framework of the study. Under this part of the study, basic concepts and
definition of non-farm activities, types of non-farm activities, women participation in NFA, their
challenges and opportunities to participate in NFAs and determinants of participation in NFA
were reviewed. The third chapter deals with two parts, i.e. description of study area (is about the
general description of the physiographic and socio-economic characteristics of Shebel Berenta
Woreda-the study area) and research methodology (research methods and design, sampling
techniques, data collection instruments, the methods used for data analysis and validity and
reliability). The fourth chapter is concerned with the presentation of results and discussion. The
final chapter presents the conclusion and a recommendation derives from the research findings.

11
 CHAPTER TWO

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

2.1 The Concepts and Definitions of Non-Farm

The concept of non-farm is defined in many ways by different authors. As stipulated by Gordon
and Craig (2001) non-farm refers to those activities that are not primary agriculture or forestry or
fisheries. It does not matter where an activity takes place, at what scale or with what technology.
As given emphasis by the Authors, rural non-farm activity is used to absorb surplus labor in rural
areas, help farm-based households spread risks to supplement or replace agricultural income,
offer income potential for the agricultural off-season, and provide a means to cope or survive
when farming fails. Parallel to the above concept, Kaija (2007) also noted that non-farm sector
refers to all other activities outside the farm sector and agricultural wage employment.

According to Lanjouw and Lanjouw (2001) non-farm refers to an activity outside of the
agricultural sector; in manufacturing or service sector irrespective of location, function or degree
of processing involved. Further, as noted by the Authors, non-farm activity refers to all economic
activities that are associated with wage work or self-employment work that is not in agriculture
but located in rural areas. It is only including non-farm wage employment, activity undertaken by
wage laborers and non-farm self-employment activity undertaken with hired employees or
without hired employees other than production of primarily agricultural activities (Reardon, 1997
cited in Davis, 2003).

Ellis (2000) also stipulated that, non-farm refers to non-agricultural activities in which
households work as casual laborers and activities outside agriculture. Moreover, non-farm
income aggregates a range of activities that span from regular salaried work to self-employed.
Further, the Author defined non-farm employment as „non-agricultural income sources that
includes non-farm rural wage or salary employment and non-farm self-employment income. To
go further, Haggblade et al.,(2010) indicated non-farm diversification as seeking business or
employment opportunities other than traditional crop production and livestock rearing. Non-farm
diversification is related to agriculture as it includes processing and trading of agricultural
produce. Hence, it is precise to say non-farm activities include service provision, shop keeping

12
and manufacturing. From the above definition given by the Authors, we can understand that
nonfarm comprises trading of agricultural products. However, the term “non-farm” should not be
confused with “off –farm”. The latter generally refers to activities undertaken away from
household‟s own farm-land and used to refer exclusively to agricultural laboring on someone
else‟s land as Ellis (1998) indicated, so off-farm activities used in this sense (as agricultural wage
labor) would not fall within the normal definition of non-farm activities and this study also
follows this definition.

To strengthen the concept discussed above, Davis (2003) also indicated that manufacturing and
services are clubbed together to form the non- farm economy. Thus from the author, it is precise
to say, the rural non-farm economy as comprising of all those non-agricultural activities that
generate income to rural households (including income in-kind and remittances), either through
waged work or in self-employment. In some contexts, rural non-farm activities are also
important sources of local economic growth.

Parallel to the above, Dipiti and Mausumi (2011) noted that the non-farm sector includes all
other activities like agro-processing industries, wholesale and retail trading, storage and
communication, transport and education, health industries and other service related activities.
The Authors also indicated that the rural non-farm sector encompasses all non-agricultural
activities: household and non-household manufacturing, processing, repair, construction, trade
and commerce, transport and other services in villages and rural towns undertaken by enterprises
varying in size from household‟s own-account enterprises to factories.

In comprehensive way, Lanjouw and Lanjouw (2001) stipulated that rural nonfarm activity as a
set of economic activities in rural areas excluding activities related to the production of primary
agricultural products. It mainly incorporates activities such as food processing, small businesses,
income from interests, dividends, rents, remittances, and social transfers. To make concise what
is an activity is Mphande (2016) clearly noted that activities--which encompasses what they do.
Some of the activities that fall under rural livelihood include: Apart from agriculture, it also
included non-agricultural activities: wage to labor, trading and hawking, artisan works, for
example, weaving and carving, pottery; providing services in transport and other available
services; fetching and carrying; bakery and basket making. To strengthen the concept discussed

13
above, Davis and Bezmer (2004) noted that activities comprise all the ways in which household
members utilize their non-leisure time to support their livelihoods. This broad definition includes
work, care, employment, entrepreneurship, trade, and a range of other activities. The Authors
also added that engagement on activities both requires assets and may increase households‟ stock
of assets. Households‟ endowment of assets and involvement in activities jointly support their
level of well-being.

However, the most widely used and the basic classification of activities noted by Barrett and
Reardon (2000) is the sectoral distinction common to national accounting systems: primary
(agriculture, and mining and other extractive), secondary (manufacturing), and tertiary (services).
This leads directly to the distinction between “agricultural income” – that related to the
production or gathering of unprocessed crops or livestock or forest or fish products and “non-
agricultural income” – all other sources of income. From the Authors, it is precise to say non-
farm activity comprises of secondary (manufacturing) and tertiary (services).All income derived
from secondary and tertiary sectors considered as non-agricultural income and activity included
either of the two are non-farm activities.

In the second stage after given a sectoral assignment to an activity, one next makes a functional
distinction. According to Barrett and Reardon (2000); Barrett et al.,(2001) an activity clearly
identified as wage-employment and self-employment. To make clear, activities which are
"clearly wage-employment" involve (at least an implicit) employment contract where the
employer can give orders for the employee. While, activities, which are clearly “self-
employment”, involve the ownership of a firm that produces goods or services, the buyer of this
cannot give orders to the firm. From the Authors description, we can understand that, non-farm
activity identified as non-farm wage employment and non-farm self-employment based on
functional distinction towards how the labor is compensated.

Analogically, Barrett and Reardon (2000) stipulated after given a sectoral and functional
categorization of activity, there is finally a spatial categorization. The Authors also identified
two broad categories with some important subcategories. First, an activity can be “local”, with
two sub-categories: (a) at-home, (b) local away-from-home, with subcategories of (i) countryside
or strictly rural, (ii) nearby rural town, and (iii) intermediate city. Second, an activity can be

14
“distant away from home” (“migratory”), with subcategories: (a) in country rural (e.g., in inter-
zone migration), (b) in-country urban (such as to a distant metropolitan area), and(c) foreign.
From the above spatial classification of activities given by the Authors, we can understand that,
the place where an activity carried out is differing in base of local and migratory in the context of
the place where individuals carried out an activity; but to say local (it depends on context on
local province/ local government).

The following Table 2.1 summary table indicates the clear distinction of activities based on
sectorial, functional and space.
The Heterogeneity of Non-Farm Activities
Primary Secondary Tertiary
Agriculture, Mining Manufacturing Others Services
And Allied Extractive
Wage Employment L M L M L M L M L M
Self-Employment L M L M L M L M L M
L: Local, M: Migrant: Adopted from Barrett and Reardon (2000:40)

To nutshell, from the above different definition given by the Authors non-farm refer to all
activities outside primary or the agricultural sector, regardless of location or function (shaded
columns on Table 2.1); whereas farm or agricultural activities are all activities in the agriculture
sector, regardless of location or function (un-shaded columns of Table 2.1).

From the review, it is precise to generalize non-farm activities as an activity take place outside
the agricultural sector (crop production, livestock production, forestry and fishery). It includes
handicraft activities (weaving, spinning, carpentry, poet making, remittance etc.), trade (grain
trade), fruits and vegetables trade, selling of local drinks, shop keeping, etc. It consists of non-
farm self-employment and non-farm wage employment based on functional classification. It
undertakes at home or away from, either by self –employees or by wage laborers other than
production primarily agricultural commodities (crop production and livestock production).It is
important to note that trade and processing agricultural or forest products are also non-farm
activities. Non-farm activities also include manufacturing, utilities, construction, commerce, and
transport, financial and personal services. It is important to note that trade and processing of

15
agricultural or forest products are also non-farm activities. So, having taken into account the
heterogeneity of non-farm activities, this study is attempted to made comprehensive analysis on
sectorial, functional and locational classification of non-farm activities regarding women‟s
participation in the study area since previous studies hesitate to consider all classification of
NFA.

2.2 Types of Non-farm Activities

As clearly indicated by Davis (2006) non-farm activities might include manufacturing (i.e. agro
processing) and be accumulative (e.g. setting-up a small business), adaptive, switching from cash
crops cultivation to commodity trading (perhaps in response to drought), cope (e.g. non-
agricultural wages labor or sale of household assets as an immediate response or be a survival
strategy to livelihood shock. From the Author, it can precise to say the rural non-farm activity
cannot be considered homogenous rather it is characterized by its heterogeneity, incorporating
self-employment, micro- small- or medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs) and trade activities.

To strengthen the concept discussed above, Haggblade et al., (2007); Kaija (2007); Ellis (2000)
indicated that non-farm activities are hence associated with those secondary and tertiary sector
processes. Further, the Authors noted that activities of the non-farm economy categorized into
three major sectors: trade, manufacturing and service. An additional category is formal
employment in the public service (teachers, health workers, development agents, etc.) and private
employment (by private owner including daily laborer/casual worker).

On the other hand, non-farm activities are generally divided into two broads groups of
occupations: high labor productivity that leads to high-income activity and low labor-
productivity activities that serve only as residual source of income (Lanjouw, 1999 cited in
Davis, 2003). As the Author noted the latter activities are common among the poor.
Nevertheless, such employment may be very important from a social welfare perspective. If
agriculture employment is not an option for certain subgroups of rural population, then rural non-
agricultural employment opportunities, even if they are not highly remunerative, can make a real
difference, especially for those households that do not possess farm land.

16
 The composition of non-farm activity differs considerably as a function of widely variable
natural resources, labor supply, location, history and institutional factors. Measurement
difficulty arises mainly from seasonal, part-time, and small-scale nature of production
and the fact that producers do not normally keep written records. Many surveys thus use
employment as a proxy for non-farm activity levels (Haggblade et al., 2007:13).

Hence, in this study activities not directly related to agricultural production as non-farm
activities, including waged and self-employment. In similar manner, Mideksa (2015) study
identifies the non-farm income sources such as self-employment, formal employment/pension,
urban-to-rural remittances arising from both within national boundaries and international cross-
border, renting out land, house and draft animals. In each income source category, a number of
specific income sources exist. Self-employment includes shop keeping, petty trade (grain,
livestock, coffee, spices, salt, etc.), fuel wood and/or charcoal sale, rural crafts (bamboo work,
carpentry, and blacksmiths, weaving), fruits sales, services (repair of shoes, barber, grain milling,
tailor, traditional healing, etc.

A study of Fikru (2008) pointed out that, handicraft and small eateries non-farm activities carried
out in the community are low return and usually undertaken supplementary to agriculture as a
survival strategy. Traditional Handicraft is common in Ethiopia including weaving, tannery, and
blacksmithing. Correspondingly, Shumete (2009) study showed that, handicrafts are major
sideline activity performed by farmers when having the necessary background skills. Similarly,
the study of Mehta (2002) indicates that the carpentry, black smithy, basketry, rope making and
tailoring are the dominant manufacturing activities, in terms of its numbers and from the point of
providing employment to the family members of the rural households. On the other hand, Shamy
(2015) founds out that trade or commercial related activities were found to be carried out by
almost half of the household engaged in non-farm activities in the surveyed two villages
(Tanzania) at the market. Further, Tesfaye (2010) study also indicated that trade is the major
non-farm activities and used as the major livelihood options for households.

In comprehensive way, Barrett et al.,(2001)stipulated that, non-farm self-employment largely

constitutes income earned from own-business activities such as weaving/spinning, milling,
handicraft, including pottery, trade in grain/general trade, income from services such as

17
traditional healer/religious teacher, transport (by pack animal), selling fire-wood and animal
dung, hairdressing and tailoring. It also includes the making and selling of local drinks, carrying
goads, builder (masonry), making roof for houses, and fruit and vegetable vending. According to
Barrett and Reardon (2000) noted that there is classification of a given activity between self-
employment and wage-employment in the developing country rural economy.

Non-farm self-employment: Activities that are “clearly self-employment” involve the

ownership of a firm that produces goods or services, the buyer of which cannot give orders to the
firm, and takes the products "as sold”. For example: the charcoal producer who collects wood,
processes it, and sells bags of charcoal by the roadside. Another common example is the retail
merchant operating from a small shop or roadside stand (Barrett and Reardon, 2000). Rural self-
employment enterprises refer to activities undertaken by mobilizing labor plus other household
capital assets (savings, land, etc.) as Warren (2002) indicated. Non-farm self-employment refers
non –wage activities such as basketry, pottery, trading and weaving, artisanship or craftwork,
handicrafts which are carried out through self-employees. It includes self-employment involves
the sale of labor services to oneself rather than working for an employer that pays a wage or
salary (Barrett et al., 2001; Haggblade et al., 2010).

Non –farm wage employment: refers to full-time or part-time employment into daily,
weekly or monthly paid jobs in the public or private sector carried out by wage laborers (Barrett
and Reardon, 2000). In this study, wage employment involves an employer–employee
relationship, where the employee sells labor services to the employer in exchange for a wage or
salary. Income is earned through activities operated directly by the owner. Wage-employment
involve (at least an implicit) employment contract where the employer can give orders to the
employee accordingly. The classification of the activities is based on functional distinction
whether non-farm work carried out with an employee- employer relationship or not. While, non-
farm wage employment comprises skilled or unskilled wage employment such as daily laborer,
public employment, etc. (Haggblade et al., 2010). In this classification, wage labor refers to the
provision of work force to nonagricultural enterprises owned by non-household employers.
Though sometimes employment opportunities are available locally (local wage labor), in the
majority of cases jobs are spatially distant from the places of residence and entail seasonal or
long-term migration (migratory wage labor) as Warren (2002) stipulated.

18
From the review above, the types of non-farm activities based on sectorial classification
(manufacturing from secondary and services from tertiary activities is commonly practice). By
function includes wage employment involves an employer–employee relationship, where the
employee sells labor services to the employer in exchange for a wage or salary. Alternatively,
daily labor in wage or cash and public employment is categorized as non-farm wage
employment. While, self-employment involves the sale of labor services to oneself, rather than
working for an employer that pays a wage or salary. Mainly handicrafts, tailoring, trading are
categorized under self-employment based on functional classification. Income earned through
activities operated directly by the owner. By space, it includes both local and migratory
activities. Those, non-farm activities carried out with in local or migratory across with in or out
boundary based on spatial classification where an activity is takes place accordingly.

2.3 Theories of Livelihood (Livelihood Framework)

The livelihood framework consists of livelihood assets, vulnerability context, transforming

structure and processes, livelihood strategies and livelihood outcomes. This section is presented
all of them as follows:

A livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets (stores, resources, claims, and access) and
activities required for a means of living: a livelihood is sustainable which can cope with
and recover from stress and shocks, maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets, and
provide sustainable livelihood opportunities for the next generation and which
contributes net benefits to other livelihoods at the local and global levels and in the short
and long term. “A livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets (including both material
and social resources) and activities required for a means of living. A livelihood is
sustainable when it can cope with and recover from stresses and shocks maintain or
enhance its capabilities and assets, while not undermining the natural resource base
(DFID, 2000).

Cognizant with the above point, UNDP (2017) stipulated that livelihoods framework encompass
the skills, assets (both material and social) and the approaches that will be used by individuals
and communities in order to survive. The sustainability element implies that these individuals or
communities can confront and overcome moments of stress and/or crisis, and that they are able

19
to maintain or even improve current and future skills and assets without exploiting their supply
of natural resources. The application of the SLF involves the requires the consideration of the
following aspects: An understanding of vulnerability in a given context. A strategy to protect
livelihoods an analysis of different types of capital. Primarily, human capital represents the
abilities, experience, work skills and the physical state of good health which, when combined,
allow populations to engage with different strategies and fulfill their own objectives for their
livelihoods. However, social capital refers to the social resources, which populations will rely on
when seeking their objectives relating to livelihoods (in the present study this refers specifically
to local social capital, this being networks, associations, local authorities, local officials and
broader population receiving program assistance(UNDP, 2017; DFID,2000).

In similar manner, the term natural capital used to refer to the stocks of naturally occurring
resources (soil, water, air, genetic resources, etc.) which can be used as inputs to create
additional benefits, such as food chains, protection against soil or coastal erosion, and other
natural resources, which can support livelihoods. While, physical capital refers to the basic
infrastructure and production inputs needed to support livelihoods. Finally yet importantly,
financial capital refers to the financial resources, which populations employ to achieve their
objectives regarding livelihoods as noted by UNDP (2017).

According to Kappel and Lind (2010), the vulnerability context describes the external
environment that the poor people live in. This includes critical tends, such as technological
trends or population trends. It also includes shocks such as natural disasters or economic
inflation, and seasonality, which refer to the way prices, employment opportunities, and
production might shift with the seasons. All of these factors will affect the assets that people
have and thereby the sustainability of their livelihoods. The sustainable livelihoods framework is
built on the belief that people need assets to achieve a positive livelihood outcome. People have
different kind of assets that they combine, to help them achieve the livelihoods that they seek.

In connection with the above point, the same Authors also indicated that transforming structure
and process includes the institutions, organizations and policies that frame the livelihoods of the
poor, and they are found on all levels – from the household to the international level. These
processes and structures determine the access that people have to different kinds of assets, and
therefore the importance cannot be over emphasized. Examples of processes are international

20
agreements, ownership rights and laws to secure the rights of the individuals, whereas structures
might be the existence of ministries, banks that give credit to the farmers or self-help groups in
the local community.

Among the basic element in the livelihood framework is that livelihoods strategies, which refers
the way that people act in order to achieve their desired livelihood. The access that people have
to different kinds of assets affect the strategies that they employ, and the structures and processes
in a given society also creates possibilities and constraints on the strategies that people are able
to use. Finally, livelihood outcomes are the achievements of people's livelihood strategies.
However, outcomes are to be described by the local people themselves, since these include much
more than income. For outsiders it can be difficult to understand what people are seeking and
why because this is often influenced by culture, local norms and values (DFID, 2000).

To integrate participation with livelihood framework, Krantz (2001) stipulated that the
sustainable livelihood (SL) framework describe that participation is a key tool for securing that
development is accomplished from the poor‟s point of view. When the poor are included in the
process, their priorities in life and understanding of valuable livelihoods are made clear.
Likewise, they can give information on more difficult subjects, such as social norms that affect
the access different people have to assets, how they value these assets, or which livelihoods
strategies they pursue. The rapid development from concept to approach entailed an elaboration
of policy-oriented livelihood frameworks, the description and analysis of driving forces,
pressures, and impacts of all types of “activities” related to the local livelihood situation. In sum,
livelihood strategies frequently vary between individuals and households depending on
differences in asset ownership, income levels, gender, age, caste, and social or political status. A
socially differentiated analytical approach to livelihood strategies is thus necessary (Scoones,
1998:7 cited in Krantz, 2001).Cognizance with the above point, this study taken gender as a case.

Similarly, among livelihood strategies, rural livelihood diversification plays an important role to
reduce the existence of poverty especially for land-poor households including women. With
agreement on the above, Barrett et al. (2001) find that a positive relationship between non-farm
income and household welfare indicators across much of rural Africa. Generally, there is
evidence that rural livelihood diversification in developing countries has played an important

21
role in reducing rural poverty, especially among land less and small farmers who have been able
to integrate on-farm, off-farm and non-farm activities to enhance their income. The significance
of rural non-farm activities in developing countries includes: the reduction of poverty such as
alleviation of food security; slow- down of migration from rural to urban, and partly the
alleviation of social and economic problems existing in towns, narrowing of income gap, the
enhancement and maintenance of sustainable livelihood, the generation of employment and
income sources.

From the above review, it can be inferred that the framework does not attempt to provide an
exact representation of reality. It is a simplification and it should be adapted for use in any given
circumstance since real livelihoods are complex and varied, and can only be properly understood
through direct experience. In similar vein, activities in all categories represent potential
contributions to the survival portfolio of rural households. Moreover, the composition of this
portfolio has policy relevance. However, households that dependent mainly on gathering from
the natural environment differ from those that derive their income mainly from cash crops
cultivation, and they in turn differ from households that derive a small proportion of their
livelihoods from food production, but otherwise depend on non-farm activities as their means of
survival. Hence, non-farm is taken as a core issue among income sources of livelihood
diversification in this study.

2.4 Empirical Evidences on Participation in Non-farm Activities

2.4.1. Gender and Participation in NFA

As Ellis (1999) stipulated, gender is an integral and inseparable part of rural livelihoods. Men
and women have different assets, access to resources and opportunities. Women rarely own land,
may have lower education due to discriminatory access to productive resources as well as
decision-making tend to occur through the mediation of men. The Author also added that women
typically confront a narrower range of labor markets than men confronts and lower wage rates.
This is reflected more on occupational segregation and wage differentials. Therefore,
diversification (both in choice and out of necessity) is more of an option for rural men than for
women.

22
Ellis (2000) also vindicated that gender relationships are important in shaping diversification
process or constraints promote their mobility. This might result in a different degree of
involvement in diversification activities including non-farm livelihood activities and/or in an
unequal distribution of their benefits between women and men. Parallel to the above point,
gender restricts access to the most lucrative non-farm activities in some settings. In the same way
that child-rearing obligations may limit women‟s mobility and force them into home-based
highly labor-intensive pursuits such as weaving, silk rearing and basketry, while caste and social
restrictions may force specific poor household groups into traditionally reserved low-
productivity rural non-farm activities. These include pottery, weaving and tanning, among many
others (Lanjouw and Shariff, 2000 cited in Haggblade et al., 2007).

In comprehensive way UN (2008) noted that, diversification can improve household livelihood
security while at the same time trapping women in customary roles. Rural women play a critical
role in the rural economies of both developed and developing countries. In most parts of the
developing world, they provide food, water and fuel for their families, and engage in non-farm/
off-farm activities to diversify their families‟ livelihoods. In addition, they carry out vital
reproductive functions in corresponding with productive roles and community roles.

UN (2009) study showed that the livelihood strategies of the world‟s low-income households
such as women are generally not concentrated on one form of economic activity, since no single
activity is likely to be sufficiently regular or well paid to cover all their needs. In line with this,
non-farm sector has a potential contribution to the livelihood of rural household as it provides
alternative source of rural income generating activities, which improves distribution of income,
contributes to the growth of rural economy and strengthen poverty alleviation efforts (Mduma
and Wobst, 2005 cited in Shamy, 2015).

In similar manner, Reka etal.,(2006) stipulated that it is recognized the non-farm sector accounts
for a significant share of rural income, employment, and access to rural non-farm self-
employment could be a potential way out of poverty, it is not everyone has the same chance to
participate in non-farm sector. Principally, Lanjouw and Lanjouw (1995) indicate that non-farm
employment is important to women in many countries (are likely to be particularly downward
biased for women). The Author emphasized that much of non-farm activity in all developing

23
countries especially that of women, is unremunerative work, such as clothing production, food
processing and education for the household, which is not included in employment figures.

Further stipulated by UN (2009), women are disproportionately represented in informal work

that is generally precarious, poorly paid, and uncovered by labor legislation or social protection.
The persistent gender wage gap across regions may reflect a number of factors, including women
has continued disadvantage in terms of education and skills, their lack of an organized voice and
bargaining power, gender-specific constraints on their labor market mobility, and their relatively
high involvement in part-time or temporary jobs. Cognizant with the above, UN(2008) illustrated
that, to understand the situation of rural women, it is necessary to examine the full diversity of
their experiences in the context of the changing rural non-farm economy including their position
within household and community structures, the gender division of labor, their access to and
control over resources and their participation in decision-making. Since, rural women are not a
homogeneous group; there is an important difference among women in rural areas.

2.4.2 Gender Roles in Non-Farm Activity Participation

UN (2009) verified that the social norms, values and practices that define inequalities between
women and men in societies, generally allocating different roles and responsibilities and
assigning a lower value to those aptitudes, capabilities and activities conventionally associated
with women. It is also noted that, the assignment to responsibility for reproductive role of the
family to women and the primary wage-earning work or income generating activities
responsibility to men due to gender roles or learned behaviors in a given society/community or
other social group that condition the gender division of labor i.e. which activities, tasks and
responsibilities are perceived as male or female. On the other hand, women are found in range
of small business activities, because of their responsibilities for unpaid work, limits to mobility,
lack of collateral and limited financial skills.

Concerning such cases, Moser (1989) argues that women perform three roles in society:
reproductive, productive and community management roles. However, for a long time only the
reproductive role has been emphasized for women as home makers compared to the productive
role that has been dominated by men. More recently, it has been recognized that women in rural
areas are very much engaged in the subsistence economy producing much of the household food

24
requirements. The Authoress further elaborated that, women are becoming actively involved in
other branches of the economy such as manufacturing, services and commerce or trade in order
to generate incomes and to support their households.

As Reeves and Baden (2000) stipulated that gender division of labor are not necessarily rigidly
defined in terms of men and women‟s roles as is sometimes assumed. In spite of this, women are
generally expected to fulfill the reproductive role. On the other hand, men tend to be more
associated with productive roles particularly paid work and market production. In the labor
market, although women‟s overall participation rates are rising. In addition, roles typically
designated as female are almost invariably less valued than those designated as male. The
Authors also stipulated that, historically women‟s productive roles such as income-generating
activities have been ignored or under-valued, particularly in the non-farm sector and subsistence
agriculture since women‟s labor is undervalued. Similarly, due to lack of awareness in our
society, women‟s role has not been recognized: we live in a society in which there is a
substantial level of gender inequality (Lynda, 1991 cited Mesay, 2012).

To strengthen the concept discussed above, Moser (1993) noted that a gender division of labor
also continues to structure work relations to rural areas. In relationship to large-scale formal
sector, production is exploitative in terms of issues such as access to credit, markets and raw
materials. Women encounter additional constraints on their gender role. This occurs particularly
in household enterprises where men recruit their wives to work unpaid in tasks such as sewing,
weaving/spinning or food processing. She also noted that women are mainly engaged in selling,
dressmaking and personal services, whereas men are in selling, tailoring, carpentry, personal
services and mechanics.

The Authoress further noted that women generally had a dual productive role, and sometimes
even three folds. Women also work as wage laborers most frequently seasonally to supplement
household income. Throughout the Third World, most low-income women have an important
productive role. The extent to which gender division of labor continues to reinforce women‟s
subordination in productive work including non-farm work. As given emphasis by FAO, IFAD
and ILO (2010) the burden of combining productive and reproductive responsibilities inevitably
affects their access to paid employment, often increases their stress levels and has an impact on

25
power dynamics within households. It is precise to infer from UNDP (1995) cited in Ojulu
(2015) indicated that women productive role still not recognized; though they have triple roles.

2.4.3 Women and Non-Farm Activities in Rural Areas

As SOFA Team and Cheryl (2011) illustrated, women participation in rural labor market shows
much heterogeneity at regional level, but women are over represented in unpaid, seasonal and
part time work, and paid less than men for the same work. Women are also more concentrated in
certain phases or activities of the supply chain (e.g. packaging, post-processing). In similar vein,
Kabeer (2003) noted that, there is a well-documented pay gap between urban labor markets -
likely to exist on rural labor markets as well – in that woman is paid less even for equivalent jobs
and comparable levels of education and experience. Benjamin (2017) indicated that women in
many rural areas play critical roles in home augmenting household income through different
income generating activities.

Parallel to the above, Haggblade et al., (2010) indicates that women dominate many of the non-
farm activities that will grow most rapidly during structural transformation - activities such as
food processing and preparation, tailoring and many services. They likewise hold a major
interest in many of the declining rural non-farm occupations - basket making, mat making, and
ceramics. As the Authors explained women will be key actors in the economic transition of
Africa‟s rural economy. Contrary from the above mounting evidence, Lanjouw and Lanjouw
(2001) discusses that, women are generally less able than men to participate in economic
opportunities because they face a work burdens that men do not. In most societies, women are
responsible for most of the household and child-rearing activities as well rearing of small
livestock, although norms differ by culture and over time.

