Agriculture and Human Values 18: 41–48, 2001. © 2001 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.
Access and control of resources: Lessons from the SANREM CRSP Cornelia Butler Flora North Central Regional Center for Rural Development, Department of Sociology, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, USA
Accepted in revised form January 15, 2000
Abstract. Attention to differences within communities is important in working toward sustainability of an agroecosystem. In the Sustainable Agriculture and Natural Resource Management Collaborative Research Support Program, gender made a difference in terms of access and control over key resources – financial, human, natural, and social capital – critical for project success. Efforts to build social capital among women proved critical in developing both collective and households strategies for sustainability. The sites differed greatly in both landscape and lifescape. Women’s position within each landscape provided an important perspective with which to assess and act toward achieving ecosystem, economic, and social sustainability. Key words: Gender, Natural resource management, Participatory research, Social capital Cornelia Flora is Director of the North Central Regional Center for Rural Development, a twelve state research and outreach center based at Iowa State University. She has been part of the SANREM CRSP since the proposal revision period in 1991. A faculty member of the Department of Sociology at Iowa State University and a Senior Fellow, School of Agriculture Endowed Chair in Agricultural Systems at the University of Minnesota, her current research focuses on the North Central region of the United States and Latin America.
Toward Sustainability: A Plan for Alternative Action, published by the Board on Agriculture of the prestigious National Research Council in 1991, set the stage for the Collaborative Research Support Program (CRSP) on Sustainable Agriculture and Natural Resource Management (SANREM). That Plan was much more complex than the traditional development activity and the existing CRSPs, in that it sought sustainability, not productivity alone, and called for a commitment to a systems-based approach to research and to interdisciplinary inquiry. Particular attention was to be paid to integrated pest management, integrated nutrient management, integrated institutional management, and the social, political, and institutional contexts. The research was particularly directed to address issues of gender and agriculture, the impact of production alternatives on social structure, and ways to strengthen critical human resources, including especially local knowledge. A strong social science – and a strong gender component – were part of the winning consortium’s proposal. This paper will not lay out the trials and tribulations involved in operationalizing what is obviously a well-designed framework for collaborative research. Instead, I will lay out some of the lessons that we learned about the importance of analyzing how access and control of resources are gendered in different settings that impact not only gender equity but project efficiency.
SANREM was active in a number of sites with collaborative programs with other groups, but the integrated programs in the first five years of SANREM was in three main sites in the Philippines, Burkina Faso, and Ecuador.
The landscapes and lifescapes Lantapan in Mindinao in the Philippines is a diverse landscape that followed the Malapali watershed from the cloud forest where it originated to where it was dammed to create a lake and hydroelectric power. The lifescape (a termed used by SANREM to indicate the equal importance of the social with the biophysical) was equally diverse, from indigenous groups at the top of the watershed to a variety of ethnic groups that had migrated to the area over time, clearing the cloud forest for agriculture and contributing the rapid siltation of the lake – and the potential blockage of the hydroelectric plant. In Burkina Faso, the village of Donsin represented an arid farming/pastoral system, with nomadic herders passing through consuming the grass and leaving manure. Donsin represents a soudano-sahelian cereal farming system, with sorghum and millet predominating as staple crops and groundnuts, bambara groundnuts, rainfed rice, and cowpeas being grown both for
42
C ORNELIA B UTLER F LORA
consumption and for sale. The land was relatively flat, and the river that passed through it only had water in the wet season. The sedentary Mossi community was experiencing a settling out of Fulani pastoralists. In Ecuador, four adjacent villages, collectively referred to as Nanegal, in the buffer area around the Cotacachi-Callapas bioreserve defined the area for study. An area of colonization in the 1950s and 1960s, the area included farmland on riverbanks and steep hillsides where sugar cane was grown. Further up and down the mountain were pastures of varying quality and some forest regrowth. Finally, there were forest remnants associated with each community.
