Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31582871›Full record

ArticleWorld development2019

Development of the project-level Women's Empowerment in Agriculture Index (pro-WEAI).

Hazel Malapit, Agnes Quisumbing, Ruth Meinzen-Dick, Greg Seymour, Elena M Martinez, Jessica Heckert, Deborah Rubin, Ana Vaz, Kathryn M Yount, Gender Agriculture Assets Project Phase 2 (GAAP2) Study Team

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in World development, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 58 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
58citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

58 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Increasing Production Diversity and Diet Quality: Evidence from Bangladesh.American journal of agricultural economics · 2024
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Hazel MalapitInternational Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC, USA.
Agnes QuisumbingInternational Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC, USA.
Ruth Meinzen-DickInternational Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC, USA.
Greg SeymourInternational Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC, USA.
Elena M MartinezInternational Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC, USA.
Jessica HeckertInternational Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC, USA.
Deborah RubinCultural Practice, LLC, USA.
Ana VazOxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative, United Kingdom.
Kathryn M YountEmory University, USA.
Gender Agriculture Assets Project Phase 2 (GAAP2) Study Team

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With growing commitment to women's empowerment by agricultural development agencies, sound methods and indicators to measure women's empowerment are needed to learn which types of projects or project-implementation strategies do and do not work to empower women. The Women's Empowerment in Agriculture Index (WEAI), which has been widely used, requires adaptation to meet the need for monitoring projects and assessing their impacts. In this paper, the authors describe the adaptation and validation of a project-level WEAI (or pro-WEAI) that agricultural development projects can use to identify key areas of women's (and men's) disempowerment, design appropriate strategies to address identified deficiencies, and monitor project outcomes related to women's empowerment. The 12 pro-WEAI indicators are mapped to three domains: intrinsic agency (power within), instrumental agency (power to), and collective agency (power with). A gender parity index compares the empowerment scores of men and women in the same household. The authors describe the development of pro-WEAI, including: (1) pro-WEAI's distinctiveness from other versions of the WEAI; (2) the process of piloting pro-WEAI in 13 agricultural development projects during the Gender, Agriculture, and Assets Project, phase 2 (GAAP2); (3) analysis of quantitative data from the GAAP2 projects, including intrahousehold patterns of empowerment/disempowerment; and (4) a summary of the findings from the qualitative work exploring concepts of women's empowerment in the project sites. The paper concludes with a discussion of lessons learned from pro-WEAI and possibilities for further development of empowerment metrics.

Indexed as

AgencyAgricultural developmentGender equalityMultidimensional measurementWomen’s empowerment

Identifiers

PMID31582871
PMCPMC6694750

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.