The Authors emphasized that the additional work burden is unpaid and limits women‟s capacity
to engage in income-earning activities, which often require a minimum fixed time before being
profitable. Furthermore, the nature of tasks, such as caring for children and elderly household
members, requires women to stay near the home, thus limiting options to work for a wage. As a
result, time scarcity forces many women to start-up cottage industries, such as handicrafts, which
are often characterized by low returns and limited potential for expansion. With agreement on
the above, Davis and Bezmer (2004) also indicated that diversification in rural incomes may also

26
affect gender relations (women may become more marginalized if they are more constrained
than men) in their access to non-farm opportunities are or they may be empowered by new
opportunities to earn income and develop skills and networks. In spite of their increasing policy-
prominence, relatively little is known about gender inequities in rural non-agricultural labor
market outcomes. This is unfortunate since non-farm enterprises account for a substantial share
of rural income and employment (Haggblade et al., 2007). Contrasting from the above point,
Davis (2003) participation in non-farm employment has found to empower women, increasing
their bargaining power within the household and increasing household welfare‟s from such
participation outside of simple cash earnings.

Olawoye (1994) indicated that a woman contributes significantly through involved in various
types of livelihood activities in order to generate additional income for the family sustenance.
Additionally, women‟s livelihood activities in the informal sector enable them effectively
combine their productive and reproductive roles because hours of work are flexible, permitting
them to care for their children and engage in livelihood activities. Cognizant with the above,
Lanjouw and Lanjouw (2001) stipulated that, the nature of rural non-farm activities differ
significantly from regions and sub-regions. To nutshell, it is possible to infer that understanding
women‟s participation in non-farm employment is opted since there is the heterogeneity of non-
farm activities and heterogeneity of women in rural areas.

2.4.4 Determinant Factors of Participation in Non-farm Activities

A study of Yuanxiang (2017) indicates that households with more workers are more likely to
participate in non-farm activities. The Author also added that, in terms of incentives, education
appears more important in non-farm activities than in traditional agriculture that encourages
better-educated rural workers to turn to non-farm employment and terms of capability education
makes household members able to undertake non-farm work that often requires some knowledge
in technology and administration.

Parallel to this point, Mecharla (2002) also pointed out that, education improves an individual‟s
prospects for non-farm jobs as well as increases an ability to allocate time to work efficiently
among income producing activities. However, in early development phases, many rural non-farm
activities require only low levels of schooling as pointed out by Author. In addition, Atamanov
and Berg(2011) added that, higher education is also the main determining factor that allows

27
participating in public and private non-farm organizations, while participation in self-
employment NFA require only vocational or secondary education. Another important capacity
variable is an access to infrastructure such as water supply, and road that stimulates participation
in non-farm employment over pure farming as given emphasized by the Authors.

Available studies by Atamanov and Berg (2011); Wen-Chin Huang et al.,(2014) shows that the
size of land decreases the probability of participation in non-farm activities at a decreasing rate
suggesting a potentially positive contribution of land size to participation in non-farm activities
for households with ample land. The study of Mecharla (2002); Kassie et al.,(2017) also
indicates that the land holding size had positive and significant relationship to NFA. However,
Yuanxiang (2017); Pavithra and Kamal (2013) showed that the relationship between land and
non-farm activity participation was non-linear.

On the other hand, non-farm activity participation determined through access to credit and access
to electricity increase the number of non-farm activities in which household participates as
Prowse (2015) pointed out. In addition, the Author indicated that age of household head, and
distance to the nearest town (market) significantly reduces participation in non-farm income
diversification. However, Reka et al., (2006) shows that households with head at most productive
age are more likely to participate in non-farm self-employment and positive relationship to NFA.
Bernardin (2012) also pointed out that age, education, and access to credit and market is a
significant determinants of multiple non-farm activities as well as non –farm income.

Shehu and Abubaker (2015) study indicated that, lack of access to social capital or household
member registered in different forms of association, financial capital such as access to formal
credit and market information as entry barriers that constrained household members from
undertaking non –farm enterprise. Pavithra and Kamal (2013); Shehu and Abubaker (2015) also
added that households with larger family are more likely to be involved in NFE activities than
households with smaller family.

A study of Dilruba and Roy (2012) showed that age, proximity to the market or town and access
of non-farm training has a significant positively influence on the prospects of non-farm
employment for the rural households. Correspondingly, Yishak et al.,(2014) indicates that non-
farm skill training significantly influenced non-farm diversification strategies. On the other hand,

28
Yuanxiang (2017) founds out that, distance from the household‟s residence to the county capital
(market) is negatively associated with the participation in non-farm activities.

The Author remarked that distance between the household‟s residence and the nearest bus station
has negative effects on the participation of non-farm activities. Being close to the bus station
would encourage them to commute between village and fairs or cities, making household non-
farm exploitation easier as the Authors indicated; but not always in the case of rural areas. In
contrast to the above, the study of Minot et al., (2006); Mideksa (2015) indicates that there is the
absence of statistically significant difference in mean walking time in hours to reach the nearest
all-weather road across household's income diversification strategies.

Escobal (2001) pointed out that, proximity to towns and access to infrastructure such as roads,
are crucial capacity determinants of rural non-farm employment and income levels in a number
of Latin American studies. Further given emphasized by Shehu and Abubaker (2015) locational
factor is found to be another key determinant of non-farm enterprise participation decision; but it
depends on the country topography and road network. Gordon and Craig(2001) also pointed out
that rural population having better educated, large family members, and better physical capital
including hard infrastructure have better access to any non-farm employment on offer.

To nutshell, in the above review, it is assessed that the determinants of participation in NFA
varied according to the place where it is carry out; time and individuals who are carry out non-
farm activities and characteristics of the non-farm activity. Moreover, influencing factors of NFA
(i.e. age, educational level, land holding size and distance to nearest market and distance to road)
have a significant negative or positive impact on the participation of NFA.

2.4.5 Challenges and Opportunities of Women towards NFA Participation

2.4.5.1. Challenges of Women’s in NFA Participation

As Hussein and Nelson (1998) reported, depending on the location of an individual or a

household, they faced with assorted challenges. These include: - lack of infrastructure, poor asset
base, lack of credit and lack of skill and training as well as isolation. These effects in turn reduce
that community‟s chances of diversification. Katega and Lifuliro (2014) highlighted that
household obligations such as cooking, looking after children, especially when they are ill, and
fetching water, affected levels of concentration on non-farm activities. UNDP (1995) cited in

29
Ojulu (2015) showed that women and girls are also traditionally tasked to do all domestic
maintenance work, hauling water, firewood gathering, food processing and preparation, cooking
and other domestic chores. It emphasized that, household work done by women is characterized
by long and strenuous days with very few relevant and affordable technologies to ease their
workloads and drudgery. In rural areas of selected developing countries women, work burden on
average has been estimated to be 20% more as compared to men. Ana and Demmelash (2017)
study reveals that decline of family mutual support as one of non-farm livelihood challenges.
Nirmala (2015) study also pointed out that many times their own family members are not
supporting and cooperating.

A study of Mesay (2008) indicates that non-farm activity is constrained by lack of working
capital and supporting rural infrastructure. Due to shortage of financial capital in most poor
households, in the study area (Meskan Woreda), many households are unable to diversify their
livelihood by engaging in various non-farm income generating activities. Mehta (2002); Mesay
(2008) also pointed out that lack of basic rural infrastructures such as suitable road and potable
water has rendered a huge impact on the livelihood activities of rural households.

Available study by Varsha (2016) showed that, the availability of finance, credit is not easy to
rural people, and they always face challenges. The Author also pointed out that, the most severe
constraints are power, transportation, water, communication, and another infrastructures
challenges faced by rural small industries like beverages, tobacco, printing, publishing, basic
chemicals paint & varnishes and drugs and medicines. Tezera (2010) study also indicates that
backward technology and competition of manufactured products has undermined the growth and
development of non-farm activities.

In similar manner, mounting evidence provided by UNID (1994); FAO, IFAD, ILO (2010);
UNDP (1995) cited in Ojulu (2015) also explained that the SME sector is all too often marked by
outdated and inefficient practices and technologies. As pointed out by Tesfaye (2010) in most
rural areas with regard to physical capital, road is considered as a major problem especially to
those engaged in wood trade. Human capital confirmed that lack of access to improve
households‟ capacity (mainly lack of access to improved skill and lack of knowledge) is the core
problem limiting many households to undertake rural non-farm activities. Yona and Mathewos
(2017) study also showed that rural households hindered from their participation due to as lack

30
of job-opportunity, negative attitude of the community, lack of initial capital, and lack of skill
training. The Authors also added that lack of market and lack of infrastructure
(telecommunication, road, and electric power) as the challenges in the study area (Boricha
Woreda-SNNP Ethiopia).

The study of Dilruba and Roy(2012) indicates that the main constraints faced by the households
in diversified area are: poor asset base, lack of credit facilities, lack of awareness and training
facilities, fear of taking risk, lack of rural infrastructure, and lack of opportunities in non-farm
sector. On the other hand, the main constraints in less diversified area are poor transport
facilities, poor asset base, and unfavorable agro-climate, lack of credit facilities, lack of
awareness and training, and lack of basic infrastructure. Parallel to the above point, the study of
MAAIF (2009) cited in Kazungu and Tang (2014) showed that the most significant bottleneck in
generating higher levels of rural nonfarm activity in Uganda is the quantity, quality and
reliability of infrastructure. Similarly, a regulatory restriction on small-scale sector constitutes an
important aspect of nonfarm development policy in Uganda. The current policies do not allow
easy formation and registration of Small and medium enterprises. This bureaucracy has affected
rural non-farm growth.

2.4.5.2 Opportunities of Women’s in NFA Participation

Even though, women have encountered several challenges, there is also an opportunity that
enables them to have active participant in non-farm activities. A study of Mori (2014) showed
that access of gender sensitive business development service is crucial for the success of women
entrepreneurs to strengthen their capacity to start, effectively manage and grow their business.
Although there are many organization‟s providing BDS services (including training, counseling
and consultancy in the areas of business planning, legal, accounting, auditing, etc.) they typically
serve only a very small number of formal MSMEs. The Authoress further elaborated that few
women entrepreneurs access these services and few business development service providers
specifically target women. In access to markets and technology, various export promotion
agencies promote the exports of women by organizing events and facilitating their participation
in trade fairs. Gessese and Ignatious (2012) pointed out that family members help with each
other in ancillary aspects of some activities such as fanning traditional furnace in iron-works,
spinning thread into strands during weaving or loading and unloading donkeys.

31
UN (2008) study also showed that provision of services such as access to credit and other
financial services can help rural populations to expand their economic opportunities and reduce
poverty. Micro-finance innovatively addresses the constraints on access to collateral through
joint liability mechanisms and a sophisticated understanding of individual clients‟ personal
circumstances in the case of individual lending. This under-tapped market presents an enormous
opportunity for financial institutions and other business providers that support women-owned
businesses. UN (2008); International Financial Corporation (2014) indicated that belonging to a
network is a key strategy to acquire role models, increase business contacts, market opportunities
and further develop their product or service. International Financial Corporation (2014) study
also pointed out that, the presence of women-focused associations, mutual trust and networks is
very important for women to air their views.

Moreover, business development services providers are now established in the Woredas’,
offering services on a demand-driven and cost-sharing basis. They earn a good income and are
expanding their range of products and services. As many as 62% of the providers are women as
SARDP (2010) pointed out. The study of Kazungu and Tang (2014) also showed that in Uganda,
the institutions underlying the development of the rural non-farm sector are very strong. A study
of Richard (2007) showed that the handicraft is a home-based industry, which requires minimum
expenditure and infrastructure to establish. Therefore, it can create jobs at a minimal cost. In
general, this sector uses existing skills, locally available raw materials inputs required can easily
be provided, and product adaptation is less expensive than investing in energy or technology.

2.5. Conceptual Framework of the Study

Based on the review of related literature, conceptual framework for this study is developed. This
particular study is emphasis on demographic factors (age, marital status, family size, status of
household head and educational status), socio- economic factors(membership of social groups,
triple gender roles, farm size and access to water supply), institutional factors (access to non-
farm training and access to credit services) and locational (distance to the nearest main road and
distance to the nearest main product market) factors that determine the participation of women in
non-farm activity (NFA). All in all, the focus and scope or boundary of quantitative part of this
study is summarized on the following conceptual framework.

32
 Demographic Factors

 Age

 Marital status

 Family size

 Status of household head

 Educational status

Socio-economic
Institutional Factors
Factors
 Access to non-  Membership
Participation of social
farm training
in NFA groups
 Access of
 Triple gender
formal credit roles

 Land size

 Access to
Water supply
Locational Factors

• Distance to main Market

• Distance to the nearest main
Road

Figure 2.1: The schematic diagram showed the relationship between the dependent variable and
independent variables.

33
 CHAPTER THREE

DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA AND RESEARCH

METHODOLOGY

3.1 Description of the Study Area

3.1.1 Location and Topography

Geographically, Shebel Berenta Woreda is one of the Woredas’ located in East Gojjam Zone,
situated in the North- central highlands of Ethiopia in the Amhara National Regional State. It is
extending between 100 15‟ N to 100 30‟ N degrees latitude and between 38015‟ E to 38
0
27‟degrees of longitude (CSA, 2007 cited in Adamu, 2010). It is found at a road distance of
293 km NE of Addis Ababa, capital city of Ethiopia. Shebel Berenta woreda is bordered on the
South-West by Dejjen woreda; on the North-West by Enemay woreda; on the north by Enarj
Enawga woreda, and South and South- East by Abay River Gorge, which separates it from
Oromia region. The major town of Shebel Berenta woreda is Yedwuha (Hugo Rami, 2002).

3.1.2 Landscape and Agro-ecology

Shebel Berenta Woreda covers a total land area of 89,714 hectares (ha). Topographically, 8.45%
of the woreda is mountainous, 43.47% plain and 48.08% is valley. Its altitude ranges from 1800
m-2150 m above sea level. Shebel Berenta woreda has two agro-ecological zones with (72.3 %)
Kolla and Woyina Dega (27.7%). Based on land coverage, most part of the woreda are situated
in the lowlands (Kolla) along the Abaye River Gorge, and are extremely depleted, deforested and
eroded. Moreover, rainfall is highly seasonal in the woreda; vivid evidences and experiences
indicated that almost 90% of the total annual rainfall received in the woreda elapses during
summer only. The average annual rainfall ranges from 4000 mm to 1000 mm (Shebel Berenta
Woreda Information and Communication affairs Office, 2017). With regard to temperature, the
same thing is happening to rainfall conditions where the lowland is hotter and warmer as
compared to the midland agro ecologies that enjoy mild or moderate temperature. The warmest
and coldest months of the year occur in May and January having the maximum and minimum
temperature records of 29.8ºc and 9.4ºc respectively. Thus, it is this variation in rainfall and
temperature greatly influence the way of life of people and their economy (Adamu, 2010).

34
 Figure. 3.1. Location Map of the study area (Shebel Berenta Woreda and Selected kebeles).

3.1.3 Demographics and Socio-Economic Characteristics of the Study Area

3.1.3.1 Demography

Shebel Berenta woreda is structured with 21 kebeles of which two are urban and 19 rural
kebeles. The estimated total population of Shebel Berenta woreda is 129,156 of the total
population of the woreda, which consists of 61,640 males and 67,516 females. Out of the total
population of the woreda, 11,271 (4955 males and 6316 females) are urban dwellers and the
remaining 117,885(56,685 males and 61,200 females) persons reside in the rural areas of the
woreda. The 32,589 rural households counted in this woreda, out of which 22, 839 are male-
headed households, and the rest 9,750 are female- headed households (Shebel Berenta Woreda
Information and Communication affairs Office, 2017).

35
 3.2.3.2 Socio- Economic Characteristics of the Study Area

Agriculture is the mainstay of the district livelihood activities for rural residents, which is
characterized by subsistence crop production, it is mainly dependent on rainfall, which is erratic
in nature and dominantly traditional farming system resulted in low- crop yields (Adamu, 2010).
The available study by Hugo Rami (2002) also indicated that in 2002, it was judged to be one of
four chronically food- insecure Woredas’ in this part of the Amhara Region, due to much of their
farmland being extremely depleted, deforested and eroded. Despite of this, the productive safety
net program is still provided as preventive social protection. On the other hand, there is also the
presence of non-farm activities, which is practiced by rural households; though still given to poor
households. Trading, weaving, blacksmithing, carpentry, leatherwork and food for work are
among non-farm activities in the rural kebeles of the woreda (Shebel Berenta Woreda
Communication Affairs Office, 2017).

3.2 Research Methodology

3.2.1 Research Method and Design of the Study

The objectives of this research have demanded to generate both quantitative and qualitative data
and taking into account this rationale, the study has applied a mixed research method.
Principally, women have diverse experiences and practices in non-farm livelihood activities in
rural areas. For instance, women participate in trading, pottery, sale of firewood and charcoal,
private wage employment and public wage employment in the non -farm economy. In this
regard, their participation in NFA is determined by different demographic, socio- economic,
locational and institutional factors. Thus, the factors that determined their participation and
extent in non-farm activities they undertake in rural areas were assessed by the quantitative
research method through questionnaire, while the challenges they faced in NFA and opportunity
they had to practices NFA explored by the qualitative research method. Therefore, to examine
these issues, mixed research method was relevant to produce both statistical results and verbal
results and to minimize some of the limitations of using single method.

As given emphasis by Angell and Townsend (2011) when quantitative and qualitative research
methods are used in combination in one study, they complement to each other and allow for a
more complete analysis of the research problem. Several authors indicate the essence of mixed

36
research approach. For instance, Carolyn and Isadore (2008) indicates that mixed research
approach is defined as the class of research approach where the researcher mixes or combines
quantitative and qualitative research methods into a single study rather than restricting or
constraining researchers‟ choices.

Moreover, Stephen and Kassim (2015) indicate that mixed research involves mixing and
combining qualitative and quantitative research in single research studies. It is based on the
philosophy of pragmatism (i.e., what works is what should be considered to be important to
answer research questions). The qualitative and quantitative parts of a research study might be
conducted concurrently (conducting both parts at roughly the same time) or sequentially
(conducting one part first and the other second) to address a research question or a set of related
questions. Then, taking in to account this and considering the nature of this research, concurrent
parallel research design used for this study, which applied as a mixed research method for the
purpose of addressing different research questions and for the sake of complementarity of the
quantitative and qualitative data sets. This design is chosen due to the fact that the researcher
holds the belief that the problem is best explained by using different approaches best suited to
each research question.

Fixed mixed method designs are mixed method studies where the use of quantitative and
qualitative methods is predetermined and planned at the beginning of the research process, and
the procedures are implemented as planned. Convergent parallel design occurs when the
researcher uses concurrent timing to implement the quantitative and qualitative strands during
the same phase of the research process, prioritizes the approaches equally, and keeps the strands
independent during analysis and then mixes the results during the overall interpretation (Teddlie
and Tashakkori, 2009). As the nature of concurrent parallel research design, the overall
procedures of the study was taken place by treating the qualitative and quantitative „strands‟
independently. However, the timing was parallel, priority given impartially, and the two mixed at
interpretation and discussion of the result for the reason of comprehensive understanding of the
issue and complementarities of the results, which relate or compared with the two sets of data.

37
3.2.2 Sampling Techniques for Quantitative Component

The rationale for the choice of Shebel Berenta Woreda for this study area is based on the 2007-
2009 E.C woreda report, which stated the woreda has severe problems of low productivity of
agriculture, food insecurity and continuous existence of drought and it also needs other ways to
sustain the livelihood of rural households. Thus, provide a clue that about NFA is used as the
best alternative ways to recover from vulnerability and risks is opted. Principally, based on the
observation and experience in the study area, there is a deep-rooted problem of ignoring
women‟s non-farm work decisions so it needs to investigate the problems of women for further
intervention. Here, a woman from both male- headed and female-headed household were used as
the primary unit of analysis. In this study, the list of male headed and female-headed households
were obtained from each kebele administration.

The researcher has employed multi -stage-sampling techniques to select sample women. In the
first stage, stratified random sampling was employed to select rural kebeles; this is because the
rural kebeles of Shebel Berenta woreda is already categorized into two agro- ecological zones of
Woyina Dega and Kolla. Then, from these strata, four sample kebeles (Selelkula and Gebsit)
from Woyina- Dega, while (Karma and Abaselma ena Deboch) kebeles from Kolla were selected
randomly out of the total of 19 rural kebeles in the study area by taken agro ecology into account.

In the second stage, stratified random sampling technique was employed to select male-headed
and female-headed households from each kebele’s considering there was a woman in the male-
headed household. Proportional stratified random sampling was employed in accordance with the
size of the kebele. Then, each kebele’s list of male- headed and female-headed household were
used as sample frame. Finally, systematic random sampling technique was applied to select
sample women from each kebele based on the lists that was obtained from the respective kebele‟s
administration office.

3.2.3 Sample Size and Sample Size Determination

There are a number of strategies in determining a sample size including using a census for small
populations, imitating a sample size of similar studies, using published tables, and using
formulas to calculate a sample size(Israel,1992). Among such strategies, the researcher was used
formula based on the real context of this study. In applying formula, one has to consider certain

38
factors to determine the appropriate sample size such as the level of precision, the level of
confidence or risk, and the degree of variability in the attributes being measure in addition to the
purpose of the study and population size as noted by Israel (1992). Using formulas to calculate a
sample size can provide a useful guide to determining the sample size of proportions (Amugune,
2014).
As quoted by Amugune (2014); Singh and Masuku (2014), Cochran (1963) suggested the most
commonly used formula for a questionnaire survey studies sample size determination when the
population is large and the needed representative sample is to analyze proportion. The formula
is:

n0=

Where, n0= the required numbers of sample

z =the value of the desired confidence level or confidence interval (95%=1.96)

e = the desired level of margin error or precision

p=estimated variability or proportion of an attribute in the population (50%=0.5)

q =1-p

Accordingly, the researcher would like to use 95% confidence level (z=1.96), the maximum
variability among the population (50%), and ±6 % margin of error/precision by looking the
expected criteria.

( )
When we apply the formula, n0= = =

Therefore, the required sample sizes of this study were 267 women. But, the question is how can
these individuals be selected? This sample size allotted to the four kebeles was based on
proportionate sampling method. Though with this method each kebeles was fairly represented,
proportional allocations of the sample have been made based on the size. This sample size was
allotted to four kebeles using proportionate stratified sampling formula.

Through this formula, each kebeles was fairly represented as follows:

1. Sample size of Selelkula ena Akababiw =2132 *267/5681=100 women

39
2. Sample size of Gebsit =1369* 267/5681=64 women
3. Sample size of Karma =725 *267 /5681=34 women
4. Sample size of Aba Selma ena Deboch =1455* 267/5681=69 women.

As already mentioned above, among the target population of 5681(women in male headed and
female-headed) the researcher took 267 respondents as calculated based on the above formula.
Lastly, the required sample households were selected via systematic random sampling within
each kebeles, based on the lists every ith element (i.e every 21th), until to reach the required
sample size after the first respondents selected randomly.

Table 3.1 The Summary of sampled women by Kebelles.

Stratum Number of households in Number of sampled women
Sample each Kebelle taken from each Kebelle
Kebelles Male Female Total Male- Female- Total
headed headed headed Headed
Selelkula ena Woyina- 1396 736 2132 66 34 100
Akababiw Dega
Gebsit Woyina- 846 523 1369 40 24 64
Dega
Karma Kolla 508 217 725 24 10 34
Abbaselma Kolla 975 480 1455 46 23 69
ena Deboch
Total 3725 1956 5681 176 91 267

Source: Field survey, 2018

3.2.4 Sampling Techniques for the Qualitative Component

In this study, the participants for qualitative information were selected using purposive sampling
for participants in focus group discussion that had experiences in non-farm work and who work
in regularly through the year. Therefore, the participants in focus group discussions were
selected purposively in each agro- ecology in such a way because the researcher intended to hold
one group discussion on each of the kebeles. Accordingly, seven key informants and 28 focus

40
group discussants with four groups having eight members and six members in two groups were
taken to get acquired results respectively. Similarly, purposive sampling was employed to select
key informant interviewees: since it used to enable to select the individuals who know about the
issues and specific expertise about the needed information. Hence, the key informant
interviewees were from Technic, Vocational, Enterprises Development officials, Women and
Children Affairs officials, Trade, Industry and Market Development officials, Local
Administration officials from each selected kebeles of Shebel Berenta Woreda as a source of
relevant data for this study.

3.2.5 Data Sources

The study used both primary and secondary sources to obtain necessary information for this
study. Hence, primary sources include survey respondents, key informants and focus group
discussion participants. While, secondary sources such as books, journals and annual reports that
relates with the research problem or direct relation to the study were included. In line with this,
Kothari (2004) indicated that using secondary data that are collecting and analyze by someone
else or to written sources enable to interpret or record primary data.

3.2.6 Data Collection Instruments

Interview schedule, key informant interviews, observation and FGDs were the data collection
instruments used to gather primary data as shown here under.

Interview Schedule: Questionnaire is a set of carefully designed questions given in

exactly the same form to a group of people in order to collect data about some topic(s) in which
the researcher is interested (Victor, 2006:256). Composed of both closed ended and open-ended
types of questions in the interview schedule was prepared and used to collect primary data from
survey respondents. The interview schedule was prepared based on and to get information on the
extent of women‟s participation in NFA, women employment status in NFA and factors affecting
their participation in NFA. It was prepared in English and translated into Amharic because
respondents‟ local language is Amharic. Before the interview schedule has been administered,
the draft was evaluated and unnecessary details and vague questions were removed.

41
Pretest was conducted to detect the weakness in design and instrument, and to provide alternative
data for the selection of probability sample as well as to ensure that the items in the
questionnaires bear the same meaning to all respondents and to assess the average time that is
required to administer an instrument. Hence, pilot test was carried out on 20 randomly selected
women to ensure the validity, to avoid vague or ambiguous questions and to easily understand by
the respondents. This helped to refine the questions. The researcher assigned five enumerators
based on knowing their residence place and local community and experience‟s, and one
supervisor, all speaking the local language conducted the survey. The enumerators were first
trained by the researcher about how to present and explain each question to respondents. They
were also advised to inform each respondent about the purpose of the survey before starting the
actual survey. A total of 267 interview schedule were administered from respondents‟ via gone
into respondents‟ homestead and all were returned for further analysis.

Focus Group Discussions (FGD): focus group discussion is a type of group interview that
concentrates on an in-depth discussion of a particular theme or topic. In most cases, the group is
made up of people who have particular experience or knowledge about the subject of the study or
who have a particular interest in it (Kothari, 2004). Hesse-Biber and Leavy (2004) also
delineates focus group as a distinct method of qualitative interviewing in that multiple
participants are interviewee in the context of a group. It is often used to give voice to group
participants. The researcher used focus group discussion which for a dialogue among participants
and stimulates them to openly express their views on the issues raised. Gillham (2000) states
that focus group discussion using semi structured questions allows researchers to look into more
deeply into the research issues and develop new lines of inquiry that arise from interviews.

Taking in to account this therefore, four FGD were carried out involving eight women in two
groups and six in two groups using a checklist of semi-structured questions. Issues that were
addressed in the focus group discussion were on type‟s non-farm activities that women pursue,
challenges they faced and opportunities they had to participate in NFA. The time for discussion
took from one to one and half hours. Late afternoon and Sunday (the whole day), (monthly day
of St.Michael, St.Virgin Mary) were convenient times for the discussions. The group discussions
were conducted via Amharic language, since it is medium of communication in the area, with an
assistant active note taker who was given proper orientation on how to organize minutes. The

42
researcher largely acted as a moderator during the discussions. Notes taken from a group
discussion were summarized and any key and important issues arising in one group discussion
were used for further discussion in the following group discussions.

Key Informant Interviews: In this study, key informant interview was one of research tools
for data collection: an attempt to explore facts on the grounds of a rational approach to include
key informant interviews by involving selected groups of individuals who are likely to provide
needed information, ideas and insights on the proposed research. Accordingly, in-depth interview
was conducted among 7 key informants in order to obtain the desired results, and collect data on
relevant source and well-informed sources that is relates with women‟s participation in NFA in
the study area. According to Kumar (1989), key informant interviews to involve interviewing of
knowledgeable individuals who are likely to provide the required information, ideas and insights
on a particular subject. The time and place for key informant interview‟ was decided by the key
informants themselves and the majority of interviews were held in the place they selected.

Direct Observation: The observation method is the most commonly used technique in
collecting primary data since subjective bias is eliminated and the information obtained relates to
what is currently happening; it is not complicated by either the past behavior or future intentions
as Kothari (2004) stated. Observation is a systematic process of recording behavioral pattern of
participants, objects and occurrence without questioning the participants (Creswell, 2009). Direct
observation helped to have a better understanding of the various phenomena under investigation.
Observation is not about what people have written or what they have said, but it is what they are
doing. Thus, this technique was carried out through personal observation in the field by
preparing checklist, which was designed to generate data about the situation of the issue. It was
employed to observe the existing activities in non-farm that women pursue in selected kebeles,
infrastructural access (road network, market, water supply, transportation) and available natural
resources during the field in the study area.

3.2.7 Data Analysis Techniques

In this study, both quantitative and qualitative data analysis techniques were employed and a
combination of data analysis methods were required and carried out for this study. The
quantitative data analysis is a process of tabulating, interpreting and summarizing empirical and

43
numerical data for the purpose of describing or generalizing the population from the samples.
Accordingly, descriptive and inferential statistics were used to analyze the quantitative data. In
relation to this, Yong (2011) noted that descriptive statistics is a tool in any research that
describes a setting or events in numerical terms for the sake of quantifying data in order to
organize, summarize or easily understand the information. Hence, for quantitative method, upon
completion of the data collection, the data was coded, edited and entered into the SPSS
(Statistical Package for Social Science) version 20 and then the data was analyzed through
descriptive statistics and inferential statistics. The analysis for the data gathered to the objective
of women participation in NFA was through descriptive statistics such as frequency and
percentage distribution. The extent of women participation in non-farm activities was assessed
by using a three point continuum namely „Regularly‟, „Occasionally‟ and „Not at all‟ which was
assigned scores of “2, „1” and 0”, respectively. For the purpose of ranking of different activities
performed by rural women, the frequency of responses from each of the three columns of a
specific activity under major activity was tabulated and multiplied by concerned score. Then,
they were added together to get the total score for each specific activity for the purpose of their
ranking (Sailaja and Reddy, 2003 cited in Mihiret and Tadesse, 2014).

Whereas, binary logistic regression model was used to examine the factors that determine the
participation of women in NFA; because it is a powerful statistical tool as it allows us to
determine the effect of independent variables on the dependent variable while holding any
number of other independent variables constant. In relation to this, binary logistic regression is a
form of regression that is used when the dependent variable is dichotomous or dummy and the
independents are of any type (Dattalo, 2008). The variables that were collected in the
questionnaire was continuous and categorical and used in the analysis were categorical via
changing nature of variables since the nature of the outcomes of binary logistic regression result
required the association test or chi-square test. For that reason, Chi-square test was used to
examine the association of the categorical variables such as demographic factors, socio-
economic factors, institutional factors and locational factors with the dependent variable.

On the other hand, summarizing what was heard in the discussions on words, phrases or patterns
were the major tasks that accomplished in the qualitative data analysis. Hence, the information
that collected through key informants interviews, focus group discussions and observation in

44
relation to extent of women's participation in non-farm activities, challenges and opportunities to
non-farm activity participation was analyzed textually to complement the statistical results from
the structured questionnaire. In other words, the qualitative data was analyzed by identifying key
themes and issues in each context. In case of thematic data analysis, the data were organized
systematically and grouped based on certain themes in relation to the objective of the research.
As the data collected in interviews and group discussions do not fall into neat categories and
linking to one another, they have to be analyzed according to themes and topics being discussed
by participants (Lester, 1999). Generally, the collected qualitative data was analyzed through
narrations, descriptions and direct quotations within general identified themes.

3.2.8 Descriptions of Variables for Quantitative Section and Working Hypothesis

Dependent Variable (Explained variable)

Participation in Non-farm activity: The predicted or outcome variable of the study is

participation in non-farm activity. The nature of dependent variable is dichotomous or dummy
variable. The dependent variable non-farm activity has two values. The values 1 represents if
women‟s participated in non- farm activity and 0, otherwise.

Independent Variables and Working Hypothesis

Predictors or explanatory variables are the variables that influence the predicted or dependent
variable. In this study, the independent variables were assumed that determine the participation
of women in non-farm activities. Based on the review of literature, the researcher identified the
following determinant factors, which are the combination of demographic factors, socio-
economic factors, institutional factors, and locational factors in the study area as shown below.

1. Age: is a variable expected to influence non-farm activity participation positively when age of
women increases, their level of understanding and possibility of engaging in non-farm activity
also increases. This means that, the adult age groups assumed more NFA participant than the
young one.

2. Marital status: constitutes four marital status categories and stipulates whether respondents
are single, married, divorced, and widowed. It is hypothesized that single, divorced or widowed

45
type of marital status positively affects women's participation in non-farm activity. Because,
these women do not have assistance from men's counterpart and take the responsibility of both
income generating and household tasks; increase their engagement in non-farm work decisions.
3. Family Size: It is the variable refers to the number of family members in the household or in
one roof: hypothesized that if women with in household size large, their participation in non-
farm activity might increase.

4. Educational status: Education is a potentially important determinant of NFA. Education

improves an individual‟s prospects for non-farm jobs as well as increases the ability to allocate
time to work efficiently among income producing activities. It is expected to have a positive
impact on non-farm activity participation.

5. Status of Household: It is a dummy variable of either male-headed household or female-

headed household. It is expected that women in female-headed household would have a better
participation in non-farm activities: since they are a sole income earner that takes the household
responsibility to generating income for their household through different income generating tasks

6. Landholding size: It is the variable refers to the size of land holding operated by the
household measured in Hectare. It is expected that positively influence the probability of
participating in non-farm employment. The probabilities of participating in NFA increase, when
women who have large land size since it used as the motivating factors to participate in NFA.

7. Access to formal credit: Accessibility of credit from a financial institution would facilitate
the participation of women in NFA. Women who have access to credit would more propensity to
be involved in NFA, while women who have would less propensity to engage in NFA. Thus, it is
expected that a positive influence on women towards non-farm activity participation.

8. Access to non-farm training: It is dummy variable and most of the non-farm activities being
skill based; training increases the possibility of getting non-farm jobs. Hence, if they have access
to non-farm skill training, it is expected to have a positive influence on their participation in
NFA.

46
9. Membership of Social groups: It is dummy variable and refers to the ability of engagement
in a certain community association or village and social groups. It is hypothesized that
membership of social groups affects the participation of women in NFA positively. When
women could become membership in a certain social group, they would get market information
and sharing experiences from others.

10. Access to Water Supply: It is a dummy variable and the presence of rural water supply
expected to have a positive influence on the participation of women in rural non-farm activity.

11. Having triple gender roles: It is a dummy variable and it refers the presence of combination
of roles in the household and it is hypothesized to have negative impact on women to their non-
farm work decisions since they busy with household obligations; they have no time for economic
opportunities when women having a combination of roles at a time.

12. Distance to the nearest Main Road: It is hypothesized that, when the women‟s village is far
away from the main nearest road, it might affect their participation in NFA negatively. However,
if women village is the nearest to the main road, it would increase their mobility and
communication, which enables them to be engaged in non-farm work.

13. Distance to the nearest main Market: The distance of product market from the household,
residence is measured in the inhabitants (women in this study) walking times of her and then
converted into Km. It is hypothesized that, when women‟s village is far away from the main
product market, it might affect their participation to NFA negatively. This is because; women
would not have time to go a long distance due to domestic chores.

47
Table 3.2 Descriptions of Explanatory Variables Used in Binary Logistic Regression Model

Variables Variable Description Variable Code

Age of women Categorical Variable,1 if a woman has age 18-29,2= between
30-41,3=42-53,4=54-65,and 5=>65 years of age Agecat
Marital status Categorical variable:1 if a woman is Unmarried, 2=if
Married, 3=if Divorced, and 4=if widowed Maristat
Family size Categorical variable:1 if woman household has 1-3 family
size,2=if 4 up to 6,3= if woman has>6 family size Famsize
Educational Categorical variable: 1 if a woman is illiterate,2=if a women
level can read and write,3=if a woman has primary education , and Edulevel
4 =if secondary education or above
Status of the Dummy Variable:1 if woman household is male headed, and
household 2=if female headed Stathhd
Landholding Categorical Variable:1 if women household have cultivated
size land size of <0.5 hectare,2=if 0.51 upto1 hectare, and 3=if Landsize
>1hectare
Access of credit Dummy Variable:1 if women obtained formal credit, and Accesscredt
0=if not
Access of Non Dummy Variable:1 if a woman obtained non-farm activity Accesstraining
–farm training training, and 0=if not
Membership of Dummy Variable:1 if women are membership in social Membingroup
Social Groups groups, and 0=if not
Access of Dummy variable:1 if women having access of water supply Wateracess
Water supply and 0=if not
Triple gender Dummy Variable:1 if a woman having combination of triple Tiplegenderol
roles roles and 0 if not
Distance to Categorical Variable:1 if main road far from a woman
Main road residence <1 Km,2=if 1-2 Km, and 3=if >2 Km Distnearstroad
Distance to Categorical Variable: 1 if the product market far away from
Market a woman residence<4 Km,2=if 4up to8 Km ,and 3=if >8 Km Distmainmarkt

48
3.2.9 The Model Goodness-of-Fit (GOF) in the Study

For attempting to know the model goodness of fit, it needs to examine the adequacy of the model
before the estimated function becomes a permanent part of the decision-making apparatus as
Johnson &Wichern (2007) stipulated. Once a model has been developed, it is necessary how
effective the model is in describing or denoting that the predictor variables select has a combined
effect on the outcome variable. This is referred to as goodness-of-fit. In this study, omnibus test
was used to compute the fitness of predictor variables to outcome variables. So, the omnibus test
of model coefficients had chi-square values of 260.479 with 24 degree of freedom and a highly
significant at p<0.05, i.e 0.000, denoting that the predictor variables selected had a combined
effect on predicting the participation of women in NFA(Appendix,vi).

In this study, Hosmer and Lemeshow test was employed to evaluate the adequacy of logistic
regression model since Hosmer and Lemeshow test is an approach used to evaluate model fitness
or to compute a goodness-of-fit statistics. So, the Hosmer and Lemeshow goodness -of fit had a
chi-square value of 2.884 on 8 degrees of freedom, and significant at p> 0.05, i.e. 0.941,
vindicated that logistic model has a goodness –of- fit (Appendix, vi).

These are formal tests of the null hypothesis that the fitted model is correct, and their output is a
p-value--again a number between 0 and 1 with higher values indicating a better fit. In this case,
however, a p-value below some specified alpha level (say, 0.05), it indicate that the model is not
acceptable as Paul (2014) indicated. That is, if the Hosmer and Lemeshow Goodness-of-Fit test
statistic is 0.05 or less, we reject the null hypothesis that there is no difference between the
observed and predicted values of the dependent; if it is greater, as we want, we fail to reject the
null hypothesis that there is no difference, implying that the model estimates fit the data at an
acceptable level. It divides subjects into deciles based on predicted probabilities, and then
computes a chi-square from observed and expected frequencies (Agresti, 2002; Paul, 2014).

3.2.10 Issues of Reliability and Validity for Quantitative Section

Reliability refers to the consistency, stability and repeatability of the results, i.e. the result of a
researcher is considered reliable if consistent results have been obtained in identical situations,
but different circumstances (Twycross and Shields, 2004). Similarly, validity is the extent to
which any measuring instrument measures what it is intended to measure (Thatcher, 2010).

49
Thus, the researcher has conducted pretest to assure the reliability of the study among 20
respondents before the execution of actual study. This helped to avoid ambiguity of questions
and know the level of understanding among respondents. In addition, Chronbach alpha was
employed since it measures the internal consistency of the instrument or to test the reliability of
the study. Therefore, the reliability of test statistics to women‟s participation on NFA indicates
that the questions were reliable at Cronbach Alpha value of 0.816.

Similarly, solution for assuring the validity of the study, the researcher has employed multiple
source of information, establishes a chain of evidence, and had key informants' review reports.
Principally, a copy of interview schedule was submitted to advisor to examine the items, and
number of questionnaire measures the concept or construct of interest (content validity). Experts
also added some constructive ideas to improve the structured questionnaires and discussion
guides to be focused and to avoid some unnecessary content. Thus, some useless, repeated or
redundant and ambiguous items were omitted and items were according to standards in terms of
adequacy, structuring and sequence of ideas. Moreover, the researcher has employed
triangulation via data sources, and thick description to convey finding and to complement
statistical results with qualitative part of the study. Generally, questions in the instruments were
developed based on the review of literature regarding the issue. In addition, findings and results
from the study were interpreted in relation to the review of the literature and previous research
study for the purpose of analytical generalization. Furthermore, the use of mixed research
approach increases the validity and strength the result of this study to complement statistical data

3.2.11. Trustworthiness for Qualitative Section

Trustworthiness is seen as the strength of qualitative research. As stipulated by Shenton (2004),

there are four strategies to ensure trustworthiness in qualitative research. These are credibility,
transferability, dependability and confirmability. It used to suggest determining whether the
findings are accurate from the standpoint of the researcher, the participants and the readers of an
account. In ensuring trustworthiness, the researcher has employed data triangulation for ensuring
credibility, while the researcher has employed a rich and deep explanation to convey the finding
by examining evidence from the sources and utilizes it to construct a reasonable explanation for
themes, which has been provided by the researcher to ensure transferability. The other strategy
was member checking and in this regard, the researcher met them again and briefs the result of

50
study in accordance with the information they gave. After a thorough discussion with them, the
researcher got their approval on what they said. However, the researcher also made a little
amendment on the result part that did not get member approval. In addition, thick notes were
taken during interviews, observation and discussions to consolidate the study finding.

3.2.12 Ethical Considerations

Different ethical principles were considered throughout data collection methods in order to get
accurate information. Firstly, the researcher has taken permission letter from the Department of
Gender and Development studies and administrator of the District. Secondly, negotiation was
made with the participants and respondents to gain permission in order to conduct discussions
and fill questionnaire ethically via describing the objective of the study by using Amharic
language that enables every participant and respondents to understand and aware them that all
data was collected from them and used only for purpose of research.

Likewise, the interview schedule was prepared using Amharic language since the medium of
communication is Amharic and the data was collected through enumerators who were trained
about whole part of the study by the researcher. In addition, ethical clearance was attached
corresponding with cover page of interview schedule to make clear about the purpose of the
study and the data were handled confidentially.

FGD participants were asked their willingness to be involved in the study. They were also
informed that the identity of the participants should not be written in the study document.
Further, in order to express their words with confidence suitable places and time was chosen
according to their suggestions. The researcher has given guarantee of the right to participate
voluntarily and the right to withdraw at any a time they want during discussions. Furthermore,
the key informants were contacted by showing the letter of cooperation, which was written by
the Department of Gender and Development Studies, Bahir Dar University with the explanation
of the purpose of the study. The researcher also paraphrases all literatures that has consulted in
this study and acknowledge properly.

51
 CHAPTER FOUR

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter deals with the analysis, interpretation and discussion of the results obtained from
sample survey questionnaire, FGD, observation and key informants interviews. It consists of two
parts. Part one deals with quantitative data analysis. The result is presented using descriptive and
inferential statistical tools. Descriptive statistical parameters such as frequency and percentage
were used for quantitative data. Chi-square test was employed to show the association between
dependent and independent variables, while Binary logistic regression to see the level of
influencing each independent variable exerts in unit change of the dependent variable. Here, the
first part of the result presented women‟s demographic characteristics and socio-economic
characteristics in relation to their participation in non-farm activity. This is followed by status of
women's participation in NFA and factors affecting women‟s participation in non - farm activity.
On the other hand, the second part provides qualitative (textual analysis) on the challenges and
opportunities of women in NFA participation in the study area.

Part- I The Quantitative Data Analysis and Findings

4.1 Demographics and Socio –Economic Characteristics of Respondents’

This study tried to compose different sample household corresponding with various demographic
and socio-economic characteristics of respondents. This is due to the fact that the composition of
rural non-farm activity shows heterogeneity in the background characteristics and socio-
economic characteristics of women in rural areas. Hence, a description of background and socio
economic characteristics of respondents is vital to give basic information about age, marital
status, family size, educational status and status of the household head and land holding size of
the respondents in the study area.

4.1.1 Age, Family Size and Marital Status of the Respondents’

The age distribution of the respondents is an important for determining the ability to participate
in NFA. As presented in Table 4.1, the age composition of the respondents has five categories
and it indicates that 11.6 % of the respondents were found in the age range of 18 up to 29 years

52
old. 23.2% of the respondents were in the age range of 30 up 41 years old. About 30 % of the
respondents were in the age range of 42 up to 53, while 19.9 % of the respondents were in 54 up
to 65 years old of age group. The result also showed that, 15.3% of the respondents found in the
age category of above 65 years of age. The result revealed that, age of the respondents fall into
adult age of labor force. The data from discussants also confirmed that, most of the respondents
who are in the age group of adult age were more participated in NFA relatively than other age
group. Further, the data from informants confirmed that, women who are in the age range of
above 65 years old had limited involvement due to their old age. The result implied that those
women who were in the age category of 42- 53, 54 – 65years old had more probability of
participation in non-farm activities than others age category.

In line with this result, Reka et al., (2006) shows that households with head at most productive
age are more likely to participate in non-farm self-employment and positive relationship to NFA.
In a similar vein, Dilruba and Roy (2012) evidenced that age has been found to have a significant
and positive influence on farmers‟ livelihood diversification options. In other words, multiplicity
of activity increases from advancing age. Experience increases with age, consequently,
experienced persons have more prospects of getting jobs of the non-farm sector and most of the
household-heads were middle aged. However, Wen-Chi Huang et al.,(2014); Hossain et
al.,(2013) study shows that age is a significant and negative variable for non-farm work
decisions. In order to see whether there is the association between women‟s age category and
their participation in non-farm activities, chi-square test was employed. The results confirms that
there was the significant association between women‟s age and their participation in non-farm

activity (  =28.990, df =4, p=0.000, p<0.05).

2

As far as marital status of respondents concerned, it influences the participation of women in

NFA. It is clear that unmarried, married, divorced and widowed have no equal participation in
NFA. In this case, the survey results showed that majority of the respondents (65.9%) were
married women, while small numbers of the respondents 6.4% were unmarried women. The rest
14.6% of the respondents were divorced and 13.1% of respondents were widowed women. From
the result, it can be concluded that majority of the respondents concentrated on married marital
status. The data from informant‟s interviewee affirmed that, from marital status category
unmarried women had more probability to participate in non-farm activities because they were

53
free from husband restriction and had less domestic burden than married, divorced and widowed
respectively. On the other hand, widowed and married women had less probability of
participation in NFA because sometimes they inherited husband‟s property and had busier with
both domestic chores and with farming activities respectively as the data from informants and
discussants verified. The result also showed that widowed women had less probability of
participation in NFA than women who were unmarried. In order to see whether there is the
association between women‟s marital status and their participation into NFA, chi-square test was
employed. The result confirms that there was the significant association between marital status

and women participation in non-farm activity (  =35.550, df=3, p=0.000, p<0.05).

2

In case of family size, majority of the respondents (44.9 %) had four up to six members with in
the household, 39.7% of the respondents had one up to three members in their family, and 15.4%
of the respondents had more than six members of family in their household. From this result, it is
possible to conclude that, majority of the respondents have at least four members in the
household. The data from participants and informants‟ interview verified that many of women
had large family size and have high probability of participation than those women who having
less family size in non-farm activities. Because, increasing members of family in the household
make women less responsible for farming activities and domestic works. Nevertheless, women
who had less family members and absence of female children with in the household could
impossible to engage in NFA as focus group discussion participants verified.

From the result, it can possible to argue that, family size has an opportunity to involve in non-
farm work decisions in qualitative one. However, in quantitative, the net effect of family size
was failed to reach significant to women‟s participation in NFA in this study. This result is
inconsistent with the works of Wen-Chi Huang et al., (2014), which indicates that household size
is positively and significantly associated households‟ non-farm work decisions. Pavithra and
Kamal (2013); Shehu and Abubaker (2015 study also showed that the increase in family size led
to a lower per capita income and leading to the increased participation of household on both non-
farm and farm activities. In order to see whether there is the association between family size and
women‟s participation into NFA, chi-square test was employed. The result confirms that there
was the significant association between family size and women participation in non-farm

activities (  =15.496, df =2, p=0.000, p<0.05).

2

54
Table.4.1 Percentage distribution of respondents‟ response to age, marital status and family size
(N=267).

Variables Frequency Percentage (%)

Demographic Factors Categories
Age 18-29 31 11.6
30-41 62 23.2
42-53 80 30
54-65 53 19.9
Above 65 41 15.3
Marital status Unmarried 17 6.4
Married 176 65.9
Divorced 39 14.6
Widowed 35 13.1
Family Size 1-3family members 106 39.7
4-6family members 120 44.9

>6family members 41 15.4

Source: obtained from survey data, 2018

4.1.2 Educational Background of the Respondents’

As survey result inferred in Figure 4.1, almost half of the respondents (43.45%) were illiterate,
whereas 29.9 % of the respondents could read and write, 19.48 % had primary education (1-8);
small number of respondents 7.1% had secondary education or above. From the result, it can be
possible to conclude that majority of the respondents were illiterate and they had faced difficulty
to engage in skilled-based NFA. Analogically, the qualitative result also vindicated that majority
of rural women were illiterate and faced difficulty to engage in skilled based NFA. On the other
hand, women who had primary and secondary education or above had involved in high return
non-farm activities such as trade and grain milling services. The result implied that illiteracy
constrained women‟s probability of being involved in NFA, while better literacy seems to have

55
helped to increase the probability of participation on NFA. The result also showed that women
who had primary education and secondary education or above had more probability of
participation in NFA than women who were illiterate.

This result is in agreement with the works of Yuanxiang (2017), which shows that education
plays a significant positive role in non-farm participation for rural households, and education
increases farm and non-farm productivity as well. Similarly, Mecharla (2002) study pointed out
that education is a potentially important determinant of RNFE. Education improves an
individual‟s prospects for non-farm jobs as well as increases the ability to allocate time to work
efficiently among income producing activities. However, in early development phases, many
rural non-farm activities require only low levels of schooling. In order to see whether there is the
association between educational level of women and their participation in non-farm activities,
chi-square test was employed. The result showed that statistically significant association was

observed between women‟s educational level and their participation in NFA (  =26.654, df=3,
2

p=0.000, p<0.05).

Fig: 4.1. Distribution of respondents‟ response based on their educational level

Source: obtained from survey data, 2018

56
 4.1.3 Respondents’ Household head Status

The survey result demonstrated that, majority of the respondents (65.9%) were women in the
male-headed household, while 34.1 % were women in the female-headed household (Table 4.2).
From the result, it can be inferred that, majority of respondent‟s falls into women in the male-
headed households. Regarding to household status and women‟s participation in non-farm
activities, the qualitative result from informants of this study vindicated that women in the male
headed restricted from some activities in NFA due to husband restriction, because undertaking
and involving in non-farm activity is given to people who have low or poor standard community.
For example, sale of local drinks is also called female headed or (Set Adari), having fear of
getting this name majority of women in male headed constrained from involved in this type of
activity. However, female-headed are free of husband restrictions and due to the absence of
alternative income generating activities after divorce or her husband died, they are more engaged
in NFA; even though female- headed household had responsibility to both income earning and
head of household makes work burden. However, in quantitative, the net effect of status of
household head was failed to reach significant to women‟s participation in NFA; this could be
due to small numbers of female-headed household for this study.

This finding inconsistent with Moser (1993), who finds out that due to constraints on their
gendered role particularly in the household enterprises, where men recruit their wives to work
unpaid in tasks such as sewing, weaving/spinning or food processing. Thus, women are mainly
engaged in selling, dressmaking and personal services with their husbands command. The chi-
square test was employed in order to see whether there is the association between women‟s
household status and their participation in NFA. The results confirmed that there was a
statistically significant association was observed between women household status and their

participation in NFA (  =34.216, df=1, p=0.000, p<0.05).

2

Table 4.2Percentage distribution of respondents‟ response to status of household heads (N=267)

Variables Options Frequency Percentages (%)

Household-head Status Male- headed 176 65.9

Female- headed 91 34.1

Source: obtained from survey data, 2018

57
4. 1.4 Land Holding Size of Respondents’

As can be inferred from Table 4.3, 15.7 % of the respondents had less than 0.5 hectare of land
owned, while about 35.2% of the respondents had owned the cultivated land size between 0.51
up to 1 hectare. The survey result also showed that, majority of the respondents (49.1%) had
owned cultivated land more than one hectare which is locally known as (4 timad in locality= 1
hectare). From the result, it can be inferred that, majority of the respondents have land holding
size of more than one hectare for cultivation that owned. The result implied that, they had better
probability of involvement in non-farm activities to expand their non-farm business.

The data from participants without conforming indicates that, those women who had no land and
less than 0.05 hectare had more participated in non-farm activities. This is due to the fact that
non-farm activity is used as an alternative option of landless or who had limited cultivated land
with low agricultural productivity, but limited for some non-farm work that needs collateral as
discussants verified. While, informants emphasized that, land is vital natural capital, which used
as collateral, buy necessary materials &equipment‟s for non-farm activities, and use it also for
working place as well. Having this advantage, those women who had more cultivated land had
more probability to be engaged in NFA.

The result also showed that, the more the land holding size, the positive impact it had towards
the participation in non-farm activities for women. This result is in agreement with the finding of
Mecharla (2002), which indicates that the land holding size had positive and significant
relationship to NFA. In the grievance, the study of Yuanxiang (2017) showed that the
relationship between land and non-farm activity participation was non-linear. The chi-square
result confirms that a statistically significant association was observed between the size of

landholding and participation of women in NFA (  =57.956, df=2, p=0.000, p<0.05).

2

Table 4.3.Percentage distribution of respondents‟ response to size of land holding (N=267)

Variables Categories Frequency Percentage (%)
Size of land holding 0-0.5 hectare 42 15.7
0.51-1 hectare 94 35.2
>1 hectare 131 49.1

Source: obtained from survey data, 2018

58
4.1.5 Access to Rural Water Supply

As can be shown from Table 4.4, a significant number of respondents (61.8%) did not have the
accessibility of water supply, while a small number of the respondents 38.2 % had access of
water supply. From the result, it can be concluded that, majority of the respondents had not have
accessibility of water supply for non-farm work decisions. The qualitative result from informants
and discussants also confirmed that, those women who had access to water supply had engaged
in non-farm activity. This implied that the absence of water supply for women in residential
constrained the probability of non-farm participation. Here again, informants of this study gave
emphasized that the absence of clean water supply has a serious problem, especially in the
lowland part (Abaslma and Karma Qolla kebeles) of the study area.

Even though, some kebeles have obtained pump water; the accessibility of water supply to all
kebeles is limited. Informants also deemed that efforts were made to reduce the problem via
digging pump water well to the community. However, due to the increment of rural population
growth, majority of women fetching water with cumbersome situation, with conflict, time devote
and crying their children in addition to long distance of water site. Hence, even though so many
times announce to concerned bodies, our announcement simply taken as barking.
Corroborate this study finding, the study of Adamu (2010) also indicates that the households
travel more distances to get water or wait for long there, they are spending their productive time
and energy. This is a big problem especially during dry seasons and drought years when local
streams and springs fail to continue their usual discharge and is more severe in the lowland
livelihood zone of Shebel Berenta Woreda. Mesay (2008) also founds out that non-farm
activities are constrained by the lack of supporting basic rural infrastructure such as potable
water supply and road network has rendered a huge impact on the livelihood activities of rural
household. Chi-square result also confirms that the significant association was observed between

access to water supply and participation in NFA (  = 30.850, df=1, p=0.000, p<0.05).
2

Table 4.4. Percentage distribution respondents‟ response to access to rural water supply (N=267)
Variables Options Frequency Percentage (%)
Access to rural water supply Yes 102 38.2
No 165 61.8

Source: obtained from survey data, 2018

59
4.1.6 Membership in Social Groups (Association)

Table 4.5 depicts that majority of the respondents (74.5%) were membership in social groups
(have social network and association), while 25.5 % of the respondents were not in any of those
membership of social groups. From the result, it can conclude that, majority of the respondents‟
had a social network, relationships, association and groups. The qualitative result also confirms
that those women who were a membership in social groups had actively participated in NFA.

However, in contrast to the above point, being membership of social groups also constrained
from non-farm activity participation especially in handicraft (such as pottery, carpentry,
blacksmithing, and leather works). This could be the fact that works of handicraft activities given
to a certain community or belongs to lower class society. Taking into account, those who are
membership in formal social groups (Iddir, Iqub, women's association) restricted from some
activities in non-farm except themselves association as focus group participants verified.
Consequently, the net effect of membership in social groups was insignificant to the participation
of women in NFA.

This result is inconsistent with the finding of Kalalto (2016), which shows that the positive and
significant impact of this social capital might have important implications for the operation of
labor markets and barriers to enter in the RNFE. The study of Osarfo, et al., (2016) also indicates
that the membership of a village group has a positive association with non-farm work
participation. Chi-square test was employed in order to see whether there is the relationship
between membership in social groups and participation of women in non-farm activities. The
result signified that there was the significant association between becoming membership in social

groups and women‟s participation in NFA (  =5.889, df=1, p=0.017, p<0.05).

2

Table 4.5 Percentage distribution of respondents‟ response to the membership in social groups
(N=267)
Variables Options Frequency Percentage (%)
Membership in Social groups Yes 199 74.5
No 68 25.5

Source: obtained from survey data, 2018

60
 4. 1. 7. Triple gender roles of Women’s within the Household

The survey result demonstrated that, majority of the respondents (74.9) had a responsibility to
undertake all triple gender roles in the household (Table, 4.6). From the result, it is possible to
infer that, majority of the respondents had a combination of tasks or a responsibility to undertake
productive, reproductive and community (management &politics) roles that limit them to be
engaged and active participant in NFA. On the other hand, (25.1%) of the respondents had not
responsibility to all triple roles. It can be concluded that, majority of respondents have a
combination of roles in the household as the result reveals. This influences their probability of
participation in their non-farm work decision due to time poverty since they have the combined
effects of roles at a time. This result is consistent with the works of FAO, IFAD and ILO (2010),
which indicates that the burden of combining productive and reproductive responsibilities
inevitably affects their access to paid employment, often increases their stress levels and has an
impact on power dynamics within households. These effects are not accounted in conventional
notions of decent work, which tend to focus only on paid employment outcomes.

Concerned to see whether there is the association between women responsibility of triple roles
and their participation in non-farm employment, chi-square test was employed. The result
confirms that, there is a statistically significant association was observed between women triple

gender roles and their participation in non-farm activity (  =45.438, df=1, p=0.000, p<0.05).
2

Table 4. 6. Percentage distribution of respondent‟s response to triple gender roles (N=267)

Variables Options Frequency Percentage (%)

Having the responsibility of undertaking all Yes 200 74.9
triple roles in the household? No 67 25.1

Source: obtained from survey data, 2018

4.2 Institutional Characteristics of the Respondents’

4.2.1 Access to Non-farm Activity Training

As presented in Table 4.7, 32.2 % of the respondents had access to non-farm activity training.
Similarly, from (32.2%) of the respondents who obtained NFA training, 25.8%, 22.4%, and 3 %
had obtained business management, service delivery and handicraft training respectively.
61
The result also showed that about (67.8%) of the respondents reported that, they had not obtained
any of the non-farm activity training at all. From the result, it can be concluded that majority of
the respondents had not obtained non-farm activity training. FGD participants remarked the
vitality of training to involve in non-farm employment especially in non-farm skill based
activity, but nothing is new about training no one of responsible concerned bodies came to them
to provide awareness about skill-based activities outside agriculture activities.

The focus group discussants also remarked that the absence of skill training is the main problem
to participate in skill based non-farm activities. Informants also deemed that there is a problem of
absence of skill training and explained that efforts would made to solve the problems through
awareness creation to women in order to start non-farm business, how to attract customers and
manage business. The result also showed that those women‟s who took training was found more
participate in NFA than women‟s who did not take the skill training since skill training was
important factor for women to involve in NFA. In the same vein, the result reported by Yishak et
al.,(2014) indicates that non-farm skill training significantly influenced non-farm diversification
strategies. The chi-square result also confirms that there was the statistically significant

association between non-farm activity training and women‟s participation in NFA (  =62.576,
2

df=1, p=0.000, p<0.05).

Table 4.7. Percentage distribution of respondents‟ response to access to NFA training (N=267)
Variables Options Frequency Percentage (%)
Access to non-farm activity training Yes 86 32.2
No 181 67.8
Types of NFA Handicrafts Yes 8 3
training No 78 29.2
Business management and/ Yes 69 25.8
entrepreneurship No 17 6.4
Service delivery training Yes 60 22.4
No 26 9.8

Note: For the types of NFA training, multiple responses were recorded.

Source: obtained from survey data, 2018

62
4.2.2 Access to Credit Services

As presented in Table 4.8, a significant number of the respondents (60.3 %) had not access of
credit services, while 39.7 % of the respondents had obtained credit services. From this result, it
can be possible to conclude that a significant number of respondents had not taken loan or
obtained credit from institutions. However, from the respondents who taken loan or out of
(39.7%) respondents, 36.7%, 25.8 %, and 4.5 % had obtained credit from micro – finance
institutions, bank and private lenders respectively. From the result, it can possibly argue that
micro-finance institution is better than other institutions for women to access credit services in
rural areas. In other speaking, majority of respondents obtained credit from micro-finance
institutions (36.7%) than banks and private lenders in the study area.

On the other hand, out of the respondents who had not obtained credit (60.3%), 51.7%, 40.1%,
40.4%, and 50.6 % of respondents had not obtained credit due to the lack of collateral, high
interest rate, short duration to return the loan and absence of credit institution respectively. From
the result, it can be inferred that, majority of the respondents had not obtained credit due to lack
of collateral from the institution followed by absence of credit institution in the study area. In
corresponding, the result also demonstrated that higher interest rate and short duration to return
the loan constrained women to get credit from the institution.

Hence, it implied that, the inability of getting credit from institutions poses the problems for
many women to non-farm work decisions. The result also showed that the absence of access of
credit services, the negative impact it had to the participation in non-farm activities for women.
In line with this result, Kalalto (2016) study indicates that accessed to credit significantly
determine peasants‟ decision on non-farm jobs. However, Kassie et al., (2017) study showed
that, access to credit service affect it negatively decision to participate in non-agricultural
livelihood diversification activities. In order to see whether there is the association between
access to credit services and women‟s participation in non-farm employment, chi-square test was
employed. The result confirms that, the significant association was observed between access to

credit services and decision of women‟s to participate in non-farm activities(  =105.273, df=1,
2

p=0.000, p<0.05).

63
Table 4.8 Percentage distribution of respondents‟ response to access of Credit (N=267)

Variables Options Frequency Percentage (%)

Access of credit services Yes 106 39.7
No 161 60.3
Micro-finance Institution Yes 98 36.7
Sources No 8 3
Bank Yes 69 25.8
No 37 13.9
Private Lenders Yes 12 4.5
No 94 35.2
Lack of collateral Yes 138 51.7
Constraints No 23 8.6
High interest rate Yes 107 40.1
No 54 20.2
Short duration to return Yes 108 40.4
the loan No 53 19.9
Absence of financial Yes 135 50.6
institution No 26 9.7
Note: Respondents‟ responses to sources of credit and constraints to get credit were recorded
multiple response. Source: obtained from survey data, 2018

4.3 Locational Characteristics of the Respondents’

4.3.1 Access of Road and its Distance to Residence of Respondents’

As presented in Table 4.9, 31.1 % of the respondents‟ residence is far from less than 1 km to the
main road (which is always used for market). Similarly, 29.6 % of the respondents responded
that their home is far from the main road between the ranges of 1 km up to 2 km. The result also
demonstrated that, majority of the respondents (39.3 %) responded that their residence was more
than 2 km far away from main road. From the result, it can be inferred that majority of the
respondents had not have accessibility of road to non-farm participation in the study area.
64
Discussants also verified that the inability of getting the main road easily had gotten difficulty to
participate in non-farm activities. In contrast, women who have easily accessed the main road or
near to the main road have active participant in non-farm activities easily. Hence, the result
implies that, women's residential house far from the main road constrained their participation in
NFA. Informants also deduced that accesses the road to all rural kebeles‟ was the main key tasks
of the budget year, but still there is a problem of lagging behind within the government due to
shortage budget and absence of the cooperation within the community.

From the words of informants, one explanation might lie in the fact that some the activities may
not rely directly on the road access, and may rely more on local demand directly at the household
location, for example sale of local drinks. Hence, the net effect of distance to main road was
absence of significant difference to NFA participation. The result is consistent with the finding
founds out by Minot et al., (2006); Mideksa(2015),which indicates that there is no statistically
significant difference in mean walking time in hours to reach the nearest all-weather road across
household's income diversification strategies.

Whereas, Wen-Chi Huang et al., (2014); Atamanov and Berg (2011), they finds out that,
distance to road has negative impact on the probability of non-farm employment by farm
household. It also indicates that, for those remains in the rural households, distance to road
hinders the opportunities for non-farm work decisions. Mehta (2002) study also indicates that the
inaccessibility to road transport facility for marketing, their commodities outside villages and
nearby markets is restricting the expansion of different non-farm activities in the high hill areas.
Chi-square result also confirms that there was a significant association between distance from the

main road to women‟s residence and their participation in the NFA (  =66.559, df=2, p=0.000,
2

p<0.05).
Table 4.9 Percentage distribution of respondents‟ response to the distance of the nearest main
road to their residence (home) (N=267)
Variables Categories Frequency Percentage (%)
How far your house to the <1 km 83 31.1
nearest main road? 1-2 km 79 29.6
>2 km 105 39.3

Source: obtained from survey data, 2018

65
4.3.2 Distance of Nearest Main Market (DNMM)

Access of market measured based on the inhabitants (women for this study) of the villages
commonly travel to Yedwuha town to sell their outputs and buy necessities. Distance to market
in the study context thus means the distance data first collected in minutes and converted to
kilometers from each woman‟s residential homestead to Yedwuha town (Woreda major town)
since their typical mode of transportation was walking. As it can be seen in Table 4.10, 14.2 % of
the respondents responded that their house far from the main market less than 4 km. On the other
hand, majority of the respondent‟s residence (44.9%) are between the ranges 4 up to 8 km far
away from the main product market. The result also indicated that 40.8 % of the respondents‟
residence or houses are more than 8 km far away from the main product market.

From the result, it can be possible to conclude that majority of the respondents farther from the
market and this implied that there is no accessibility of product market for women in the study
area. The researcher also observes that the distance of the market is farther and it is difficult for
women especially for women‟s who are found in Kolla kebeles.
Informants also accepted the problem of market accessibility to rural community to make access
easily for product market. Even though efforts were made to solve the problem with expansion of
market centers on rural- town for accessibility, still the problem is not solved due to the absence
of land and absence of cooperation among offices. Hence, the result implies that the absence of
accessibility of market constrained women‟s ability to participate in NFA. This result is in
agreement with the work of Yuanxiang (2017), Escobal (2001); Wen-Chi Huang et al., (2014);
Kassie et al., (2017), which shows that in terms of location, the distance from the household‟s
residence to the market is negative impact associated with the participation on NFA. Chi-square
result also confirms that there was a statistically significant association between women‟s
participation in NFA and access to main market (2= 43.436, df=2, p=0.000, p<0.05).
Table 4.10 Percentage distribution of respondents‟ response to the DNMM from Home (N=267)
Variables Categories Frequency Percentage (%)
How far your residence‟s to the <4 km 38 14.2
main market? 4-8 km 120 44.9
>8 km 109 40.8

Source: obtained from survey data, 2018

66
4.4 The Status of Women Participation in Non-farm Activities in the Study Area

This section is designed to present to what extent women are participating in non-farm activities
in the study area. This is followed by women's employment status in NFA and their participation
in NFA regarding location or area of operation in the study area.

4.4.1 Extent of Women’s Participation in Non-farm Activities in the Study Area

Regarding to women‟s participation in non-farm activity, summary statistics illustrated that from
the total of 267 respondents, (51%) of the respondents reported that they are participated in non-
farm activities, whereas 49 % of the respondents had not participated in any non-farm work in
the study area(See Table,4.12). But, the question is to what extent they are involved and on
which non-farm activities they are being involved? Since there are different activities with non-
farm, it is advisable to see the extent of women‟s participation in each activity so as to see on
which activity of non-farm women were high participation or regularly participated and on
which of the activities they are less participating.

Accordingly, as presented in Table 4.11 about (25%) of respondents were regularly participated
in trade, while about 16 % of respondents in food –for –work and in making and sale of local
drinks and foods respectively. Similarly, 14% of respondents were regularly involved in daily
laboring and in pottery respectively. In charcoal and firewood selling, and retail shopping were
obtained 9 % for each, while 8 % in selling of vegetable and fruits through regularly. In addition
to this survey result, the qualitative result also confirmed that trade (usually informal) and formal
was the key source of income for women in the study area. Most widely practiced trade activities
in the study area are mainly associated with grain trade and trading of urban goods.

Informants of this study elaborated that there is a gradual improvement in the involvement of
women in trade from year to year, even though that is not much enough to required extent. The
office still works hard to improve women‟s participation in the sector via industry extension
supports. The result implied that trade is the major non-farm activity which is pursue by women
regularly in the study area. One of the informants also disclosed that, we could say that a
significant number of women involved in sale of local drinks and processing of food in both rural
areas and urban areas. However, there is a limitation on women working in cooperation; so many
women undertaking separately in rural areas. For the future, efforts would make in cooperation

67
with TVEDO towards encouraging women to pursue in cooperation and coming into legalized in
the processing and sale of local drinks and foods.

This result is inconsistence with the finding of Shumete (2009), which indicates that daily wage
labor is among the most important means of generating income in times of chronic poverty and
food shortage. However, in agreement with this study finding, the works of Shamy (2015)
founds out that trade or commercial related activities were found to be carried out by almost half
of the household engaged in non-farm activities in the surveyed two villages (Tanzania) at the
market. Likewise, Mehta (2002) study also shows that the trading and commercial activities,
evenly established in almost in the areas of the state (India).

On the other hand, regarding service sector, the survey result showed that, a very few
respondents (1%) have regularly involved in tailoring, in public employment, weaving/ spinning
and embroidery, and selling of jewelry respectively. While, 2% of respondents were engaged in
traditional hairdressing, 4% of respondents pursuing leatherwork regularly (See Table.4.11).In
corresponds with, the informant of this study also affirmed that:

Regarding leather and leather products, the participation of women in leather works and
supply leather products, whether traditionally or in a modern way to market is limited at
Woreda level due to cultural influences. Therefore, having this cultural influence, women
were constrained from this particular work since they had limited capability that breaks
this cultural barrier to being involved in leather works. Even, those engaged in this
particular work did not benefited as much and had less self-confidence to be role models
for others. In sum, their participation in this particular work is limited. For the future
further efforts needed to improve their participation and to improve income from the
sector as well.

Consistent with this study finding, the study of Shamy (2015) also indicates that small
participation of households was found to engage in service-related activities. Ironically, this
study demonstrated that none of the respondents (0%) were involved in the activities such as
carpentry or masonry, traditional medicine, community assigned local position(paid) and private
sector employment both in regularly and occasionally (See Table. 4.11). The discussion from one
of the informants of this study also revealed that the non-farm activities under the manufacturing
category required high capital and technical skills as compared with the other category (in

68
service and trade). In addition, the inadequacy of the supply of basic raw materials and the
lacking of physical labor and interest of women to be engage in these low earning traditional
manufacturing activities inhibit women's involvement.

FGD participants also divulged that the activities such as carpentry or masonry, community
assigned local position and blacksmithing is usually the work belongs to men, while
photographing is limited due to lack of electricity in the rural areas. In addition, the informants
also deemed that, there was a gender bias in handicraft activities; even though exist only men
become undertake except pottery. From this result, it can be conclude that, handicraft activities
belongs to men only and the involvement of women in this activity is constrained by their
background skills and gender bias in NFA .

This result is inconsistent with that of Mehta (2002), which indicates that the carpentry, black
smithy, basketry, rope making and tailoring are the dominant manufacturing activities, in terms
of its numbers and from the point of providing employment to the family members of the rural
households. Similarly, Shumete (2009); Fikru (2008) study also indicates that handicrafts are
major sideline activity performed by farmers when having the necessary background skills.

The survey result also showed that (10%) of respondents were occasionally participated in
preparing and sale of local drinks(Areqi, Tella and Tej), while the activities such as sale of
firewood and charcoal were undertaken by 8% of the respondents; 12% were involved in casual
work or daily laboring and 11% of respondents were involved in trade occasionally. A very few
respondents (1%) were involved in photographing and food- for- work occasionally respectively
(See Table, 4.11). In support of the above result, one of the informants deduced that:

Regarding daily laboring, a significant number of women benefited through involved in

private and government organization jobs such as daily laboring in road expansion,
construction, etc. In contrast, regarding firewood and charcoal selling, no women
registered in our office since the government by itself prohibited this activity to reduce
the influence on environmental protection and to prevent the expansion of desertification.
However, a significant number of women are generating their income through selling of
firewood and production of charcoal illegally.
This result is in agreement with the works of Shumete (2009), which shows that charcoal
burning and fuel wood selling subsidize farming households at varying degree and used as the

69
 sources of daily income especially during bad times. In similar vein, the study of Tesfaye (2010)
also indicates that selling of firewood is the alternative source of income for rural households.
Table 4.11: Extent of Women‟s Participation in Non-farm Activities in the Study Area (N=267)

Participation Rank
Non -farm Activity Extent of Participation
Index(PI) Order

Regularly Occasionally Not at all

Total (%)
Trade 66(25%) 29(11%) 172(64%) 267(100%) 161 1st
Sale of local drinks &food 44(16%) 25(10%) 198(74%) 267(100%) 113 2 th
Casual work/daily labor 37(14%) 31(12%) 199(74%) 267(100%) 105 3rd
Pottery 38(14%) 16(6%) 213(80%) 267(100%) 92 4 th
Food -for-work 44(16%) 3(1%) 220(83%) 267(100%) 91 5 th
Firewood and Charcoal sale 25(9%) 23(8%) 219(83%) 267(100%) 73 6 th
Selling of Vegetables 23(8%) 26(10%) 218(82%) 267(100%) 72 7th
Retail shopping 23(9%) 7(3%) 237(88%) 267(100%) 53 8th
Tannery /Leather works 10(4%) 9(3%) 248(93%) 267(100%) 29 9 th
Traditional Hairdressing 5(2%) 11(4%) 251(94%) 267(100%) 21 10 th
Grain Milling 6(2%) 7(3%) 254(95%) 267(100%) 19 11 th
Blacksmithing&SaleJewllery 3(1%) 7(3%) 257(96%) 267(100%) 13 12 th
Weaving/spinning 2(1%) 8(3%) 257(96%) 267(100%) 12 13 th
Tailoring Services 2(1%) 5(2%) 260(97%) 267(100%) 9 14 th
Public employment 4(1%) 0(0%) 263(99%) 267(100%) 8 15 th
Photographing 0(0%) 2(1%) 265(99%) 267(100%) 2 16 th
Carpentry/masonry 0(0%) 0(0%) 267(100%) 267(100%) 0 17 th
Traditional medicine 0(0%) 0(0%) 267(0%) 267(100%) 0 17 th
Community local position 0(0%) 0(0%) 267(100%) 267(100%) 0 17 th
th
Private sector employment 0(0%) 0(0%) 267(100%) 267(100%) 0 17
Note: Participation index= Regularly 2+Occassionally 1+Not at all 0 in each activity.
Figure in parenthesis are percentages. All non-participants were added in “Not at all” in each
specific activity under the major activity.
Source: Obtained from survey data, 2018

70
4.4.2 Women’s Employment Status in Non-farm Activities in the Study Area

This section is designed to present how women‟s participation in non-farm activities looks like
regarding employment status (Functional classification) in the study area. To make precise and
concise, wage or salary employment and self-employment are categorized first as wage
employment (skilled and unskilled wage employment) and self-employment. Skilled wage
employments (public sector employees) in the study area were mainly teachers, health workers,
development agents (DAs) and staff of the Kebeles administration, while unskilled public wage
employment (food-for work); unskilled wage employment(daily labor). On the other hand, self-
employment refers any activities in non-farm where undertaken by owners of the business in the
study area.

Accordingly, the survey result illustrated that from the total respondents, 29.21%, 6.7 % and
13.48 % had works as self-employed, an unskilled employed, and both as self-employed and
unskilled employed towards non-farm activity from women who had already involved
respectively. Whereas a few respondents (1.4%) had work in non-farm activity as a skilled -wage
employed (See, Figure 4.2). The result implied that, majority of women had involved as self-
employed in NFA, while limited saying in skilled employment on NFA. This is due to the
absence of education and skill, women were not involved in skill based public non-farm
employment rather concentrated in unskilled public non-farm employment (having this case, for
example:-food for work, which obtained 16% in regularly with participation index =91 and has
fifth rank order (See Table 4.11). In line with this, one of the key informants of this study also
disclosed that:

We evaluated the performance of each sector at the beginning and the end of the budget
year. Then after, we forward comment to give special supports for women to be engaged
in public employment. To your surprise, we announced job hiring for women only.
However, rural women had not benefited since they were illiterate. Having this case, the
extent of their participation in skilled public employment is low or almost null. But, to
tell the truth, there is a gap towards the implementation to provide employment
opportunities for rural women. Hence, to improve this situation, further efforts needed in
all sectors and on the government side.

71
From the result, we can deduce that the absence of employment opportunities and illiteracy
constrained women's employment status in involvement towards NFA in the study area. Having
this rationale, the survey result also showed that (49 %) of the respondents had not engaged in
any non-farm employment at all. This result is inconsistent with the finding of FAO, IFAD and
ILO (2010), which indicates that women in South Asia are relatively more engaged in
agricultural wage employment than women in any other region most likely the result of women‟s
weaker property rights in land and other assets than in most other regions, coupled with
increasing landlessness. On the other hand, non-agricultural employment appears to be less
relevant for women than men in the rural areas of most regions, and particularly in the MENA
region (Latin America).

Figure: 4.2. Women‟s employment status towards NFA (Functional classification of NFA)

Source: obtained from survey data, 2018

72
4.4.3 Women’s Participation in Non-farm Activities towards Location (Area of Operations)

As presented in Table 4.12, from respondents who had participated in NFA (51%), about 14.2 %
of women undertaking non-farm activities in both home and outside home (nearest-town), while
the few respondents (3.4%) were undertaken non-farm activities through migratory or distance
away from home. The result also revealed that 7.9 %, 20.6 %, 4.9 % could undertake only at
home, local away from home(nearest town), and combination of both home, nearest town and
migratory respectively. The result demonstrated that pursuing non-farm activities through
migratory makes difficult for women due to the absence of transport and long distance from the
market as discussants and key informants verified.

From the result, it can be inferred that, women were performed non-farm activities within their
home and outside their home (nearest town). In addition to survey result, key informants of this
study also verified that the town is the convenient place for the majority of rural women to
undertake non-farm self-employment, especially trade and sale of local drinks; but they could
also possible to undertake weaving and embroidery or spinning, and pottery in their home. From
the result, it can infer that to be involved in non-farm activities, the place where non-farm
activities carried out is vital. The limitation of previous studies is that overlooked the locational
classification of non-farm activities towards women‟s participation. Key informants of this study
remarked that due to the absence of rural infrastructure, mostly the habit of women to be
involved in non-farm wage employment is limited. However, by going into the nearest town,
women are involved in different house-development work and in different organization jobs as
unskilled non-farm wage employee. The only activity in rural areas for women in unskilled non-
farm wage employment is daily laboring( having this case, 14% in regularly with participation
index-105 and has obtained a rank order- 3rd)(See Table,4.11).

This result confirmed with the finding made by Gordon and Craig (2001), which highlighted
that, spatially the composition of non-farm activity varies as well. While, home-based cottage
industries predominate in rural areas, towns and urban centers support an increasing
concentration of factory manufacturing, services and trade. The Authors further elaborated that
the composition of services differs as well. Services such as primary schools, health clinics,
barber- shops, milling and transport facilities tend to locate in small towns. Mehta (2002) study
noticed that trading activities are involved in the procurement of certain consumption goods and

73
articles from nearby- towns and its supply to the rural people through establishing small retail
shops in rural areas as well.
Table, 4.12 Percentage distribution of respondents‟ response to the participation in NFA and the
areas of operation or the place where women pursue NFA (Location) (N=267)

Variables Categories Frequency Percent (%)

Participation in Non- Yes 136 50.9
farm Activity No 131 49.1
Locational At Home 21 7.9
classification of NFA Local away from Home (nearest town) 55 20.6
Distant away from Home (migratory) 9 3.4
Both Home and Local away from Home 38 14.2
Both Home, Outside home and 13 4.9
Migratory

Note: Respondent’s response for locational classification of NFA is only for participant of NFA.
Source: Obtained from Survey data, 2018

4.5. Determinant Variables of Women’s Participation in NFA in the Study Area

The binary logistic regression model was employed to establish the relationships between
participation in non-farm activity and a set of explanatory variables. As Hulsizer and Woolf
(2009) noted, binary logistic regression has become the preferred tool for predicting
dichotomous outcomes in the social sciences because it is more flexible than any other model.
Hence, binary logistic regression model was employed to establish the relationship between
dependent (participation of women in NFA) and independent variables (demographic, socio-
economic, institutional and locational factors) affecting women‟s participation in NFA in the
study area. For that reason, 13 explanatory variables were selected to explain the dependent
variable. However, seven independent variables (women‟s age category from 42-53 years old
and age category 54-65 years old, widowed marital status category, primary and secondary
education or above educational level, size of land holding, credit services, access to NFA
training and having triple roles) were determinant factors influencing the dependent variable.

74
The Omnibus test of model coefficients had a Chi-square value of 260.479 with 24 degrees of
freedom and a highly significant at p < 0.05 i.e. 0.000, denoting that the predictor variables
selected had a combined effect in predicting the participation of women in NFA (Appendix, vi).
The predictive efficiency of the model displayed that from all women included in the model,
91.4 % respondents were correctly predicted. The sensitivity (correctly predicted participated
women) and specificity (correctly predicted women not participated) were found to be 91.9 %
and 90.8 %, respectively (Appendix, vi). Therefore, the model is effective in describing the
outcome variable. Principally, Hosmer and Lemeshow test with chi-square value of 2.884, df=8,
the value of 0.942 which is significant at p >0.05 vindicated that it has goodness-of-fit. Also, the
Model summary demonstrated that (Pseudo R2= 0.831), which means that the outcome variable
explained by 83.1% via independent variables) (see Appendix, vi).

Accordingly, binary logistic regression result showed, women within the age group of 42-53, 54-
65 years old increased their participation in NFA by the odds ratio of 12.421 and 27.253 as
compared to 18-29 years old respectively. That is, being other variables constant those women
who are in the age group of women from 42-53 and 54-65 years of old more likely to participate
in NFA than age groups of 18-29 years old and it had a positive relationship with participation in
NFA. Hence, the net effect of women‟s age is a significant and positive relationship towards
participation in NFA at p<0.05 in all cases. Previous studies support this finding, Kassie et al.,
(2017) study shows that age is a significant relationship with the farm household decision to
participate in non-agricultural livelihood diversification. Winching et al.,(2014);Bernardin(2012)
studies also shows that age is a significant variable for non-farm work decisions.

The analysis also indicated that being other variables remain constant, widowed women less
probability of participation in non-farm activities as compared to women who were unmarried.
As the binary logistic regression result showed, the probability of participation of widowed
women in NFA decreased by the odds ratio of 0.040 than those women who were unmarried
since the result statistically significant relation at p<0.05 in all cases. Hence, women‟s widowed
marital status had negative relationship to non-farm participation decision. The result implied
that marital status of women statistically significant relationship to probability of participation in
NFA. Nevertheless, previous studies focus on the aggregate household probability of
participation in NFA rather than women‟s participation; overlooked each marital status in NFA.

75
 Table 4.13: Determinant Variables of Women’s participation in NFA in the Study Area

Variables Categories ß S.E Wald Sig Odds ratio

Age 18- 29years old (RC)

30- 41 years old .645 1.103 .342 .558 ns 1.907
42-53years old 2.519 .927 7.380 .007* 12.421
54-65 years old 3.305 1.057 9.785 .002* 27.253
 65 years old 1.564 1.005 2.420 .120ns 4.778
Marital status Unmarried (RC)
Married .018 1.682 .000 .991ns 1.018
Divorced -1.297 1.731 .561 .454ns .273
Widowed -3.211 1.124 8.164 .004* .040
Family size 1-3 family size (RC)
4-6 Family size -1.459 .907 2.591 .107ns .232
>6Family size -1.047 .752 1.940 .164ns .351
Educational Illiterate (RC)
level can read and write .671 1.127 .355 .552ns 1.956
Primary education 2.500 1.244 4.038 .044* 12.182
Secondary & above 3.531 1.349 6.854 .009* 34.154
.
Status of Male headed(RC)
household head Female headed -2.776 1.549 3.211 .073ns .062
Landholding <0.5 hectare (RC)
size 0.51-1 hectare 2.737 .984 7.746 .005* 15.446
> 1 hectare 2.319 .632 13.482 .000 * 10.169
Access of water Yes(RC)
supply No -1.084 .631 2.949 .086ns 0.338
Membership in Yes(RC)
Social groups No -.125 .662 .035 .851ns 0.883
Having triple- Yes(RC)
gender roles No 2.034 .736 7.633 .006* 7.647
Access of credit Yes(RC)
No -2.670 .616 18.784 .000* 0.069
Access of NFA Yes(RC)
training No -1.426 .631 5.115 0.24* .240
Distance of <1 km (RC)
nearest-main 1-2 km 1.286 .947 1.844 .174ns 3.617
road >2 km .820 .734 1.248 .264ns 2.271
Distance of < 4 km (RC)
Main market 4-8 km 1.292 1.503 .739 .390ns 3.639
>8 km -.501 .737 .463 .496ns .606
Constant 1.910 1.684 1.287 .257 6.752

ns
Source: Survey data, 2018 *Significant at 0.05, = not significant RC=reference category

76
The Binary logistic regression result also showed, women having an educational level of primary
and secondary or above as compared to those women who were illiterate, participation in NFA
increase by odds ratio of 12.182 and 34.154 respectively. The result was statistically significant
at p < 0.05 in all cases. This means that women educational level of having primary and
secondary or above had increased probability of participation in rural non-farm work decisions
12 times and 34 times than those women who were illiterate. The result implied that better
literacy increase the probability of involvement, while illiteracy constrained women‟s
engagement in NFA. Hence, women who had educational level of primary education and
secondary education or above had significant positive relationship to participate in NFA.

This result is in agreement with the works of Atamanov and Berg (2011), which shows that
better-educated individuals, especially with higher or vocational education, are more likely to
choose pure non-farm activities or a mixture of farming and non-farming mostly because they
are better qualified for formal non-farm jobs. Gordon and Craig (2001); Yuanxiang (2017) study
analysis also indicates that education increases farm and non-farm productivity as well. Kalalto
(2016) study also shows that the average educational level of households increases, the
probability of non-farm employment also increase. In another ways, year of education more
increases the probability of participation in NFA other than focusing in farming activity. Hence,
an improvement in human capital has a positive impact on participation in NFA.

The Logistic regression model result demonstrated that, being other variables constant, women
who had the size of land holding in range of 0.51 up to 1 hectare and >1 hectare as compared to
the size of land holding <0.5 hectare, the probability of participation into NFA increased by the
odds ratio of 15.446 and 10.169 respectively. The result was statistically significant at P<0.05 in
all cases. This means that women who had land holding size of 0.51 up to 1 hectare and > 1
hectare had more probability of participation towards non-farm activity than <0.5 hectare.
Hence, the size of land holding was statistically significant positive relationship to participate in
NFA. This result is consistent with the works of Kassie et al., (2017); Wen-Chin Huang et
al.,(2014); Mecharla (2002), which indicates the land holding size had positive and significant
relationship to NFA participation. However, this finding is in contrary to the previous studies of
Yuanxiang (2017); Pavithra and Kamal (2013), they found out that size of land holding is
insignificant factor of the participation in NFA.

77
The Binary logistic regression result revealed that, women who had no a combination of triple
roles as compared to women having triple roles, the probability of being participate in NFA
increased by the odds of 7.647. Put it in other way, women who had a combination of triple
roles, the probability of being participated in NFA decreased by the odds ratio of 0.131 (87%).
This means that the women having a combination of roles in the household lead to work burden
and time poverty; difficulty to participate in non-farm livelihood activities. The result was
statistically significant at p < 0.05. Therefore, having a combination of triple roles in the
household had significant relationship to non-farm activity participation. This result is in
agreement with the works of UNDP (1995) cited in Ojulu (2015); Katega and Lifuliro (2014),
which indicates that household obligations or gender roles affect non-farm participation.

Moreover, with respect to access to credit, women who had no access of credit less probability of
participation in non-farm activity than those women who had access to credit. As the binary
logistic result showed, women who had no access to credit, the probability of participation in
NFA decreased by the odds ratio of 0.069 (93%). This means that, the absence of credit services
constrained women‟s non-farm participation decisions. The result was statistically significant at
P<0.05. Hence, access of credit services for women had significant relationship to non-farm
activity participation. This result is consistent with the study of Shehu and Abubaker (2015);
Prowse(2015); Kassie et al., (2017), which indicates that access to formal credit is a significant
relationship to the development of non-farm enterprises in rural areas and decision to participate
in non-agricultural livelihood diversification. In grievance, the study of Mideksa (2015) showed
that there was the absence of significant relationship between access to credit services and
decision to participate in non-farm income diversification activities.

Lastly, concerned with access to non-farm training, women who had no access of NFA training
had less probability of participation in non-farm activity than women‟s who have access to
training for NFA. As the binary logistic regression result revealed, women who had not access of
training for NFA, the probability of participation in NFA decreased by the odds ratio of 0.24
(76%). This means that, the absence of NFA training constrained women‟s involvement in non-
farm activity. The result was statistically significant at P<0.05. Hence, the access to NFA
training for women had a significant relationship to non-farm activity participation. In line with
this result, Dilruba and Roy (2012) study also pointed out that there was a statistically significant
relationship between non- farm skill training and non-farm livelihood diversification.
78
 Part –II The Qualitative Data Analysis and Findings

This section of the study focuses on qualitative data analysis. This part is designed to present the
last objective (i.e. challenges and opportunities of women‟s to participate in non-farm activity in
the study area) of this study. In general, 12 major themes and 8 sub-themes were identified and
presented under this last specific research objective.

4.6 Challenges of Women towards NFA Participation in the Study Area

There are different challenges women faced to pursue non-farm activities as key informants and
focus group discussants verified. These are:- negative outlooks of the society (cultural myths)
towards handicrafts, shortage of working capital and credit services, absence of local
infrastructure, the absence of market demand and customers, the absence of institutional and
government support, lack of skill development training, absence of technology and technological
support, and laws and regulation towards NFA in the study area.

4.6.1. Negative Outlook of the Society (Cultural myths) towards Handicrafts

The study found out that negative outlook of the community towards handicrafts is the principal
challenge that women‟s faced in pursuing non-farm activities especially in handicrafts. The
presence of an outdated outlook on this specific work negatively affected the working condition
of women‟s who engaged in NFA. According to informants and participants in focus group
discussion, the negative outlook and suspicious beliefs towards handicrafts lays a problem on the
improvement of women handicraft workers and they put it first as the serious problem that
encountered women in pursuing non-farm activities in the study area.

Suspicious belief

Concerning this issue, one of the key informants disclosed as follows:

……in our community, handicraft (pottery, blacksmithing, weaving, and leather-works) is

considered as a work of a lower class society or a community that are considered as
unique from the other in their identity or caste. Due to this outdated and suspicious
beliefs towards handicrafts, those people who engaged in handicrafts gave nicknames

79
 called “evil eye”(ቡዳ),”eje Seri (እጀ ሰሪ)”,“Anteregna (አንጥረኛ)” “devil receivers

(ሰይጣን ሳቢዎች)”. Consequently, the community ignores them and did not include in
membership such as Iddir, Iqub, Mahber and other informal institutions. To your
surprise, marriage is not arranged with them due to ancestry or genetics. The community
says why we arrange marriage with them ancestry or her ancestors. In addition, due to
“genetics” so many women were constrained from the involvement in this particular
activity, those women who involved are socially isolated. Therefore, outdated outlook is a
common problem in our community for those who involved in handicrafts and it is better
to say that the serious problem in our community! (KI, 7).

From the above narration, we can grasp that livelihood diversification towards non-farm
activities participation are influenced by the society awareness and norms, traditions and
background skills or inherited skills. In other speaking, in the non-farm activity participation
those individuals who have special skills: for example, handicraft workers (pottery,
blacksmithing, weaving/spinning) had participated in this particular works due to inherited
experience from family or with their experience, but their participation was challenged by the
outdated outlook of the society towards them and tasks as well.

Social Isolation and Insulting

Social isolation is also one of the social challenges that women faced in non-farm activities in the
study area. Vivid evidence provided by one of the focus group discussants who engaged in
leatherwork and pottery work currently divulged that:

It is difficult to explain in a single word, we have experienced too much suspicious

beliefs that discourage our functioning of jobs. For example, previously too much
insulting, isolation, and chaos issues have occurred with the community through
considering ours as an evil eye. Because of this reason, common insulting such as
fakiwoch, (ፋቂዎች) ፣ Eje Seri (እጀ ሰሪዎች) ፤ Evil eye (ቡዳዎች) ፤ Deben Ansa (ደበንአንሳ)
always exist throughout our work. I do not know when this problem is stop. Still, the
community says, we are Teff producers (ነጭ አምራች), used this term to inferior our work
or for the purpose of undermine our jobs. This means that our work is considered as silly

80
 because one farmer considers himself as wealthy if he engaged in agriculture or have a
huge land rather than engaging in handicraft work. Hence, if the administrators will not
take action, our lives continue to be in dangers, even it is difficult for our children safety
(FGD, 2).

From this explanation, we can deduce that most of the rural dwellers‟ perceived agriculture as
the only means of attaining sustainable livelihood without inculcating the advantages of non-
farm livelihood diversification, including non-farm participation since they considered
themselves as wealthy if they practice only in agriculture. This implied that, the community
awareness is still low to livelihood diversification; this is due to the fact that, they considered no
activity is found without agriculture in the study area. In sum, this perception poses social
isolation and insulting problem for women non-farm workers in the study area.

Lack of Social Insecurity

Lack of social insecurity is also another social challenge that women faced in non-farm activity
participation in the study area. Many of handicraft workers faced social insecurity from the
same community dwellers without any possible justification or with suspicious belief. In this
regard, one of the informants gave emphasized and strengthen the point by saying:

When I tell you by emphasis and what you have to underline is that, those handicraft
workers faced social insecurity in our kebele. This is because in the areas, there are some
bad individuals who make chaos, fear them and hit their house at night time to leave
them from the dweller. Having this fear of insulting, social isolation, and social
insecurity from the community, so many rural dweller’s including women constrained
from involvement even if they have the skills, and those involved has also in severe
situations in handicrafts at all!. Ironically, their inhabitant is separated from the other
community. There specific dwelling place or Got called “Tach Amba”. The name given
to this place by the community is that, to indicate the site of pottery workers, blacksmith
workers, and weavers as well. To address this problem, I was telling so many times in
different community dialogue. However, no improvement is attained on the mindset of the
community to alleviate their bad traditional norm and experiences (KI, 5).

81
As per the result of the above explanation, we can infer that the outlook of the society towards
non-farm activities negatively affected the involvement of women in non-farm activities. This
means that, negative outlooks of a given community towards a particular non-farm activity both
constrained them and challenge for women‟s in non-farm participation. This poses a problem
for many women in rural areas that were not left out from poverty, food insecurity and
unemployment as key informants verified. This result is in agreement with the works of Tesfaye
(2010), which indicates that artisans are marginalized in the society where weavers and basket
makers are usually disposed terms by the society although their activities are highly essential to
livelihood security of the society. The study also reported that the social problem (25.4%) of
sample households pursuing RNFA is straining social outlook. In similar fashion, Yona and
Mathewos (2017) also found out that, the attitude of the society towards artisans‟ professionals
is not as such supportive. They consider them as minorities and caste while using all the
products produced by the professionals. This implied that further efforts would make to
alleviate problem to enable women‟s to be active participant in non-farm activities.

4.6.2. Absence of Institutional and Government Supports

The finding of this research also revealed that the absence of support from the government and
institution is the secondary challenges that women faced in pursuing NFA despite the fact that
so many women‟s in rural areas faced the challenges of lack of advisory services, workplace
problems and raw materials for their non-farm work. We know that, the provision of
government supports in terms of giving working place for non-farm workers, advisory services
and providing inputs/tools is the prerequisite for non-farm business development; but still the
institutional or governmental support towards the sector is limited as key informants pointed
out. In line with this, focus group discussants also verified that, they faced the problem of
working place, especially in non-farm self-employment (trade, grain milling services and
vegetable and fruit selling) due to the absence of government and institutional support.

Absence of Monitoring Support

The absence of monitoring support is one of the institutional challenges that women faced on
non-farm activities in the study area. This poses to the inability of accomplishing their non-farm
income generating activities effectively as they expected and work without income increment.

82
One of the focus group discussants shared her experience in the following manner:

I have been working for more than 9 years in leather works (i.e. Agelgl-melegom, Dirb-
Melogom, Ankelba- mesrat, Jendi- malesles). But still I did not have taken any
monitoring support from the government side. No one came to me to know how my work
is going and in what ways my work is effectively accomplished. When I tell you without
exaggeration no responsible organs is found in our Kebele that gives assistance to this
kind of work. This limits my moral motivation. Even nowadays, I want to stop this work
because no improvement is achieved in both my work style and benefits as much as
required rather than exerting a huge effort to day-to-day consumption or hand- to -
mouth just due to the absence of support (FGD, 2).

One of the informants also supplemented the above ideas through deemed that:

Frankly speaking, we did not provide any monitoring support for handicrafts because
this activity did not facilitate economic transactions. Hence, to facilitate an economic
transaction, we focused only on modern handicraft jobs. Having this case, still the
provision of raw materials and working place is not trended and adopted by our offices
to rural women in non-farm participation rather than approved trade licenses only (KI,
3).

From the above explanation, we can concluded that the continued support from the institution or
government for women‟s in non-farm income generating activities is not supportive in the study
area. Hence, the result implied that women non-farm worker faced difficulty in their
participation as well as in their best functioning of non-farm activities to generate income for
family well-being, food consumption and increment in their income from non-farm livelihood
diversification.

Lack of Proper Workplace and Raw materials

Lack of working place is also another major challenge that women faced in non-farm activity
participation in the study area. The data from participants in focus group discussion and
informants revealed that, there is no proper working place to run their non-farm business. One
thing that this study reminds that, this problem is serious for women traders, seller of local drinks

83
who work in cooperative and vegetable sellers in the nearest town on formal ways. In this regard,
one of the participants in the focus group discussion disclosed that:

I have one small container for retail shopping nearest to the main road. Nevertheless, I
undertake grain trade regularly on formal way in the nearest town (Yedwuha). My
working place for trade is looks like fire proof: it is very small. Having this case, it is
very cumbersome for me to work while I bought more than two Quintiles. Therefore, to
cope with this, I began to buy in roadsides from rural dwellers (FGD, 1).

One of the key informants also supported the above ideas as follows:

..…...it is unquestionable; pursuing NFA is inadequate without working place, raw

materials and access to equipment’s machinery. In this regard, only five containers were
provided for those who engaged in trade, food processing and sale of local drinks who
worked in cooperatives in 2010 budget year. However, the problems still exist due to
budget deficits and lack of special emphasis to the sector. For example, due to the absence
of special attention to the sector, handicraft activity is not supported by expertise and did
not have a package at college level. Thus, to alleviate this problem, nowadays
administrative solution or an effort is provided for both urban and rural kebele
administrations since the direction is forwarded to those women who are willing to
cooperate in temporary for 5 years with signed agreement (KI, 1).

As per the result of the study indicated, one can deduce that due to the absence of institutional
support for non-farm activity participation lays a working place and raw materials challenge for
women in NFA work decisions. This result is consistent with that of Mehta (2002) study, which
indicates that most sufferers in terms of the working place, and accessibility to raw material and
those are covering a longer distances for getting required raw materials are visualized among the
traditional household rural industrial enterprises. In similar vein, the study of Varsha (2016)
stipulated that the higher cost is one of the rural industry‟s problems and they tackle the problem
of rising costs of raw materials for example the steel and textile industries based on iron and
cotton shortfalls of raw materials. Similarly, the study conducted by FAO (2017) showed that,
women‟s limited access to support, working place and control over equipment and transportation
constrains their income earning opportunities and their access to markets.

84
However, in grievance of this study finding, Kazungu and Tang (2014) finds out that in Uganda,
institutions underlying the development of rural non-farm sector very strong. Here again in
grievance, the study of Richard (2007) showed that the handicraft is a home-based industry,
which requires minimum expenditure and infrastructure to establish. The study further elaborated
that; it can create jobs at a minimal cost. In general, this sector uses existing skills, locally
available raw materials inputs required can easily be provided, and product adaptation is less
expensive than investing in energy, machinery or technology.

4.6.3. Shortage of Working Capital and Credit Services

The study found out that, lack of working capital and credit is the major bottleneck for women in
non-farm activity participation due to the absence of credit services from the institutions and
their poor economic backgrounds of most rural dwellers in the study area. In this regard, one of
the focus group discussion participants narrated the challenge as follows:

Our major bottleneck while undertaking non-farm activity (selling of vegetable, fruits,
sale of local drinks with cooperative and trade) is the shortage of working capital. This is
due to limited income in our household and the absence of credit. Even if while asking to
take credit, the loaning procedure is difficult. We stayed more than one month to take a
loan, their voluntariness also not as much enough and encouraging. To obtain credit, we
have no guarantee or collateral. Because of this, we take “Dubie and Arata” from
relatives. However, occasionally we use livestock as collateral to take a loan. But, the
basic thing is that, it is not only the lack of collateral rather the problem of mal-
administration to take credit because the institutions of credit give loan to those wealthy
individuals selectively. In addition to this, obtaining credit in a short time is unthinkable.
Although, ACSI is the major credit source; institutions always accessed for those who
have collateral. This is not fair, why not free loan is provided for poor? (FGD, 4).

Parallel to this point, one of the informants also deemed that the problem of capital poses a
difficulty for women‟s ability to undertake non-farm activities (especially making and processing
of foods and sale of drinks that work in cooperation, trade, and grain milling services). However,
currently our office made efforts by arranging a free loan in collaboration with micro- finance
institutions such as Amhara credit and saving institution to address the problem. Starting from

85
2009 E.C the FDRE government allocated 16.3 million Birr to loan arrangement in rotation for
youth and women‟s; though arranging collateral could be their main challenges while taking this
loan. In contrast, one explanation from the words of one key informant deduced that:

The serious problem of women is that, the absence of voluntariness to take credit
in collaboration with other women while working NFA. Above all, formal
financial institutions like banks, credit and saving institutions did not give credit
to those women because they did not have collateral and some of their activities
in non-farm did not have guarantee (for example sale of firewood, pottery, sale
of local drinks without cooperative) (KI, 2).

Therefore, the result implied that, the absence of working capital and credit is a serious problem
that strongly hinders the monthly income of women‟s in non-farm activity participation. In line
with this result, Varsha (2016) pointed out that the availability of finance, credit is not easy to
rural people, and they always face challenges on the scarcity of finance and credit. The capital
base of the small industries in this context is worse. The Author further elaborated that the rural
artisans are running small industries or cottage industries either on little capital they possess or
take credit from indigenous bankers or on the traders who supply raw materials to them. In many
cases, such credit is obtained at a very high rate of interest and it is exploitative in character due
to that there has increased production cost of the artisans.

Likewise, Dilruba and Roy (2012) also pointed out that, poor asset base and lack of credit
services is the most important constraint to livelihood diversification; possession of even a small
asset enables the households to take opportunities in the non-farm sector, particularly in the self-
employment sector. Consistent with this study finding, the study of Mori (2014) also reveals that
limited access to relevant and affordable services, such loan levels suited to business needs,
technical and management training, advice and marketing, locating a suitable premise constrain
women entrepreneurs. One key constraint for women is their unequal possession of the collateral
needed to obtain credit. Women‟s collateral levels are lower than those of men because they are
generally poorer than men, paid less for their labor time and own fewer assets as reported by
FAO (2011b) cited in Inter-American Development Bank (2014).

86
 4.6.4. Absence of Local Infrastructure

The study found out that, the absence of local infrastructure is the major bottleneck for women
in non-farm participation in the study area. Even though, the term infrastructure is the double
edge word, in addition to the researcher observation, the informants and participants in focus
group discussion verified that a significant number of rural dwellers had not accessed basic rural
infrastructure, mainly water supply, electricity, road and market accessibility to non-farm work.
This lays the problems not only for non-farm workers, but also it diminished the agricultural
productivity and non-farm business development. In addition to this, according to key informants
and participants in focus group discussion, in rural kebeles the accessibility of transport services
and telecommunication had not accessed to undertake rural non-farm activities in the study area.

Absence of Rural Electricity

The study found out that, the absence of electricity is as one of infrastructural challenges for
women in non-farm work in the study area. The absence of electricity negatively affected the
improvement of non-farm business development in rural areas. Likewise, women‟s in the study
area were faced the absence of electricity and lays to work burden and increase their time
poverty as discussants verified. In correspond to the above point; one of the FGD participants
disclosed that:

We started with 5 members to sell tea, tella and areqi and processing foods before 1 year
in the farmers’ association or unions in Gebsit kebele, it is really good in our income.
However, the absence of electricity discouraged our work because we still pursue our
activities using firewood and charcoal. This makes busy, time consuming and complex in
our work. Nevertheless, if there is accessibility of electricity, we will open additional tea
room service and leave from firewood collection for fuel consumption (FGD, 3).

From the above narration, we can grasp that, the absence of electricity hindering the active
involvement of women and lays to work burden or time poverty and inability to pursuing their
non-farm work easily. This implied that, women require accessibility of electricity for non- farm
work to make improve in their income, reduce workload and time consumption in the study area.

87
 Lack Road and Public Transport services

The other most severe handicap to their non-farm business participation identified by informants
and discussants is road, water supply and public transport. The problem is more acute in both
kebeles as no road network and water supply is available there. Lack of public transport services
and telecommunication is the second infrastructural handicap identified by participants in focus
group discussion that constrain their improvement in enterprise-based diversification in the
selected kebeles of the study area. In this connection, one of the focus group discussants shared
her experiences by saying:

Nowadays I am working both sale of vegetable, firewood and charcoal production. I

gather both firewood and charcoal from the Abay River Gorge. Then I always sell it to
the market by walking more than two and half hours to reach to the main market. It is
very cumbersome to travel a long distance of road. It is not comfortable for me. It is top
and down structure to reach from Kolla up to Woyina Dega. To cope this long distance
and top down structure of road, one day I was sitting more than three places to reduce
my fatigue. Then after, I reached at 6 hour after I started the journey before 3 hour from
my house. This is bulky and tire for my work (FGD, 1).

One of the key informants also supplemented the above narration and deemed that:

It is needless to say that, good infrastructure has play an important role in facilitating
rural communities to pursuing income generating activities, but the accessibility of rural
road and transport services had not yet been provided. It is difficult to see women
diversify into non-farm enterprises and generate income to sustain their livelihoods. In
fact, there is a strong case for arguing that public infrastructure (road, bridge,
electricity, public transport services) are the major problems of Shebel Berenta woreda
due to undulating topography prevailing in the area (KI, 2).

From the above narration, we can deduce that due to the absence of road network and transport
services, so many of rural women travel a long distance to pursue NFA. This hinders the active
involvement of women and lays to tiresome and inability to pursuing their non-farm work easily.
The result implied that, women require accessibility of road and public transport services for
non- farm work to improve in their income, reduce tiredness and time consumption.

88
 Lack Rural Water Supply and Telecommunication

The absence of rural water supply and telecommunication is also another major infrastructural
challenge for women to non-farm work in the study area. The absence of rural water supply
negatively affected the improvement of non-farm business development in rural areas. Likewise,
women‟s in the study area faced with the absence of water supply and telecommunication and
this lies to conflict, work burden and increase their time poverty as discussants verified.

Correspondingly, one of the key informants of this study also stressed that:

Especially, manufacturing and service sector by its nature require electricity, water
supply and telecommunication. However, even though they are willing to involve and are
involved, due to the absence of commitment from higher concerned bodies to solve this
infrastructural problem: still the problem exists and concerning the infrastructure,
immediate solution is not provided. I do not know why the government did not provide
immediate solutions. Therefore, what the higher concerned bodies have to take into
account is that, there are no infrastructure is found in small towns and rural kebeles that
encourage women’s participation in NFA. To this end, the limitation of poor
infrastructure places far behind in their non-farm business development in the livelihood
strategies of rural dwellers (KI, 1).

From this result, we can grasp that the major problem in pursuing a high level of rural non-farm
activity in the study area is the lack of infrastructure (mainly electricity & telecommunication
and public transport in addition with rural water supply and road). This result is in agreement
with the works of Shamy (2015), which indicates that poor transport and road services affect
much those entrepreneurs who engaged in the timber industry. The road infrastructures from the
timber production areas of the village center, which is the timber market centers, are not
conducive for the transportation of timbers. The study further elaborated that the roads are
seasonal which to some extent increases the timbers production cost. Timber producers are also
affected by the access to electricity because the electricity is not accessible to timber production
areas.

89
Here again, this result is in agreement with the works of MAAIF (2009) cited in Kazungu and
Tang( 2014),which indicates that the most significant bottleneck in generating higher levels of
rural non-farm activity in Uganda is the quantity, quality and reliability of the infrastructure.
Regional physical infrastructure as well remains a challenge for especially boosting regional
trade in particular and non-farm activity in general. In similar manner, Yona and Mathewos
(2017); Hussein and Nelson (1998); Dilruba and Roy (2012) studies also illustrated that due to
lack of basic infrastructure like electricity, telecommunication, road network, transport and water
supply, rural households have little or no opportunity in the non-farm sector to expand livelihood
choices. As a result, virtually no scope exists for the rural households to diversify their
livelihood.

4. 6. 5. Limited Market Demand and Absence of Customer

This study found out that, limited market demand and absence of customers is the basic
challenges that women faced while pursuing NFA in the study area. The data from interview and
focus group discussion revealed that unlike other farm products, non- farm activity especially
clay products, and local drinks and processed foods had limited market demand and absence of
customers in the study area. According to the discussants and informants, in addition to
inaccessibility of a market for clay products, lack of market demand for most non-farm products
is the major inhibitors for women in income generating activities.

Participants in the focus group discussion also verified that the long distance of market broken
market linkages with customers and their non-farm productivity in rural areas since they cannot
reach at a times for urban customers. FGD participants from Gebsit, kebele demonstrated that
due to the absence of market demand many of women‟s leaves their non-farm work. Key
informants also strengthen that due to easy to entry into non-farm self-employment (sale of local
drinks), many of women‟s in rural areas engaged during winter season after agricultural activities
(crop production) finished; but the customer and market demand is limited since the community
prefer to consume by moving into the nearest town rather than local alone. In this regard, one of
the focus group discussion participants divulged that:

When I am working on pottery for more than 7 years, my product is quite attractive.
However, the local community did not buy my products since most of rural farm
household experience and the habit of consuming clay products is diminished after some

90
 years. In line with this, I made a single poet with huge efforts and high quality, but I sold
with minimum local price or coin. Therefore, when we compare my efforts to produce this
clay product and coin, it has a huge difference. To tell the truth, even though our
products are valuable role; the market demand is limited after steel products come into
the market for rural dwellers. Because of this, even though there are large numbers of
mothers and girls were involved in pottery; our outputs and clay products (i.e. Mitad,
Masero, Gan, and Dst) are not adequately demanded and exchanged by the local
community as much as required. Hence, regarding the local community market demand
and exchange towards consuming our products and outputs are limited in the majority of
rural areas (FGD, 2).

From the above explanation, it can be possible to conclude that limited market demand and
accessibility of market is the major problems for women‟s to pursuing NFA. Corroborate with
this study finding, Mehta (2002) study shows that lack of demand for the products of rural
industrial enterprises outside local and rural areas is often considered as a serious constraint in
non-farm expansion and development. Large proportions of items produced by household-based
traditional rural industrial units are utilitarian rather than luxury goods. The study further
elaborated that, the blacksmiths, rope making, flour-mills, woolen and servicing and repairing
units are unlikely making any plan for the expansion of their units due to inadequately developed
marketing arrangements and linkages for selling their goods and articles outside rural areas. In
line with this result, FAO, IFAD and ILO (2010) also pointed out that non-traditional agricultural
exports offers an opportunity for generating quality employment for rural women and men, but
there are also risks, especially for women, who are often the weakest nodes in the supply value
chain in Latin America. However, the result is inconsistent with the work of Gesesse and
Ignatious (2012), which indicates that Mitad [a large pan for baking the Ethiopian flat cake,
injera] holds better demand and was sold for better prices than any other clay products in NFA.

4.6. 6. Lack of Skill Development Non-farm Training

The study found out that, absence of skill-based training is the other major challenges for women
in their non-farm business. The data from the interviewees and participants in focus group
discussion revealed that no responsible organ comes to them to provide skill training in the non-

91
farm work; they still pursue NFA with their background skills and based on inherited experience
from their own family. The general importance of training for non-farm income generating
activity is clear. Those with high skills and training levels are more often participate in all types
of non-farm activities. Plausibly, because short-term training better reward people to generate a
sense of confidence and enabling individuals to involve themselves in non-farm activities;
having training on non-farm activities still unavailable as key informants and FGD participants
verified. In this connection, one of the focus group discussants stated her experiences by saying:

I have completed grade 8 before Ehadig (EPRDF) come into power. Due to limited
productivity of my cultivated land, now a day I am working embroidery and spinning
regularly for more than three years. However, until today I had not received any training
from government officials. Even when we are asking in-group to get land and additional
skill in our kebele and woreda administration, the administrators are not responsible to
responding our questions rather than preferring silence. I do not know the reason behind.
Having this rationale, I still work without improvement in both salary and skill.
Therefore, the absence of training makes me limited on both my jobs improvement and
ability to acquire a better salary from my work. Because, I am still working embroidery
(i.e Netela and Gabi), what I have worked with similar knowledge as previous or the year
before year! (FGD, 1).

By supporting the above narration, one of the key informant interviewee also deemed that:

Still, our office did not provide skill development training towards non-farm activities,
especially in artisans activities because it is still unrecognized. The government did not
know this particular activity as the major income generating activity for women. Having
this little attention, no expert is recruited to support this particular activity. This
institutional problem manifests itself through the absence of consultation and advisory
services and to the most part, the absence of a clearly defined institutional framework to
assist the NFA. Despite the fact that, many of women had faced the difficulty to adopt
working environment in NFA participation since they were not oriented about the work
and the whole environment as well (KI, 2).

92
On the other hand, one of the informants of this study unanimously rejects the view of the above
informants and FGD participants by saying:

Our office, still provide awareness creation or training in manufacturing and services
sectors for women regarding how to deliver the service. However, the very serious
problem is that women’s awareness is unincorporated to take training and pursuing non-
agricultural livelihood activities due to illiteracy. Having taken into account several
efforts would make for the future by arranging discussion with smallholder’s farmers in
all rural areas about non-farm activity (KI, 1).

On the other hand, one of the informants accepted the problem towards the provision of training
for women to be actively participating in NFA; only for 13 urban and rural women‟s give
training in tailoring and embroidery. However, several efforts were made to improve the
participation of women in non-farm activities, especially in manufacturing, trade and investment
by preparing a business plan for women and allocating sufficient budget for training and make
collaboration with women and children office and TVEDO.

From the above explanation, we can grasp that the absence of non-farm activity training for
rural women is still unincorporated to be active participant; having this so many women
hindering from their good functioning of non-farm work. In the rural areas, the task of non-farm
training still unsolvable problem for women in overall accomplishment of non-farm livelihood
diversification in the study area. Therefore, it is possible to conclude that the absence of non-
farm training negatively affected the active participation of women in non-farm work decisions
in the rural areas.

This result is inconsistent with the works of Gordon and Craig (2001), which shows that
vocational training in small business development projects regularly offers a range of services
including education in business skills. Their study also illustrated that vocational training in
traditional trades (baking, brick making, building skills, handicrafts, and workshop repairs) also
offered at specialized colleges, or sometimes as part of the school curriculum. Some
organizations run short courses targeted to local needs. However, corroborate with this study
finding, Shamy (2015) pointed out that factors include lack of specific skills and inadequate
entrepreneurship skills in some non-farm activities such as tailoring, carpentry, welding and

93
garage (vehicle and motorcycle repairs) is attributed much by the absence of vocational training
school and the absence of training institution that provides business skills in the surveyed village
(Tanzania).

4. 6. 7. Absence of Technology and Technological Supports

The other challenge identified by the participants of this study is the absence of technology and
technological assistance for their non-farm work. In a sense that the assisted modern equipment
that facilitates the active engagement and improvement in their work is not provided by the
institutions as well as they had not any modern equipment to accelerate their non-farm work; still
they practiced through traditionally with existing hand tools and experiences. According to
participants in focus group discussion, the absence of assisted technological equipment was
hampering their participation in diversified non-farm income generating activities: the assisted
technological support is still unavailable to facilitate their non-farm participation. In this regard,
one of the informant interviewee deduced that:

……… for example handicrafts activity still undertaken on similar ways or condition,
which was undertaken before 100 years situation without any assisted technology.
Because of this, women did not produce required output in which the community needed
or preferred. Though their output is produced, it is not competitive products.
Consequently, the community prefers to leave their outputs since they assume that their
products are low quality. Therefore, assisting all activities in non-farm for women to
improve their participation and benefit from the sector in the government side still
unthinkable. In this regard, technical and vocational colleges in particular and the
government in general should take into account since it is the major challenges for
women in non-farm participation (KI, 1).

Participants in focus group discussion further disclosed that the absence of technology
constrained their improvement in their work. Still, they pursue pottery with their background
skills and experience rather than saying what is technology? They also added that due to absence
of technological support, their health problems lie on severe cases. Other key informants of this
study, however, are unanimous in their rejection of this point, majority of non-farm activities did
not require intensive technology rather simple hand tools only required.

94
Correspondingly, vivid evidence provided by one of the FGD participants and divulged that:

Nowadays without exaggerating, we can say that we all women’s still undertake and
practice weaving, pottery, sale of local drinks and food processing via traditionally (i.e
hand):“በእጅ ነው እየጠፈጠፍን እየሰራን ያለ ነው”. Due to this reason, while I went to
Yedwuha Clinic, the doctor said you were TB victim. Asking the doctor by shocking what
is the cause of this, he said a huge amount of smoke affected your lungs. Then I also
perceive this, the cause exists while I make pottery (i.e Gan, Dist, Masero, Mitad) and
sometimes while I produce charcoal. Nevertheless, nowadays I am working with a health
problem because I do not have any other means of getting birr. If I stop working, my
children do not have food for hand to mouth. Therefore, the government should say one
thing for ours to be an active producer of quality product to market, to our health
condition and to obtain a good income for food for our children! (FGD, 4).

As per the result of the study, one can deduce that, the absence of technology hinders the good
function of women in non-farm participation in the study area. This result implied that,
technological support is not the only prerequisite for agricultural activities rather it is also
perquisite to NFA participation. Hence, due to the absence of technology and technological
support so many women lay on health problems, hindering the active involvement in NFA easily
and improvement of in their work as key informants and FGD participants verified. Corroborate
with this study finding, Gesesse and Ignatious (2012), they pointed out that non-farm activities
had not received any form of technological support. The production was still carried out
traditionally and the work remained tiring. Here again, in agreement with this study finding,
Tezera (2010) study also indicates that backward technology and competition of manufactured
products has undermined the growth and development of non-farm activities. In similar manner,
mounting evidence provided by UNID (1994); FAO, IFAD, ILO (2010); UNDP (1995) cited in
Ojulu (2015) also explained that the SME sector is all too often marked by outdated and
inefficient practices and technologies. As a result, small enterprises tend to operate far below
their productive capacity. The study further elaborated that small-scale businesses often used
inefficient low-cost technologies, which yield products of poor quality and pose hazards to health

95
and the environment due to the inability to afford adequate tools and machinery necessary to
produce goods competitive in quality and prices.

4. 6. 8. Laws and Regulations towards NFA

In accordance with the finding of the study, the existing laws and regulation is one of the
challenges that affect the involvement of women in non-farm activities. The regulation of small-
scale sector constitutes an important aspect of non-farm development; however, the bureaucracy
affects rural non-farm business development. This is because the current polices prohibited some
activities in non-farm; rural dwellers constrained from involvement in NFA participation. In this
regard, one of the informants deduced as follows:

As you know, the current government prohibited the roadside trade, sale of firewood and
charcoal production to prevent soil deterioration and conservation. Due to this reason,
the local residents have been constrained from undertaking trade in the roadside trade,
charcoal production and sale of firewood since most of the people involved in the
production of charcoal by cutting forests and roadside trade without a license. However,
rural dwellers, including women still practiced illegally. This leads to punishment and
arrest for those who involved in firewood and charcoal sellers and non-license traders.
Because, they are against rules and laws. So, it is the major challenge for charcoal and
firewood sellers as well as traders who work without licenses in roadside. In addition to
this, the government lays tax deliberately without checking cost benefit analysis for
women who work in a legal way. Due to this, women traders leave and force to leave
from the trade due to improper tax regulation in addition to license approval problem
(KI, 7).

In this connection, one of the FGD participants also supported the above ideas as follows:

Our major problem in charcoal sales is the prohibition of the government. This lay down
fear of punishment and hesitating to actively involving in firewood and charcoal. In
addition to this, we fear to registering our business, for example: roadside trades
because of their cumbersome regulation and licensing procedures. We know those
registered their business, the process was really cumbersome! (FGD, 1).

96
In support of the above narrations, the informants of this study also remarked that:

Even if non-farm activities have so many valuable roles, encouraging this non-farm
activity (i.e. sale of local drinks, sale of firewood and charcoal, pottery) on
government side still far behind. As well, nowadays, encouraging women to become
active participant and to be more beneficial in the legal way in the most NFA still
far behind and needs further efforts from the government! (KI, 2).

From the result, we can grasp that the licensing procedures were not suitable for women in non-
farm enterprise. Hence, the result implied that restriction on some activities in non- farm and the
long process of licensing procedures challenge for women towards NFA participation. Likewise,
from the above result, it can be possible to say and understand that, the government biased
towards the agricultural sector, while non-farm sector operators have not received the required
support from government bodies; still the majority of NFA did not provide policy attention rather
than agriculture. This result is in agreement with the work of Mehta (2002), which indicates that
due to the variety of restrictions imposed by the government against the deforestation to avoid
the various adverse consequences of environmental degradations as experienced in the past. The
general price level of different forest products in general and timbers in particular has
unprecentedly been increased in the non-farm sector in the state (India).

In similar manner, regulatory restrictions on small-scale sector do not allow easy formation and
registration of Small and medium enterprises in Uganda. This bureaucracy has affected rural
non-farm growth (MAAIF, 2009 cited in Kazungu and Tang, 2014). Likewise, Sinidu (2008)
cited in Tezera (2010) indicated that the absence of policies is found to be the major problems of
NFA. Ana and Demmelash (2017) study also indicated that due to a government program to
protect forest and environment balance almost all households being out of charcoal production
excluding 4.7% household whom depend on this occupation as primarily in the non-farm sector.

4.7 Opportunities of Women’s towards NFA Participation in the Study Area

4.7.1 Presence of Family Support

Despite the above pinpointed challenges, which affect their fair participation in non-farm, there
are also a few opportunities, which can help them to improve their non-farm business. So, the

97
existing opportunities were discussed based on the data obtained from participants as follows. In
this regard, even though women in non-farm activity encountered a dozen of challenges, there is
also an opportunity for them to actively participate in non-farm activities. According to focus
group discussion participants and informants, the presence of family support in their engagement
in non-farm work is supportive for their non-farm income or salary accumulation and day-to-day
consumption for family welling as well as for food security. This indicated that a family supports
for women‟s to become an active participant in non-farm activities is supportive as FGD
participants verified. In this regard, one of the focus group discussants shared her experience as
follows:

Frankly speaking, I have received assistance from many directions while pursuing my
non-farm work. Nevertheless, the cornerstone for my work continuity and improvement is
the presence of family support without negligence. Due to this, I have been working trade
regularly for five consecutive years. Even if previously when I was sick for 4 months, I
decided to stop until I returned to my normal health condition. However, due to the
continuous encouragement of my aunts, my uncles, my husband and my husband's
families, my health conditions become well and I am continuing my own non-farm work
(trade) again. This is my pleasure for me. God bless all (FGD, 4).

In corresponding, one of the key informants of this study also pointed out that:

In rural communities, family members can help each other in order to encourage their
economic well-being and is usually working in cooperation, especially after agricultural
activities completed from February (Meher season). This is because after being engaged,
those family members expect higher salaries from their engagement. Having this reason,
support also continued throughout their work. Therefore, we can say that mutual support
among family members is strong in our kebele (KI, 6).

In support of the above narrations, one of the informants also disclosed that:

Telling to those families who have five or six family members to cooperate and start up
any of non-work as they want. Then, families become voluntary to take capital by giving
their green books of land for collateral. This is because they become voluntary for

98
 children to be economically independent from them. Therefore, families can volunteer
to be guarantor for their girls and boys. What I want to underline at this point is that,
the family has provided support to their children from their pocket even if the institution
did not access to credit for women: most of family ask and want to sign their signature
to be a guarantor for women and girls to credit. So, I can say that, it is well cooperative
to each other in rural dwellers (KI, 5).

As per the finding of the study, we can grasp that the presence of family support is an important
opportunity to women‟s for fair participation in NFA in the study area. Hence, it can possible to
conclude that the presence of family support have positive influence to the active involvement
of women in non-farm livelihood diversification so as to attain livelihood outcomes such as food
security, increment of income or well-being and reduction of poverty. Accordingly, it should be
supportive in the long- run for rural dwellers in every income generating activities as well.

This result is in agreement with the work of Gesese and Ignatious (2012), which indicates that
family members help with each other in ancillary aspects of some activities such as fanning
traditional furnace in iron-works, spinning thread into strands during weaving or loading and
unloading donkeys. However, inconsistent with this result, Ana and Demmelash (2017) study
reveals that decline of family mutual support as one of non-farm livelihood challenges. Nirmala
(2015) study also pointed out that many times their own family members are not supporting and
cooperating. The study further elaborated that they are always making many pessimistic feelings
to be aroused in their minds and making them feel that family and not business is a place meant
for them. Due to such limited scope of help and cooperation from family and other people, they
drop the idea of excelling in the enterprise field.

4.7.2 Availability of Natural Resources (Forests and their own Eucalyptus trees)

The study found out that, the other important opportunities for women to be active participant is
that the availability of forest natural resources and their own Eucalyptus trees. According to key
informants and focus group discussants, the presence of forests such as Tikur Enchet and their
own eucalyptus trees is a lion share opportunities for women that facilitate their active
involvement in any of non-farm work.

99
Concerning this case, the informants deduced that:

Although forest is available, it is impossible to use it for sale of charcoal and firewood.
However, it can be used for the purpose of their own home use, such as use for preparing
local drinks and processing of foods except for charcoal selling. This is due to the
prevention of increment of deforestation undertaken by local people to sell charcoal and
firewood; but still it has not protected well (KI, 5).

The other important thing is that, the availability of red basaltic soils in the lowland parts of the
study area (Karma and Aba Selmana Daboch Kebeles) which is used as an important opportunity
for women to pursuing NFA (example pottery such as Masero, Mitad, Gan, Dst and other clay
products) as FGD participants verified. From the result, it can deduce that, the availability of
natural capital such as natural resources for women had an important opportunity for their non-
farm activity participation. In line with this result, Mehta (2002) indicates that most raw
materials were locally and easily available in adequate quantity at reasonable prices and obtained
from the local forests without paying any cost of it. Most of the forest products can be obtained
through making at least some amount of payments for its collection in the form of royalty to the
forest department and the Van Panchayats (India). In similar manner, Tesfaye (2010) pointed out
that the presence of forest products such as Bamboo trees (used for making baskets), and other
woody trees (mainly eucalyptus tree) is an important opportunity for pursuing RNFA.

4.7. 3. Presence of Support in Business Plan Preparations and Management

The data collected from participants showed that, women have an opportunity regarding
obtaining business plan preparation and business management support in some cases. According
to informants and focus group discussants, the presence of business plan preparation and
business management training from the institution is supportive and encourageable for the future.
Having this opportunity, women who work in cooperative (e g. sale of drinks and tea room
services) leave from business risks as focus group discussion participants verified. Correspond
with this idea, key informant interviewee pointed out that:

Business plan preparation is continues work of our office for women concerning about
how to attract customers, how to save money from their work and what kinds of work is

100
 appropriate for each woman based on their ability. This increases their involvement in
non-farm income generating activities from the year up to year (KI, 1).

In this connection, one of the informants confirmed the above idea as follows:

After licenses approval, our office provides business plans and business management
awareness for women to work in accordance with those licenses permission required and
approved. In addition, this service provided to hinder them from business loss or risk and
to properly manage their non-farm business in their work throughout their involvement;
even though there is continuous monitoring and service delivery training still we have a
limitation in our offices to rural areas (KI, 3).

In supporting the above narration, one of the focus group discussion participants disclosed that:

Our main source of credit institution is ACSI, primarily the cooperation or arrangement
is made with three up to four individuals. Then, the saving institution experts give
training about how to use money and for what purpose we could use it since they told
every aspect of business management. Then we take money and use for non-farm activity
and farm activities. Therefore, taking this support is a share of our role to preventing risk
and to using the money to allocate tasks efficiently, pave the way for our work, and
initiate to start up other jobs in non-farm activity (FGD, 3).

From the result, we can conclude that the availability of business plan preparation and business
management is an important opportunity for women to be active participant in their non-farm
work. This result implied that, obtaining business management support and training play a
significant role in non-farm activity participation for women in rural areas. Corroborate with this
result, SARDP (2010) showed that business plan preparation enables the provider helped the
client prepare a business plan, giving details about the enterprises and its intended non-farm
activities. In similar vein, Mori (2014) study also shows that access to business development
services (BDS) is crucial for the success of WOEs to strengthen their capacity to start, effectively
manage and grow their business. The Authoress further elaborated that although there are many
organizations providing business development services (including training, counseling and
consultancy in the areas of business planning, legal, accounting, auditing, etc.) they typically

101
serve only a very small number of formal MSMEs. Few women entrepreneurs access these
services and few business development service providers specifically target women.

4. 7. 4. Presence of Mutual Support in their own Association

The other important thing that the study founds out is that the presence of mutual support of
women in their own association while pursuing non-farm activities in the study area. The
presence of mutual support in their own association helps women to facilitate their active
involvement in their non-farm work participation and productivity. In this regard, the key
informants of this study divulged that the mutual support among pottery workers is strong in our
kebele since the majority of the society ignore them; the association was organized themselves
to facilitate their social interaction among themselves and solve common problems, and have
similar ancestry or decent ways of life. Similarly, women who were engaged in sale of local
drinks with cooperative have also a strong mutual support in their own association in pursuing
NFA. In this regard, one of the focus group discussants also affirmed the above idea by saying:

Even though some women’s were the members of our association, we were able to help
each other in sharing our experiences, information and mutual saving in pursuing NFA.
Still, our association belongs to ours to encourage our members’ participation and
income improvement in our work. Having this mutual trust, it paves a way to participate
in different meeting and dialogue as a role model (FGD, 3).

Regarding this, one of the key informants of this study also deduced that:

The main aim of our office is to encourage the participation of women and their
beneficiaries in all economic, social and political spheres of life via participating in
different economic activities. Therefore, to conduct this, several women arrangements or
association are formed and used. Accordingly, in budget year-2010, women become
involved in food processing and tea rooms in the trade sector through cooperation in
different rural kebeles. This is vital for women to work in common purpose, share their
experiences and to become role models for other women in non-farm work decision (KI,
2).

102
One of the key informants of this study also strengthen that efforts were made to encourage
women could work in cooperation with surrounding kebele centers and with women themselves
works in together and solving common problems through discussion. Generally, they have
cooperated with each other while working in cooperative for fair participation in NFA. Based on
the above narration, we can deduce that the presence of mutual trust in their own association is
supportive for women in the overall non-farm improvement and participation, as well as
strengthen their social capital (i.e. social network, affiliation, membership, information sharing,
being a role model and have visionary woman) in non-farm business development in rural areas
in particular and for rural transformations in general.

This result is consistent with the works of UN(2008), which indicates that belonging to a
network is a key strategy to acquire role models, increase business contacts, market opportunities
and further develop their product or service. Business and sector membership associations play a
major role in advocating for the needs of the non-farm business community in public-private
sphere. In similar vein, the study of International Financial Corporation (2014) also pointed out
that, the presence of women-focused associations, mutual trust and networks is very important
for women to air their views.

However, in grievance of this study finding, FAO, IFAD and ILO (2010) study indicates that
gender mixed cooperatives have often been unsuccessful and women-only cooperatives
sometimes suffer from their exclusion of men, which can result in resistance to their initiatives
and impede changes in existing gender relations in society. The study further elaborated that
women-only cooperatives, when focusing on traditional activities such as sewing and weaving,
merely reinforce established gender roles. Having this, a donor-led processes that push women to
become organized in a certain predetermined configuration (in this case, cooperative) can
sometimes lead to “artificial” structures with weak foundations and high risks of dissolution
when the external support stops at non-farm activity. In sum, those few light that is used as an
important opportunity to women‟s for fair participation in non-farm activities is existed in the
study area. It should be supportive in the long- run for women to be an active participant in
livelihood diversification towards non-farm activity participation to attain food security, address
low productivity of agriculture, increment of income for family wellbeing, eradicating gender
inequality and reducing poverty in rural areas at all.

103
 CHAPTER FIVE

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Conclusions

Women play an immense role in rural non-farm economy. However, in relation to different
literatures assessed and studies related to rural non-farm activity, it can be inferred that all types
of rural non-farm activities in which women pursue in rural areas and their extent in non-farm
activities has been overlooked. It can be understand that, when women‟s participation in non-
farm activity is still overlook, it leads to a continuous existence of poverty, food insecurity and
unemployment as well as inability to spurring economic growth in rural areas. Hence, based on
the finding of the study the following conclusions were drawn. Women level of participation in
the non-farm activity has shown moderate (51 %) in the study area. The employment status of
women‟s participation in non-farm showed high in self-employment, while limited saying in
wage employment. Correspondingly, majority of women pursue NFA in the nearest town or
local away from home, whereas small numbers of women pursues NFA through migratory.

Via this study, their extent in NFA participation as the survey result revealed, majority of rural
women regularly participate in trade, making and sale of local drinks, casual laboring or daily
laboring, pottery, food for work, selling of firewood and charcoal production, selling of
vegetable and fruits, and retail shopping. While, women has involved in lesser extent on leather
works, traditional hair dressing, grain milling and weaving or spinning. In addition, women were
constrained from the involvement in carpentry or masonry, community assigned local position,
private sector employment and traditional medicine of the non-farm sector in the study area.
These limitations are severe impediments to non-farm livelihood strategies and the livelihood
improvement of women in rural areas. Women literacy level, skill and knowledge to undertake
non-farm activities is not adequate and they practiced non-farm activities with their background
experience‟s and traditionally. In relation to this, the absence of technological support, absence
of skill training, absence of rural water supply, long distance to main road and long distance of
market retarded women not to have actively involved in NFA. Access to awareness creation and
education, and non-farm skill training has an impact to attract a significant number of rural
women to participate in non-farm activities in the study area.

104
The binary logistic regression result showed that women‟s age, marital status, educational level,
size of landholding, having triple roles, access of credit services and non-farm training were the
major determinants of women‟s participation in NFA in the study area. Accordingly, the young
age and old age group, married and divorced groups of women, and women who were illiterate
and women having a combination of triple roles were limited saying towards non-farm activity
participation. On the other hand, the adult age group, single women, educated women, women
who have large land holding size, access of credit and non-farm training were an active
participant in non-farm activity. The result also indicates that there are no real effects of family
size, status of household head, access of water supply, membership in social groups, distance to
the main road and distance of the main market on women‟s participation into non-farm work
decisions. This signals the need for giving due attention to the key variables or outcome variables
as they have the vital role and contribution to women to be actively involved in non-farm
employment in rural areas. Even though there was not statistically significant difference for
women‟s participation in non-farm work decisions, the fact that women moderately participated
or involved in NFA show that the needed to work more to be benefited from non-farm sector and
to improve their livelihood outcomes.

Moreover, qualitative results complement and identify the major challenges to non-farm activity
participation. The result vindicated that women‟s were faced so many challenges towards non-
farm activity participation in the study area. These are: negative outlooks of the society, the
absence of institutional and government support, lack of skill development training, shortage of
working capital and credit services, absence of local infrastructure such as electricity,
transportation, road, water supply, market inaccessibility, and limited market demand and
customers, absence of technology and technological support, and laws and regulation towards
NFA. Finally, the study revealed that women were also the available opportunity to have an
active participant in non-farm work such as the presence of family support, the accessibility of
natural resources, presence of business plan preparation and business management and the
presence of mutual support in their own association. To enable rural women to be active
participant and benefited from non-farm sector, using those existing opportunities and such the
aforementioned challenges can be reduce through the help of government and non-government
organization is vital.

105
5.2 Recommendations

The finding of this study shown that the existing status of women‟s in non-farm activity
participation and their extent in non-farm activity was moderate in the study area. In addition,
there were different challenges women faced during involvement in NFA. Hence, based on the
finding of this study, the following recommendations are forwarded by assuming that they could
be important inputs for government and non-government organization to take into account the
problems and to improve the situation:

 The government and institutions should provide appropriate support for the non-farm
activity this is due to the fact that many of women in non-farm activity participation in
rural areas did not get appropriate institutional and government support and they faced
the problems of working place, raw materials and technology. Not only supporting the
sector, it also should provide special assistance for women to be active participant in the
sector and to be economically empowered, to reduce time poverty, and to avoid gender
biased in the sector through translation the policy intention into action via mainstreaming
non-farm sector and integration with farm sector.

 The administrative officials and experts should provide awareness creation and adequate
training for women about how to pursue non-farm income generating activities; not only
for women, but also to all rural dweller‟s about non-farm income diversification since it
has an impact on women's participation in NFA. The rural dwellers did not assume that
activity is not found outside agriculture: having this, the outlook of the society towards
handicrafts is negative. Hence, awareness creation and training also needed to negative
outlooks and cultural myths, which assumed that handicrafts are works of lower class
society and are not belong to men work only.

 The governments have to adequately address the problems of local physical

infrastructure, mainly electricity, road, water supply, market, public transport and
telecommunication not only to women in non-farm participation but also to farming
productivity as well. Since, lacks of infrastructure accessibility are the obstacle to
women‟s participation in non-farm activity. In addition, locally preferable infrastructure

106
 should be built in accordance with the voices of the rural community in general and
women‟s in particular for non-farm livelihood diversification and farm productivity.

 Saving and credit institutions and expertise have to provide adequate credit services with
minimum interest rate for a long period of time, expanding branches to easily access to
all rural dwellers, with a simple procedure and free loan for pro –poor women so as to
address their financial problems and to be involved more in non-farm income generating
activities. In other words, women should be informed about how to obtain non-farm
business, how to manage non-farm business and how to attract customers.

 Women should be involved in a non -farm activity using local available materials and
via updating their background skills since some activities, which are not required high
amount of investment such as a sale, and processing of local drinks, leather works, sale
of vegetables and fruits. In addition, women should request advisory services and should
use available opportunities, which is provided by family members, institutions and
government as well. This is because, there are some women hesitating to involve in NFA
with suspicious belief and negligence; even though they have skills and available
opportunities to be engaged in NFA.

 Experts should provide skill training for women regarding how to deliver services to
customers and create market linkage for their products, how to facilitate their work with
adequate quality, and how to easily enter into non-farm work with legal ways since the
majority of women practiced non-farm work via illegally. In other words, women should
be informed about how to participate in non-farm jobs and negative consequences of
illegality in non-farm work decisions. Thus, women can easily internalize about the
issue, why non-farm activities should undertake with existing laws and regulation
towards RNFA such as roadside trade, charcoal production and then improve their
initiate to shift on other non-farm job, which is permitted by the law and regulations or
will come into legal ways and to be environmentally friend in non-farm livelihood
diversification.

107
 REFERENCES

Adamu Teshome. (2010). Impact of Climate change on Household Water Security and on
Sustainable livelihoods in Shebel Berenta Woreda, East Gojjam Zone, Amhara Regional
State, Ethiopia. Unpublished MSC Thesis, Addis Ababa University.

Agresti, A. (2002). Categorical Data Analysis. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley.

Amugune, B.K. (2014). Sample size Determination and Sampling Techniques, Mental Health
Workshop, Maanzoni, 15 October 2014.

Ana Damena and Demmelash Habte. (2017). Effect of Non-farm Income on Rural Household
Livelihood: A Case Study of Moyale District, Oromia Regional State, Ethiopia, American
Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences, 33(1), 10-36.

Angell, B., and Townsend. (2011). Workshop for the 2011 Society for Social Work and Research
annual meeting: Institute for Health, Health Care Policy and Aging Research of Rutgres:
Rutgres School of Social Work.

Atamanov, Aziz., and Berg, Marrit van Den.(2011). Microeconomic analysis of rural non-farm
activities in the Kyrgyz Republic: What determines participation and returns? Maastricht
Graduate School of Governance-WP-001 Maastricht University. Maastricht, Netherlands.

Babatunde, R.O. (2013). Farm and Off-farm Works: Complement or Substitute? Evidence from
Rural Nigeria. Invited paper presented at the 4th International Conference of the African
Association of Agricultural Economists, September 22-25, 2013, Hammamet, Tunisia.

Barrett, Christopher. B., and Reardon, Thomas.(2000).Asset, Activity, and Income Diversification
among African Agriculturalists: Some Practical Issues, Cornell University and Michigan
State University.

Barrett, Christopher.B, Reardon, Thomas., and Webb, P.(2001).Non-farm income diversification

and household livelihood strategies in rural Africa: concepts, dynamics, and policy
implications, Journal of Food Policy, 26 (4), 315–331.

108
Benjamin, Tetteh.A. (2017). Effect of non-farm work on agricultural productivity: Empirical
evidence from northern Ghana: Wider Working Paper 2017/38. University of Helsinki,
Finland.

Bernardin, Senadza. (2012). Non-farm Income Diversification in Rural Ghana: Patterns and
Determinants. African Development Review, 24(3), 233–244.

Boserup, E. (1970). Woman’s role in economic development. London: Allen & Unwin.

Carolyn, S.R., and Isadore, N. (2008). Mixed methods research: Exploring the Interactive
Continuum. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

Creswell, J.W. (2009).Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approach:
3rd (edition). University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Sage Publication.

Dattalo, P. (2008). Determining Sample Size. Balancing Power, Precision, and Practicality
Pocket Guide to Social Work Research Methods, England: Oxford University Press.

Davis, Junior.R. (2003). The Rural Non-Farm Economy, livelihoods and their diversification:
Issues and options. NRI Report No: 2753 Enterprise Trade and Finance Group Natural
Resources Institute University of Greenwich at Medway United Kingdom.

Davis, Junior.R. (2006). Rural non-farm livelihoods in transition economies: emerging issues
and policies, Journal of Agricultural and Development Economics, 3(2), 180–224.

Davis, J. R., and Bezemer, D. (2004). The Development of the Rural Non-Farm Economy in
Developing Countries and Transition Economies: Key Emerging and Conceptual Issues.
Chatham, UK: Natural Resources Institute.

Davis, B., Winters, P., Reardon, T., Stamoulis, K.(2009). Rural Non-farm Employment and
Farming: Household-Level Linkages. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 20 (2):119-
123.

109
DFID. (2000). Framework Introduction: Sustainable livelihoods guidance sheets. (Available at:
http://www.eldis.org/go/topics/dossiers/livelihoods-connect/what-are-livelihoods-
approaches/training-and-learning-materials).

DFID. (2002). Non-Farm Income in Rural Areas: Key Sheets for Sustainable Livelihoods. DFID
and Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs, UK.

Dilruba, Khatun., and Roy, B.C. (2012). Rural Livelihood Diversification in West Bengal:
Determinants and Constraints. Institute of Agriculture, Agricultural Economics Research
Review, 25(1), 115-124.

Dipti, Prakas. P., and Mausumi, Datta. B. (2011). Diversification of Farm and Non-Farm Sectors
and Structural Transformation of Rural Economy, University of Kalyani, India.

Ellis, F. (1998). Household strategies and rural livelihood diversification. Journal of

Development Studies, 35 (1): 1-38.

Ellis, F. (1999). Rural livelihood diversity in developing countries: evidence and policy
implications. Natural Resource Perspectives, Number-40.London.Overseas Development
Institute (ODI), UK.

Ellis, F. (2000). Rural Livelihoods and Diversity in Developing Countries. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

Ellis, F (2000). The Determinants of Rural Livelihood Diversification in Developing Countries,

Journal of Agricultural Economics, 51(2): 289-302.

Escobal, J. (2001). The Determinants of Non-farm Income Diversification in Rural Peru, World
Development, 29(3): 497-508.

FAO, IFAD and ILO. (2010). Gender dimensions of agricultural and rural employment:
Differentiated pathways out of poverty Status, trends and gaps, Publishing Policy and
Support Branch, Office of Knowledge Exchange, Research and Extension, Rome, Italy.

110
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). (2011a). The State of Food and Agriculture, 2010 –
2011. Rome: FAO.

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). (2012). Agricultural productivity growth and
bridging the gap for small-family farms, Food and Agricultural Organization Inter-
agency Report to the Mexican G-20 Presidency.

Food and Agriculture Organization. (2017). Gender, agriculture and rural development in
Armenia: Country Gender assessment Series, Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations: Budapest.

Fikru Tesfaye. (2008). A Case study of Non-farm Rural livelihood diversification in Lume
Woreda, Oromia Regional State, Unpublished Master thesis, Addis Ababa University,
Ethiopia.

Gessese Kune and Ignatious Mberengwa.(2012).The Role of Off-and Non-Farm Activities in

Achieving Sustainable Rural Livelihoods Security in Gubalafto Woreda, North Wollo
Zone, Amhara Regional State ,Ethiopia, Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa,
14(5), Clarion University of Pennsylvania, Clarion, Pennsylvania.

Gillham, B. (2000). The Research Interviews. Britain: MPG Books LTD.

Goitom Sisay and Kalpana Markandey.(2017).Female Headed Households‟ Participation in

Peri-Urban Modern Small-Scale Irrigation Projects in Ethiopia, The Case of Kobo Town,
Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development, 8 (3).

Gordon, Ann., and Craig, Catherine. (2001). Rural Non-farm Activities and Poverty Alleviation
in Sub-Saharan Africa. Policy Series (14). Chatham, UK: Natural Resources Institute.

Haggblade, S., Hazell, P. B. R., and Reardon, T. (2007). Transforming the Rural Nonfarm
Economy: Opportunities and Threats in the Developing World, (1st Edition). Johns
Hopkins University Press and International Food Policy Research Institute, Baltimore.

Haggblade, S., Hazell, P., and Reardon, T. (2010).The Rural Non-farm Economy: Prospects for
Growth and Poverty Reduction, World Development, 38(10), 1429–1441.

111
Hesse-Biber, S., and Leavy, P. (2004). Approaches to Qualitative research: A reader on theory
and practice. New York: Oxford University Press.

Hill, C. (2011). Enabling Rural Women’s Economic Empowerment: Institutions, Opportunities

and Participation: Background paper prepared by UN Women In cooperation with FAO,
IFAD and WFP Expert Group Meeting EGM/ RW /September 2011, Accra, Ghana.

Holmes, R., and Jone, N. (2010). How to Design and Implement Gender Sensitive Social
Protection Program: ODI at 50 Advancing Knowledge Shaping Policy Inspiring
Practices: Overseas Development Institute.

Hossain, Elias. Md., Shefa Zebun, S., and Islam, Khairul. Md. (2013). Participation of Rural
Women in Farm and non-farm activities in Bangladesh, Journal of Economics and
Development Studies, Vol 02, No.01.

Hugo Rämi. (2002). Fewer surpluses in Gojjam and Awi and Severe shortages in lowland areas
of Abaye River Gorge, UN-Emergencies Unit for Ethiopia; UN-OCHA Assessment
Mission, October 2002 (accessed 23 April 2009).

Hulsizer, M. R., and Woolf, L.M. (2009). A Guide to Teaching Statistics: Innovations and Best
Practices. Chichester, West Sussex, UK: Wiley- Blackwell.

Hussein, K., and Nelson, J. (1998). Sustainable Livelihoods and Livelihood Diversification, IDS
Working Paper (69), IDS, Brighton, UK.

Inter-American Development Bank. (2014). Mainstreaming gender in rural development

projects in Latin America and the Caribbean / Inter-American Development Bank.
Gender and Diversity Division. p. cm. (IDB Technical Note; 763).

International Financial Corporation. (2014). An International Res Micro, Small, and Medium
Enterprise Finance Improving Access to Finance for Women-owned Businesses in India
In partnership with the Government of Japan. A research report on opportunities
Challenges and the way forward: Vasant, Kunji, New Delhi, India.

112
Israel, Glen. D. (1992). Determining Sample Size: Agricultural Education and Communication
Department, University of Florida, IFAS Extension, PEOD (6) (Reviewed, 2003).

Johnson, A., and Wichern, W. (2007). Applied Multivariate Statistical Analysis, (6th ed).Upper
Saddle River: Pearson prentice Hall.

Kabeer, N. (1994). Triple Roles, Gender Roles, Social Relations: The political subtext of gender
training frameworks: Gender Hierarchies in Development Thought, Verso, London.

Kabeer, N. (2003). Gender mainstreaming in Poverty Eradication and the Millennium

Development Goals: A Handbook for Policy Makers and Other Stakeholders. Ottawa:
International development Research Centre.

Kaija, D. (2007). Income Diversification and Inequality in Rural Uganda: The Role of Non-Farm
Activities. A paper prepared for the Poverty reduction, Equity and Growth Network
Conference, Berlin, September 6-7, 2007.

Kalalto G. (2016). Determinants of Employment Participation in Rural nonfarm activities.

Journal of Poverty, Investment and Development, Vol 29:10-21. An International Peer-
reviewed Journal.

Kappel, Elsemarie P., and Lind, Michelle,P. (2010).The Sustainable Livelihoods Approach:
From a psychological Perspective: Approaches to Development, Institute of Biology,
University of Aarhus.

Kassie, Geremew. W., Sangho, Kim., Francisco, P., and Fellizar, Jr. (2017). Determinant factors
of livelihood diversification: Evidence from Ethiopia Environmental Studies/Research
Articles, Cogent Social Sciences,3:1369490:https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886/2017.

Katega, I. M., and Lifuliro. C.S. (2014). Rural Non-Farm Activities and Poverty Alleviation in
Tanzania: A Case Study of Two Villages in Chamwino and Bahi Districts of Dodoma
Region. Research Report 14/7, Dares Salaam, REPOA Publisher.

113
Kazungu, Moses ., and Tang, Reginald. G. (2014). Assessing the potential of non-farm and off
farm enterprises in spurring rural development in Uganda, International Journal of
Agricultural Policy and Research, 2 (5),198-202.

Kothari, C.R. (2004). Research Methodology: Methods and Techniques, Jaipur, India, University
of Rajasthan: New Age International.

Krantz, Lasse. (2001).The Sustainable Livelihood Approach to Poverty Reduction: An

Introduction: Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, Division for Policy
and Socio-Economic Analysis.

Kumar, K.(1989).Conducting Key Informant Interview in Developing Countries; USAID

Programme Design and Evaluation Methodology ,Report (13),Washington, D.C,USAID.

Lanjouw, Jean. O., and Lanjouw, P. (1995). Rural Nonfarm Employment: A Survey Background
paper for World Development Report: The World Bank, Washington, DC.

Lanjouw, Jean. O., and Lanjouw, P. (2001). The Rural Non-farm Sector: Issues and Evidence
from Developing Countries. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 26 (1), 1-23.

Lester, S. (1999). An Introduction to Phenomenological Research. Stan Lester Developments:

Taunton. Available at: http://www.intro.pheno. accessed on December 8/2017.

Mecharla, Rao. P. (2002).The Determinants of Rural Non –Farm employment in Two Villages of
Andhra Pradesh (India). Prus Working Paper No(12).Poverty Research Unit at Sussex,
University of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton.

Mehta, G, S. (2002). Non-farm economy and rural development: Sponsored by Planning

Commission Government of India, New Delhi: Giri Institute of Development
Studies.Lucknow.

Mesay Kebede. (2008). Gender, Household Food Security and Coping Strategy: the case of
Meskan Woreda of the Gurage Zone. Unpublished MSC thesis, Addis Ababa University.

114
Messay, T. (2012). An Assessment on the Roles of Women in Agriculture in South Nations an
Nationality People’s Region: The case of Halaba Special Woreda, Ethiopia .Unpublished
MSC Thesis, Indra Ghandi University, New Delhi, India.

Mideksa, F. (2015). Factors Responsible for Income diversification among Farm households in
Agarfa District, Bale Zone, Oromia Regional State, Ethiopia. Unpublished MSC thesis,
Haramaya University, Ethiopia.

Mihiret Mulugeta and Tadesse Amsalu.(2014).Gender, Participation and Decision Making

Process in Farming Activities: the case of Yilman Densa District, Amhara Region,
Ethiopia, Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development,5 (1).

Minot, N., Epprecht, M., Ann, T.T., Trung, L.Q. (2006). Income diversification and poverty in
the Northern Upland of Vietnam. Research report No.(145). International Food Policy
Research Institute, Washington DC, USA.

MOFA (Ministry of Food and Agriculture).(2011). Agriculture in Ghana: Facts and Figures:
SRID, Accra. Ghana.

Mori, N. (2014). Women’s Entrepreneurship Development in Tanzania: Insights and

recommendations: Institute of Management and Entrepreneurship Development (First
Published), International Labor offices-Geneva; ILO.

Moser, C. O. N. (1989) .Gender planning in the Third World: Meeting Practical and Strategic
Gender Needs, World Development, 17 (1), 1799-1825.

Moser, C. O. N. (1993). Gender Planning and Development: Theory, Practice and Training,
London: Rout ledge.

Mphande, F.A.(2016).Infectious Diseases and Rural Livelihood in Developing Countries,

Springer Science+ Business Media Singapore, Vol.(XV),187, p. 21,Springer Science
Business Media Singapore.

115
Nasrin, Nishad., and Wahid, Tanjila. (2015). Contribution of Rural Non-farm Activities in
Household Income Generation: A Study on Khulna Region. Journal Of Humanities And
Social Science, 20, Issue 10, pp. 01-12.

Nirmala, R. (2015).Women Entrepreneurship: Problems, Solutions and Government Schemes for

Development: Women Entrepreneurship in India, International Journal of
Entrepreneurship and Business environment Perspectives, 4(2).

Ojulu L. (2015).Gender Differences and Relations in Rural Household Livelihoods of Gog

District, Anywaa Zone, Gambella Region, South Western Ethiopia, International Journal
of Gender and Women’s Studies, 3(1), 51-79.

Olawoye, J. (1994). Difficulties of Rural Women in Securing Resources for Agricultural

Production; Rural Women in Nigeria, 3(2), 79-81.

Osarfo, Daniel., Senadza, Bernardin., and Nketiah-Amponsah, E. (2016).The Impact of Non-

farm Activities on Rural Farm Household Income and Food Security in the Upper East
and Upper West Regions of Ghana, Theoretical Economics Letters, 6, 388-400, Scientific
Research Publishing Inc.

Paul, D.A. (2014). Measures of Fit for Logistic Regression, Statistical Horizons LLC and the
University of Pennsylvania, SAS Global Forum Paper 1485-2014, Philadelphia.

Pavithra, S., and Kamal, V. (2013). Role of Non-Farm Sector in Sustaining Rural Livelihoods in
Punjab, Agricultural Economics Research Review, 26 (2), 257-265.

Prowse, M. (2015). The Determinants of Non-Farm Income Diversification in Rural Ethiopia.

Journal of Poverty Alleviation and International Development, 6(1), 109-130.

Reardon, T., Delgado, C., and Malton, P. (2006). Determinants and effects of Income
Diversification amongst farm Households in Burkina Faso, Journal of Development
Studies, 28(2).

Reeves, H., and Baden, S. (2000).Gender and Development: Concepts and Definitions: Prepared
for the Department for International Development (DFID) for its gender mainstreaming

116
 intranet resource, BRIDGE (development-gender), Report No-55, Institute of
Development Studies, University of Sussex, Brighton, UK.

Reka, Sundaram-Stukel., Klaus, D.,and Songqing, J. (2006). Fostering growth of the rural non-
farm sector in Africa: The case of Tanzania: Selected Paper prepared for presentation at
the American Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting, Long Beach,
California, July 23-26, 2006.

Richard, N.(2007).Handicrafts and Employment Generation for the Poorest Youth and Women:
UNESCO, Intersect oral Programme on the Crosscutting Theme "Poverty Eradication,
Especially Extreme Poverty" United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural
Organization, policy paper no, 17, Paris.

SARDP (Sida-Amhara Rural Development Programme). (2010). Building Ethiopia’s future: The
Sida-Amhara Rural Development Programme (SARDP), Bahir Dar, Ethiopia.

Sara Worku. (2007). Livelihood strategies of rural women with emphasis on income diversifica-
tion and demographic adjustment: The case of Wolonkomi, Oromia region .Working
papers on population and land use change in central Ethiopia, nr.(9) Addis Ababa
University.

Shamy, C. (2015). Non-farm Activities and Rural Livelihood in Tanzania: The case of Njombe
District. Unpublished Master thesis, International institute of social studies, Hague,
Netherlands.

Shebel Berenta Woreda Communication Affairs office (2007- 2009 E.C). Shebel Berenta
Woreda Agriculture and Rural development office: A Report on Food security and Social
protection program Annual report: Amharic Version.

Shebel Berenta Woreda Communication Affairs Office. (2017).Shebel Berenta Woreda Rural
Kebeles, Demographics and Socio economic features and Agro ecology report: Amharic
Version.

117
Shehu, Abdulaziz., and Abubaker, Nura. (2015). Determinants of Participation of Farm
households in Non-Farm Enterprises Activities in Rural Nigeria. International Journal of
Economics, Commerce and Management: Vol. III, Issue 6, United Kingdom.

Shenton, Andrew. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research

projects: Education for Information,22 pp. 63–75, IOS Press Division of Information and
Communication Studies, School of Informatics, Northumbria University, UK.

Singh, Ajay. S., and Masuku, Micah. B. (2014). Sampling Techniques and Determination of
Sample size in Applied Statistics Research: An overview. University of Swaziland,
Luyengo, Swaziland, International Journal of Economics, Commerce and Management,
Vol. II, Issue 11. United Kingdom.

SOFA Team and Cheryl, Doss. (2011). The role of women in agriculture: Working Paper No.
(11). Agricultural Development Economics Division. The Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations.

Stephen, Kwadwo. A., and Kasim, Hamza.(2015).Qualitative and Quantitative Research

Paradigms in Business Research: A Philosophical Reflection, European Journal of
Business and Management,7(3).

Shumete Gizaw.(2009). Poverty, Food insecurity and Livelihood strategies in Rural Gedeo: The
case of Haroressa and Chichu PAs, SNNP: In Proceedings of the 16th International
Conference of Ethiopian Studies, ed. by Svein Ege, Harald Aspen, Birhanu Teferra and
Shiferaw Bekele, Trondheim 2009.

Teddlie and Tashakkori.(2009).Foundations of Mixed Methods Research: Integrating

Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Sage
Publications, Inc., Los Angeles.

Tesfaye Aleka. (2010).Contributions, Opportunities and Constraints of Rural Non –farm

activities for Households Livelihoods in Ethiopia: A case study from Sinan Woreda,
Amhara Region, Unpublished Master Thesis, Addis Ababa University.

118
Tezera Mulugeta. (2010). Determinants of rural household livelihood diversification: The case
of Libokemkem woreda, Amhara Region. MSc thesis Addis Ababa University

Thatcher, R. (2010).Validity and reliability of quantitative electroencephalography (QEEG).

Journal of Neurotherapy, 3(14), 122-152.

Twycross, A., and Shields, L. (2004).Validity and reliability -What's it all about? Part 2
Reliability in Quantitative studies, Pediatric Nursing, 16 (10) p.36.

UNID (United Nation International Development). (1994).Women, industries entrepreneurship:

Women in Industry series: the Managing Director Industrial Sectors and Environment
Division United Nations Industrial Development Organization, Vienna, Austria.

UN.(2008). Rural Women in a Changing World: Opportunities and Challenges, women 2000
and beyond: United Nations | Division for the Advancement of Women | Department of
Economic and Social Affairs New York.

UN.(2009). World Survey on the Role of Women in Development, Department of Economic and
Social Affairs Division for the Advancement of Women, New York.

UNDP (United Nations Development Programme).(2017).Guidance Note Application of the

Sustainable Livelihood Framework in Development Projects. Regional Centre for Latin
America and the Caribbean, Panama City, Panama.

Varsha, T. (2016). A Case Study of the Growth & Challenges of Non –Farm Activities in
Gujarat. Journal of Economics and Finance, Vol, 7 Issue, 6, pp.73-79.

Victor, J. (2006). The SAGE Dictionary of Social Research Methods. (Ed.). London: SAGE

Publications Ltd.

Warren, P. (2002). Livelihoods Diversification and Enterprise Development: An Initial

Exploration of Concepts and Issues, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations ,Livelihood Support Programme (LSP) LSP Working Paper (4).

119
Wen-Chi Huang., Raju, Ghimire., and Rudra, Bahadur.S.(2014).Factors Affecting Non-farm
Income Diversification among rural farm households in Central Nepal, International
Journal of Agricultural Management and Development, 4(2): 123-132.

Worku Ifa. (2016). Livelihood Diversification as Household strategies: A case study of rural
kebelles around Gelan Town, Oromia, Ethiopia. Unpublished Master thesis, Addis Ababa
University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

World Bank. (2003). Sustainable Development in a Dynamic World. A publication of the World
Bank and the University of Oxford press. New York

World Bank.(2008). Agriculture for development: World Development report 2008. Washington,
DC:World Bank.

Yishak Gecho, Gezahegn Ayele, Tesfaye Lemma, Dawit Alemu.(2014). Rural Household
Livelihood Strategies: Options and Determinants in the Case of Wolaita Zone, Southern
Ethiopia. Social Sciences, 3(3), 92-104.

Yona Yohannes and Mathewos Tesfaye. (2017).Assessing challenges of non-farm livelihood

diversification in Boricha Woreda, Sidama zone. Journal of Development and
Agricultural Economics, Vol. 9(4), pp. 87-96.

Yong, G. (2011). Descriptive Strategies Research: Survey Analysis. Available at: http:// www./
descriptive- strategies- research-survey-analysis accessed on October 28/2017

Yuanxiang, Liu. (2017)."Pushed out or pulled in? Participation in non-farm activities in rural
China", China Agricultural Economic Review, Vol. 9 Issue:1.pp.111-129.

120
 APPENDICES

Appendix: i Interview Schedule

Bahir Dar University

Faculty of Social Science

Post Graduate Program

Department of Gender and Development Studies

Introduction

Interview Schedule

Dear Respondents:

This questionnaire is prepared to collect data for thesis work that required for the fulfillment of
Master‟s Degree in Gender and Development Studies and its purpose is to assess “Women‟s
Participation in Non –farm Activities in rural kebeles of Shebel Berenta Woreda”. It is designed
to generate data that can be used for academic purpose only and thereby to pose plausible
recommendations for the concerned bodies depending on the findings of the study. It consists of
questions linked to extent of women‟s participation in non-farm activities, the status of women‟s
participation in non-farm activities and the factors that determine women‟s participation in non-
farm activities in the study area.

The concrete and successful accomplishment of this study is determined by the data obtained
from you in the data collection process. Hence, the researcher requires your support and
cooperation to gather relevant information for the study. The reliability and validity of the study
depends on your response, therefore, please fill the questions carefully and correctly for the
success of this research. Therefore, please feel free and share your rational views. By being
participated to fill the questionnaire, no problem is followed on respondents since the result of
the study will be used just for academic purpose.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation!!

121
General Directions:

 No need of writing your name

 Please respond each question correctly and clearly, and return as soon as you finished.

General Information:

Enumerator full name: ___________________ Signature _____________

Date _________________ Questionnaire Code___________

Kebele ____________________

Part one: Personal Information or Demographic information. From the given alternatives,
circle your alternative answer or write your answer on given space.

1. Age of respondents (Years) ______________________

2. Marital Status i. Unmarried ii. Married iii. Divorced iv. Widowed

3. Total family size ________Male_____________Female______________

4. Educational status i. Illiterate ii. Read and write iii. Primary (1-8) iv. Secondary (9-12)
or above

5. Status of Household head i. Male- headed ii. Female -headed

Part -two: Questions concerned to factors that determine the participation of women in
non-farm activities, status of women’s participation in non-farm activities and extent in the
types of non-farm activities that women undertakes in rural areas. Choose from the options
given for each question and circle or write your answer.

6. Do you “participate” in non-farm activity (activities outside farming that carried out either at
home or outside home via self-employee and/ wage employee)?

A). Yes B). No

122
7. If the response for Question No,6 is “ Yes”, please indicate to what extent you are participate
in following listed non-farm activities through putting a tick mark (√) that appropriately?

No, Non-farm Activities Extent of participation

Not at all Occasionally Regularly

1 Trade(general grain trade and urban goods)

2 Pottery

3 Carpentry /masonry and house painting

4 Grain Milling Services

5 Tailoring
6 Tannery/leather works
7 Fire wood sale &Charcoal production
8 Selling vegetable and fruits
9 Traditional medicine
10 Photographing
11 Blacksmithing and Selling of Jewelry

12 Traditional Hairdressing
13 Making and Sale of local drinks and foods
14 Embroidery/weaving/spinning
15 Retail shopping/shop running
16 Daily-laboring/casual-wage-work(except
agricultural wage employment)
17 Food-for –Work
18 Formal Public sector employment
19 Community assigned/ local election position
(paid)
20 Private sector employment(paid)

123
8. In the non-farm activity that you have engaged, how do you work or employ in the non-farm
activity (Function)?

A. Self-employment (as self-employer)

B. Unskilled wage employment (Casual worker)

C. Skilled Wage employment (Regular salaried employee)

D. Both Self-employment and Unskilled wage employment

E. Both Skilled wage employment and Self-employment

F. Not involved in any non-farm work.

9. If the response for question number”6” is “Yes”, where you undertake your non-farm
activities (Location)? A.at home B. Local away from Home (nearest town) C. Distant away
from home (Migratory) D. Both home and away from home (town) E. Both home, outside
home, and Migratory

10. Does the household head own land? A. Yes B. No

11. If the answer for question number „10‟ is „‟Yes‟‟, how many hectares/ Timad of farming land
does your household own now? ___________________

12. Do you have access to water supply in your home? A. Yes B. No

13. Are you membership in social groups (Association)? A. Yes B. No

14. Do you have a responsibility to carry out all triple (productive, reproductive, and community)
gender roles in the household?

A. Yes B. No

15. Do you have access to formal credit services? A. Yes B. No

124
16. If your response is “Yes” for Question number” 15”,What are the sources of credit?
Multiple answers is possible

A). Microfinance institutions B. Bank C. Private Money lenders D.If others, please
specify--------------------

17. If the answer is” No” for question number “15”, what are the major constraints to get credit?
Multiple answers is possible.

A). Lack of collateral B).high amount of interest rate C).Absence of financial institution in
the residence D). Duration allowed to returning the loan E. If others specify------------------

18. Do you have access to non-farm activity training? A. Yes B. No

19. If your answer is “yes” for Question no,(18),which types of skill training ?

Multiple answers is possible.

A). Handicrafts B). Business management and/ entrepreneurship C). Services delivery
training D. If other specify---------------------------

20. How far is your home to nearest main Road (Km/Hr)? _____________

21. How far is your residence home to the main product Market (Km/Hr)? _____________

Thank you in advance for your cooperation!!!

125
 ባህርዳር ዩኒቨርሲቲ

ማህበራዊ ሳይንስ ፋካሊቲ

ድህረ-ምረቃ ፕሮግራም

የስርዓተ ፆታና ልማት ጥናት ትምህርት ክፍል

የዳሰሳ መጠይቅ

ውድ የመጠይቅ ተሳታፊዎች፡

ይህ መጠይቅ የ ተዘጋጀው በስርዓተ ፆታና ልማት ጥናት ለሁለተኛ ዲግሪ መመረቅያ ጥናታዊ
ፅሁፍ ለማካሄድ ሲሆን አላማውም “የ ሴቶች ተሳትፎ ከግብርና-ውጭ በሆኑ ሰራዎች በሸበል በረንታ ወረዳ”
በሚል ርእስ መረጃ ለመሰብሰብ ነ ው፡ ፡ የሚሰበሰበው መረጃ ለትምህርታዊ አላማ እና በጥናቱ ግኝት
መሰረት ችግሮች ላይ በሚመለከተው አካል ለቀጣይ እርምጃዎች እንዲወስድ አስተያየ ት ለመስጠት ብቻ የ ሚውል
ይሆናል፡ ፡ ጥያቄዎቹ የ ሚያተኩሩት ሴቶች ከግብርና ውጭ ስለሚሰሩዓቸው ሰራዎች እና አሁን ስላለው የ ሴቶች
ከግብርና-ውጭ በሆኑ ሰራዎች ላይ ያላቸው ተሳትፎ እንዲሁም ተሳትፉአቸዉን ስለሚወስኑ ጉዳዮች ዙርያ
የ ተዘጋጁ ናቸዉ፡ ፡ የ ጥናቱ ዉጤታማነ ት የ ሚወሰነ ዉ በዚህ በሚሰበሰበዉ መረጃ ና እርስዎ በሚሰጡት መረጃ
መሰረት ነ ዉ፡ ፡ ስለሆነ ም የ እርሰዎ ድጋፍና ትብብር ይህን መጠይቅ ለመሙ
ላት ወይም መረጃ ለመስጠት
በእጅጉ አስፈላጊ ነ ዉ፡ ፡ የ ጥናቱ ዉጤትም ለፖሊሲ አዘጋጆች ፣ ለትምህርታዊ አላማ እና መንግስታዊ እና
መንግስታዊ ላልሆኑ ድርጅቶች ሊጠቅም ይችላል፡ ፡ መጠይቁን ለመሙ
ላት በምሳተፍዎ ምንም ችግር
አይደርስብዎም ምክንያቱም የ ጥናቱ ውጤት ለትምህርታዊ ኣላማ የ ሚውል ሰለሆነ ፡ ፡ ስለዚህ እባክዎት
ሀሳብዎን በነ ጻነ ት እንዲያካፍሉና መረጃዉን እንዲሞሉ በአክብሮት እጠይቃለሁ፡ ፡

በቅድሚያ ስለትብብርዎ እጅግ በጣም አመሰግናለሁ፡ ፡

ማስገንዘቢያ፡

 ስምዎትን መፃ ፍ አያስፈልግም
 እባክዎ ሞልተዉ እንደጨረሱ በቶሎ ይመልሱ

126
  እባክዎ እያንዳንዱን ጥያቄ በትክክልና በአግባቡ ይሙ
ሉ
አጠቃላይ መረጃ

የ መርጃ ሰብሳቢዉ ሙ
ሉ ስም ___________________ፊርማ___________________
ቀን_________________________ ቀበሌ
_______________________________
የ መጠየ ቅ መለያቁጥር___________________

ክፍል -1: የመረጃ ሰጭ

ዎች ግላዊ መረጃ፡ ለሚከተሉት ጥያቄዎች ምላሽዎን ይሙ
ሉ ወይንም መልሱን
ያክብቡ፡ ፡

1. ዕድሜዎ ስንት ነ ው? _________________

2. የ ጋብቻ ሁኔታ ሀ. ያላገ ባች ለ. ያገ ባች ሐ. ከባልዋ የ ተፋታች መ. ባልዋ የ ሞተባት
3. አጠቃላይ የ ቤተሰብ አባላት ብዛት_________ወንድ-------------- ሴት-------------------
4. የ ትምህርት ደረጃ ሀ. ያልተማረች ለ. ማንበብና መፃ ፍ የ ምትችል ሐ.
የ መጅመሪያ ደረጃ (1-8) መ. ሁለተኛ ደረጃ(9-12) ወይም ከዚያ በላይ
5. የ ቤተሰብ ሁኔታ ሀ. በወንድ የ ሚመራ ( ኣባወራ ) ለ. በሴት የ ሚመራ (እማወራ)

ክፍል 2፡ ይህ ክፍል የሴቶችን ተሳትፎ ከግብርና-ውጭባሉ ሰራዎች ላይ የተሳትፎ ሁኔታቸውን የሚወስኑ

ጉዳዮች፣ አሁን ስላለዉ የሴቶች ከግብርና-ውጭበሆኑ ሰራዎች ላይ ያላቸው የተሳትፎ ሁኔታ፤ ሴቶች በገጠር
አካባቢ ሰለሚሠሩአቸው ከግብርና-ውጭያሉ ሰራዎች እና የቱን ያህል እደሚሳተፉባቸው ለመገምገም የተዘጋጁ
ጥያቄዎችን ያካተተ ነ ዉ፡ ፡ ከአማራጮ
ች ዉስጥ መልስዎን ያክብቡ ወይም ለእያንዳንዱ በተሠጠው ቦታ ላይ
ይሙ
ሉ፡ ፡

6. ከግብርና -ውጭ በሆኑ(በቤት ውስጥ እና ከቤት ውጭ በግል ወይም በክፍያ የ ሚሠሩ ግብርና-
ያልሆኑ) ሰራዎች ላይ ይሳተፋሉ? ሀ. አዎ ለ. ኣልሳተፍም
7.ለጥያቄ ቁጥር “6” መልስዎ “አዎ” ከሆነ እባክዎ ከተዘረዘሩት ከግብርና -ውጭ በሆኑ
ሰራዎች ላይ ምን ያህል እንደሚሳተፉ ወይም ያለዎትን የ ተሳትፎ ሁኔታ ለእያንዳንዱ ሰራ በተሠጠው
ቦታ ላይ(√) ያመልክቱ፡ ፡
ተራቁጥር ከግብርና-ውጭያሉ ተግባራት/ሰራዎች ምን ያህል ይሳተፋሉ?

በጭራሸ አልፎ አልፎ ሁል ጊዜ

አልሳተፍም

127
1. ንግድ(የ ጥራጥሬ ችርቻሮ ወይም ጅምላ ንግድ)

2. ሸክላ ስራ

3 የ ዐናጢነ ት ሙ
ያ/የ ግንበኝነ ት ሙ
ያ፤ ልሰና ፤ ቀለም መቀባት

4 የ ወፍጮ ቤት አገ ልግሎት መስጠት

5 ልብስ ስፌት
6 ቆዳ መፋቅ፤ ከቆዳ የ መገ ልገ ያ ዕቃወችን መስራት
7 የ ማገ ዶ እንጨት እና ከሠል መሸጥ
8 አትክልት እና ፍራፍሬ መሸጥ
9 የ ባህላዊ ህክምና አገ ልግሎት መስጠት
10 የ ፎቶግራፍ አገ ልግሎት
11 ቀጥቃጭ(ብርታብርት ስራ) እና ጌጣጌጥ መሸጥ

12 ባህላዊ ሹሩባ ስራ
13 ባህላዊ መጠጦችን እና ምግብ አዘጋጅቶ መሸጥ
14 ሽመና ስራ፤ ፈትል እና ማቅለም
15 መለሰተኛ ወይም አነ ስተኛ ሱቅ ላይ መስራት
16 የ ቀን ሰራ/ የ ጉልበት ሰራ(ከግብርና ስራዎች ውጭ)
17 ምግብ-ለ-ስራ
18 መደበኛ የ መንግስት መስሪያ ቤት ሰራ
19 በክፍያ የ ሚሰራ የ ማህበረሰብ ውክልና ሰራ
20 በክፍያ የ ሚሰራ የ ግል ድርጅት ስራ
8. በሚሳተፉባቸው ከግብርና-ውጭ ባሉ የ ስራ መስኮች ላይ ያለዎት የ ቅጥር ሁኔታ ወይም ስራዎትን
የሚሠሩት እንዴት ነ ው?
ሀ. በግል ለ. እንደ ቀን ሠራተኛ ሐ. እንደ መደበኛ መንግስት ሠራተኛ መ. በግል ሠራተኛነ ት
እና በቀን ሠራተኛነ ት ሠ. እንደ ግል ሠራተኛ እና መደበኛ ሠራተኛ ረ. በጭራሸ
አልሠራም/አልሳተፍም
9.ለጥያቄ ቁጥር “6 ” መልስዎ “አዎ” ከሆነ ፣ ከግብርና -ውጭ የ ሆኑ ተግባራትን/ሰራዎችን የ ሚሠሩት
የ ት ነ ው?

128
ሀ. ቤት ዉስጥ ለ. ከቤት -ውጭ ወይም በቅርብ በሚገ ኝ ከተማ ሐ. ሩቅ ቦታ በመሂድ/በፍልሰት
መ. በቤት ዉስጥ እንዲሁም ከቤት -ውጭ ሠ. በቤት ዉስጥ፣ ከቤት ውጭ እንዲሁም ሩቅ ቦታ
በመሂድ/በፍልሰት
10. የ ቤተሠቡ ሀላፊ የ ራሱ የ ሆነ መሬት አለው/አለዎት? ሀ. አዎ ለ. የ ለም
11. ለጥያቄ ቁጥር “10” መልስዎ አዎ ከሆነ ፣ የ እርሻ መሬትዎ በሄክታር/በጥማድ ስንት
ነ ው?__________________________________
12. በመኖርያ ቤትዎ ውስጥ ንጹህ የ መጠጥ ውሀ አቅርቦትና ተደራሸነ ት አለዎት?
ሀ.አዎ ለ. የ ለም
13. ማህበረሰቡ በመሠረታቸዉ የ ህብረተሰብ ተቁዐማት፤ ማህበራት፤ ድርጅቶች አባል ነ ዎት?
ሀ. አዎ ለ. የ ለም
14. ሁሉንም የ ስርዓተ-ጾታ ሚናዎች(የ ማምረት፣ ዘር የ መተካት፤ የ ማህበረሰብ አገ ልግሎት) በቤትዎ ዉስጥ
የ መተግበር ወይም የ ማከናወን ኀላፊነ ት አለብዎት? ሀ. አዎ ለ. የ ለም

15. መደበኛ የ ሆነ የ ብድር አገ ልግሎት ያገ ኛሉ? ሀ. አዎ ለ. የ ለም

16. ለጥያቄ ቁጥር “15” መልስዎ “አዎ” ከሆነ ፤ የ ብድር ምንጭዎ እነ ማን ናቸው?
ሀ. አነ ስተኛ የ ገ ንዘብ አበዳሪ ተቋማት ለ.ባንክ ሐ. የ ግል አበዳሪዎች መ.ሌላ ካለ
ይጥቀሱ_______________________
17. ለጥያቄ ቁጥር “15” መልስዎ የ ለም ከሆነ ፤ ለእርስዎ ብድር ለማግኘት እንደ ዋና ችግር የ ሆኑብዎት
ምን ምን ናቸው? ሀ. ማስያዣ ገ ንዘብ አለመኖር ለ. ከፍተኛ የ ሆነ የ ወለድ መጠን መኖር ሐ.
አበዳሪ የ ገ ንዘብ ተቋማት በአካባቢ አለመኖር መ. ብድሩን ለመመለስ የ ሚፈቀደው ጊዜ አጭር መሆኑ
ሠ. ሌላ ካለ ይጥቀሱ________________________

18.ከግብርና-ውጭ በሆኑ(ግብርና-ባልሆኑ) ተግባራት ላይ ስልጠናዎችን አግኝተዋል/ወስደዋል?

ሀ. አዎ ለ. የ ለም
19. ለጥያቄ ቁጥር “18” መልስዎ “አዎ” ከሆነ ፤ ምን አይነ ት የ ክህሎት ስልጠና ነ ው ያገ ኙት? ሀ.የ እጅ
ሙ
ያ ስራዎች ለ. የ ገ ንዘብ አያያዝና ስራ ፈጠራ ክህሎት ሐ. የ አገ ልግሎት አሰጣጥ ሰልጠና
መ. ሌላ ካለ ይጥቀሱ________________
20. መኖርያ ቤትዎ ከዋና መንገ ድ(የ ገ በያ መንገ ድ) ምን ያህል ይርቃል (በኪሎሜትር ወይም
በሰአት)?________________
21.ዋና የ ገ በያ ቦታው ከመኖሪያ ቤትዎ ምን ያህል ይርቃል (በኪሎሜትር ወይም
በሰአት)?________________

129
 ለትብብርዎ በጣም አመሰግናለሁ !!!

Appendix: ii Guide Lines for Interviews

I. Interview Guideline for Key Informant interviews

A. Guide line for Local Administrators( Officials to all four selected kebeles)

1. Researcher introduction

2. What did you think about the activities outside agriculture?

3. What are the non-farm activities that are undertaken by farm households (especially by
women) in your kebeles?

4. Does your kebele administration office provide support for those who are willing to involve
and being involved in non-farm activities (please elaborate: concerning monitoring support,
working place and provision of loan, provision of hand tools…… etc….)?

5. What are the major challenges that women faced in non-farm activities participation (Eg.
Trade, charcoal selling, handicrafts, public employment, sale of local drinks etc) in your kebele?
(Please elaborate: regarding societal outlook, working place, financial, infrastructure…)?

6. Your any suggestion to improve the situation?

B. Interview guideline for Shebel Berenta Woreda Technic, Vocational and Enterprises
Development Officials (TVEDO)

1. Researcher introduction

2. In the Woreda context, to what extent women participate in non-farm activities (please
elaborate regarding to manufacturing, trade, service)?

3. What are the major challenges reported to your offices/institution by women while pursuing
non-farm activities (eg. Handicraft, trade, services)?(if there is the case regarding financial,
societal and locational challenges please elaborate?).

130
4. From your woreda context, what are the constraints that limit the participation of women in
non-farm activities (Manufacture, trade, and services): please elaborate the challenges (regarding
financial, infrastructure, social outlook, Skill training, laws and regulations….etc,)?

5. Is there any effort made in your woreda to improve women‟s participation in non-farm
activities?

6. Your any suggestion to improve the situation?

C. Interview guideline for Shebel Berenta Woreda Trade, Industry and Market
Development (TIMDO) Officials

1. Researcher introduction

2. How do you see the condition of women‟s participation in income generating activities (trade)
from the woreda context?

3. What challenges women face in non-farm income generating activities including trade?

4. Does the institution provide support (advisory services, technology, working place, and market
linkage) for women throughout participation in non-farm activities in rural areas?

5. Your any suggestion to improve the situation?

D. Interview guideline for Shebel Berenta Woreda Women’s and Children Affair’s Officials

1. Researcher introduction

2. How do you see the condition of women‟s participation in income generating activities
including non-farm activities from the woreda context?

3. From your woreda context, what are the constraints that limit the participation of women in
non-farm activities and to be economically empowered from the non-farm sector?

4. What are the opportunities provided by your offices/institution for women‟s in non-farm
activity participation?

5. Is there any effort made in your woreda to improve women‟s participation in income
generating activities including non-farm activities?

6. Your any suggestion to improve the situation

131
II. Interview Guideline for Focus Group Discussants (FGD)

1. Researcher introduction

2. What are the dominant non-farm activities in your kebelles?

3. What are the non-farm activities that are undertaken by women in your kebelles?

4. Discuss on the available opportunities that enable you to be active participant while
undertaking non-farm activities?

5. Discuss on issues of challenges that hinder yours active participation while participating in
non-farm activities (issues concerning societal attitude, financial, government support (working
place, monitoring support, hand tools assistance), and infrastructural (road, market, transport,
water supply….etc.)?

6. Suggested solution from the participant.

Thank You in Advance for Your Cooperation!!!

III. Guiding checklists for observation concerning to women participation in RNFA.

1. Notice the types of activities in non-farm that women pursue in selected kebelles.

2. Observing availability of Local infrastructure to NFA participation in selected kebelles.

3. See the availability of Natural Resources and Working place for NFA participation.

4. Observe the place where the activities in non-farm mostly Practices by Women?.

Appendix: iii Background information, Date and Place of FGD participants of the Study

No Age Education Marital Family Groups Agro Date of Place of

- status status size Ecology Discussion Discussion

1 48 Illiterate Married 5 IV Woina Feburuary, Selelkula

Dega 27/2018 Primary school

2 52 Illiterate Married 7 IV “ “ “

3 31 Can read Divorced 3 IV “ “ “

and write

132
4 49 Illiterate Married 7 IV “ “ “

5 34 Illiterate Married 4 IV “ “ “

6 30 Secondary Married 5 IV “ “ “
education

7 28 Can read Married 4 IV “ “ “

and write

8 32 Primary Married 5 IV “ „‟ “
education

9 39 Primary Divorced 4 III “ February, GebsitPeasant

education 21/2018 Association hall

10 44 Illiterate Widowed 6 III “ “ “

11 24 Can read unmarried 2 III “ “ “

and write

12 45 Can read Widowed 3 III “ “ “

and write

13 34 Illiterate Married 4 III “ “ “

14 23 Primary Unmarried 2 III “ “ “

education

15 37 Can read Divorced 2 III “ “ “

and write

16 46 Can read Married 6 III “ “

and write “

Back ground information, Date and Place of the FGD participants of the study

No Age Education Marital Famil Groups Agro Date of Place of

, status status y size ecology Discussion Discussion

1 42 Illiterate Married 5 II Kolla February Karma Conflict

Resolution
16/2018 Center

2 55 Illiterate Married 7 II “ “ “

3 39 Illiterate Divorced 3 II “ “ “

133
 4 48 Illiterate Married 6 II “ “ “

5 34 Can read and Married 4 II “ “ “

write

6 30 Illiterate Divorced 3 II “ “ “

7 38 Primary Married 4 I “ February AbaSlmaEleme

education 12/2018 ntary School

8 32 Illiterate Married 5 I “ “ “

9 42 Illiterate Divorced 2 I “ “ “

10 36 Can read and Widowed 3 I “ “

write “

11 23 Primary unmarried 1 I “ “ “
education

12 49 Illiterate Widowed 8 I “ “ “

Appendix: iv Shebel Berenta Woreda Kebeles Agro –ecological Classification and No, HH

No, Agro ecology Kebeles Percent(%)

1 Woyina- Dega Worego,Woyinye,SelelkulaenaAkababiw,Moxen
27.7%
enaakababiw,Gedaeyesus,YedwuhaenaAkababiw,Gebsit,
Mergechena Akababiw,Suha, Ladie, Yeju.
2 Kolla Abara,Boneya-Sekella,Webo-Werie,Karma,Yitahana, 72.3%
Arbekuy,Ansheb, AbaslmaEna Daboch
Source: Shebel Berenta Woreda Communication affairs office, 2017

Shebel Berenta Woreda Rural Kebeles Number of Male and Female-Headed Households

134
 No, Name of Rural Kebeles’ Sex

Male Female Total

1 Worego ena Akababiw 1172 459 1631
2 Woynye ena Akababiw 1249 471 1720
3 Selelkulaena Akababiw 1396 736 2132
4 Moxen ena Akababiw 1702 818 2520
5 Geda Eyesus 1433 546 1979
6 Yeduha Ena Akababiw 1439 723 2162
7 Gebsit 846 523 1369
8 Mergechena Akababiw 1195 544 1739
9 Suha 1172 559 1731
10 Ladie 1060 552 1612
11 Yeju 1752 725 2477
12 Abara 481 134 615
13 Boneya- Sekella 1211 474 1685
14 WoboWerie ena Akababiw 2002 739 2741
15 Karma 508 217 725
16 Yitahana 1025 364 1389
17 Arbekuy 1317 282 1599
18 Ansheb-Zuchr 904 404 1308
19 Abaslma ena Daboch 975 480 1455
Grand
Total= Male =22,839

Female=9,750

Total=32,589

Source: Shebel Berenta Woreda Communication affairs office, 2017

135
 Appendix : v: Chi-square Results output

Participation of women in NFA

Variables Categories Frequency Frequency 2 p- value
(%) yes (%) No
Unmarried 88.2 11.8 35.550
Marital status Married 38.1 61.9 0.000
Divorced 71.8 28.2
Widowed 74.3 25.7
18-29 years old 29 71
30-41 years old 53.2 46.8 28.990 0.000
Age 42-53 years old 71.2 28.8
54-65 years old 41.9 50.9
>65 years old 26.8 73.2
1-3 family size 36.8 63.2
Family size 4-6 family size 57.5 42.5 15.496 0.000
> 6 family size 68.3 31.7
Educational Illiterate 34.5 65.5
level Read and write 56.2 43.8 26.654 0.000
Primary 75 25
Secondary or 63.2 36.8
above
Status of Male headed 38.1 61.9 34.216 0.000
household
Female headed 75.8 24.2
head
Land size <0.5 hectare 70.2 29.8 57.956 0.000
0.51- 1 hectare 81 19
>1 hectare 72.5 25.5

136
 Chi-square results output
Participation of women in NFA
Variables Categories Frequency Frequency 2 p- value
(%) yes (%) No
Access of Yes 72.5 27.5
water supply No 37.6 62.4 30.850 0.000
Membership yes 55.3 44.7
of social No 38.2 61.8 5.889 0.017
groups
Having Triple Yes 39 61 45.438 0.000
gender roles No 86.6 13.4

Access of Yes 89.6 10.4

credit services No 25.5 74.5 105.273 0.000
Access of Yes 86 14
NFA training No 34.3 65.7 62.576 0.000
Distance of < 1 km 80.7 19.3 66.559
main Road 1-2 km 58.2 41.8 0.000
>1 km 21.9 78.1
Distance of <4 km 94.7 5.3 43.436 0.000
main Market 4-8 km 53.3 46.7
>8 km 33 67

Source: Computed from Survey data, 2018.

137
 Appendix: Vi. Binary Logistic Regression Output

Omnibus Tests of Model Coefficients

Chi-square Df Sig.
Step 260.479 24 .000
Ste
Block 260.479 24 .000
p1
Model 260.479 24 .000

Model Summary
Step -2 Log Cox & Snell Nagelkerke R
likelihood R Square Square
1 109.568a .623 .831
a. Estimation terminated at iteration number 7 because
parameter estimates changed by less than .001.

Hosmer and Lemeshow Test

Step Chi-square Df Sig.
1 2.884 8 .941

Classification Tablea
Observed Predicted
Participation in Non -farm activity Percentage
No Yes Correct

Participation in Non -farm No 119 12 90.8

Step activity Yes 11 125 91.9
1
Overall Percentage 91.4
a. The cut value is .500

138
 Variables in the Equation
B S.E. Wald Df Sig. Exp(B) 95%C.I.for EXP(B)
Lower Upper
Agecat 11.800 4 .019
Agecat(1) .645 1.103 .342 1 .558 1.907 .219 16.569
Agecat(2) 2.519 .927 7.380 1 .007 12.421 2.017 76.488
Agecat(3) 3.305 1.057 9.785 1 .002 27.253 3.436 216.171
Agecat(4) 1.564 1.005 2.420 1 .120 4.778 .666 34.274
Maristat 9.032 3 .029
Maristat(1) .018 1.682 .000 1 .991 1.018 .038 27.510
Maristat(2) -1.297 1.731 .561 1 .454 .273 .009 8.136
Maristat(3) -3.211 1.124 8.164 1 .004 .040 .004 .365
Famsize 2.848 2 .241
Famsize(1) -1.459 .907 2.591 1 .107 .232 .039 1.374
Famsize(2) -1.047 .752 1.940 1 .164 .351 .080 1.532
Edulevel 12.952 3 .005
Edulevel(1) .671 1.127 .355 1 .552 1.956 .215 17.801
Edulevel(2) 2.500 1.244 4.038 1 .044 12.182 1.064 139.539
Ste
Edulevel(3) 3.531 1.349 6.854 1 .009 34.154 2.429 480.206
p
Stathhd(1) -2.776 1.549 3.211 1 .073 .062 .003 1.297
1a
Landsize 15.560 2 .000
Landsize(1) 2.737 .984 7.746 1 .005 15.446 2.247 106.163
Landsize(2) 2.319 .632 13.482 1 .000 10.169 2.949 35.070
Wateracess(1) -1.084 .631 2.949 1 .086 .338 .098 1.166
Membingroup(1) -.125 .662 .035 1 .851 .883 .241 3.231
Triplgenderol(1) 2.034 .736 7.633 1 .006 7.647 1.806 32.382
Accesscredt(1) -2.670 .616 18.784 1 .000 .069 .021 .232
Acesstraining(1) -1.426 .631 5.115 1 .024 .240 .070 .827
Distnearstroad 1.997 2 .368
Distnearstroad(1) 1.286 .947 1.844 1 .174 3.617 .566 23.124
Distnearstroad(2) .820 .734 1.248 1 .264 2.271 .539 9.574
Distmainmarkt 2.566 2 .277
Distmainmarkt(1) 1.292 1.503 .739 1 .390 3.639 .191 69.185
Distmainmarkt(2) -.501 .737 .463 1 .496 .606 .143 2.568
Constant 1.910 1.684 1.287 1 .257 6.752
a. Variable(s) entered on step 1: Agecat, Maristat, Famsize, Edulevel, Stathhd, Landsize, Wateracess,
Membingroup, Triplgenderol, Accesscredt, Acesstraining, Distnearstroad, Distmainmarkt.

139
Declaration

I declare that “Women’s Participation in Non-Farm Activities: The case of Shebel Berenta
Woreda, East Gojjam Zone, Amhara National Regional State” (thesis title) is my own work and
that all the sources that I have used or quoted have been indicated and acknowledged by means
of complete references.

Student‟s name: Eyayu Kasseye

Signature: ________________________

Date: _____________________________

140