Sustainability and gender The Plan did not define sustainability, but left it to the research teams to define, measure, and enhance. But it was clear that the definition and operationalization needed to include environmental, economic, and social aspects (Holling et al., 1997). Understanding gendered access to and control of resources contributes to the enhancement of each of these dimensions of sustainability. Ideology and access and control of resources Ideology, or superstructure,1 influences how access to and control of resources are gendered. (Gender is a social construct, linking sex, a biological variable, to expected characteristics and behavior.) Women in all the SANREM sites were generally viewed in the initial diagnostic (PLLA or Participatory Landscape/Lifescape Appraisal) as uniquely suited for domestic, reproductive activities, such as food preparation, washing and cleaning, health maintenance, and child care, based on the uniquely female potential to bear children. Men in several of the cultural settings in Burkina Faso, Ecuador, and the Philippines are viewed as innately incapable of such nurturing activity, with their inability to give birth offered as evidence. Men in all these settings are vested by law and custom with property rights as well as the control of the labor of household members. Women are sometimes viewed as too weak or too emotional to have such control, as revealed in our work with male and female focus groups in the Ecuadorian site. Those viewpoints are shared through cultural norms and codified through law. Importantly, one of our Ecuadorian colleagues, Martha Ordoñez, was a key player in introducing a series of constitutional changes in 1998 that changed many of those laws in Ecuador. In Burkina Faso’s Mossi communities,2 women are excluded from normative control of land not so
much because of ascribed psychological attributes but because structurally the continuity of household and lineage hinges on patrilinal descent, another creation of the ideological superstructure. Land, which has been settled and farmed by ancestors and that now provides for household’s subsistence, embodies and ensures that continuity. Women are allocated small (usually marginal) plots by their husbands to grow crops to use for consumption and sale. They can grow whatever they want on their own plots, they are limited not in what to grow but as to where (marginal areas) and when (only in the early morning and evenings when they are not engaged on the family field). Women also work on the household farm, where they have no say in what is produced (Kevane and Gray, 1999). Gender ideology assigns household heads the responsibility of ensuring provision of staple grains and they control the labor process and the output distribution of the household farm, but by no means is it considered theirs to dispose of without the consent of those whose labor was invested in it. Rather than outright domination or exclusion, women’s relationship to resources within the household is more of a negotiated compromise between cooperation and conflict (Roncoli, 1999). Roncoli (1999) found that women’s participation in agricultural decision makings regarding what to grow on family fields has been increasing, depending on differences among women. Older wives are more likely to participate in these decisions, having their husband’s confidence and respect by contributing to household survival (at times of famine) and reproduction (bearing sons). Climate change has increased the role of women in such decision making. Roncoli sees the change in women’s decision making in agriculture as a corollary of the generalized loss of confidence in traditional knowledge that has been caused by ecological (climate change, soil degradation) and ideological changes (development rhetoric, formal education). The knowledge and experience of male elders has become, in their own as well as in the estimation of others, less reliable for a number of reason, so that they are more inclined than before to diffuse decision making. Beliefs about “inherent” traits associated with men and women can work to women’s advantage. While in Donsin, men are better placed for controlling financial capital, shared notions about men’s and women’s inherent qualities and capacities (i.e., women are more responsible, dependable, stable, etc.) has meant in some cases that women may have greater chance of participating in credit schemes or in borrowing money. Indeed, early on in the participatory research, the male community leaders demanded a credit project for the women.
ACCESS AND CONTROL OF RESOURCES
Domestic responsibility and perceptions of sustainability Women’s responsibilities in the domestic sphere in all three settings give them different points of view of sustainability and when it is threatened (Lennie, 1999). In both the Philippines and Burkina Faso, SANREM discovered that women’s access and control over resources – financial, manufactured, human, social, and environmental – often limits their ability to act effectively to translate perceptions of an environmental threat into concrete action. SANREM-related research (Shields et al., 1996) found in Siquijor and Leyte in the Philippines that women were much more inclined to protect common resources than men, because those resources represented the base for their domestic and market activities. But because men’s goals were viewed as more important, women’s common resources were consistently destroyed in areas of high external market penetration. Material conditions and ideology come together in interaction among human beings for mutual support. Those interactions create communities of interest and of place. SANREM based its work in communities of place, but, in the course of the research, came to appreciate communities of interest within communities of place. Interactions, trust, and collective action have been termed social capital (Coleman, 1988; Putnam, 1993a; Putnam, 1993b; J. Flora, 1998). Social capital is relatively vulnerable, in part because it is difficult to quantify and therefore often ignored. It is also gendered, as men and women often have different networks and different ways of building and generating trust, due to their different material and cultural positions. We found that in Ecuador, the social capital of women as well as men contributed to the success of various production strategies (Larrea et al., 1998). In Burkina Faso, men’s social capital was enhanced by their ability to participate in collective labor parties, which among other benefits, provided them a meal during the hungry period, when food is very scarce. On the other hand, women’s social capital (networks of women in the same trade) provides them with potential sources of credit and assistance at times of need (Roncoli, 1999). Gender differences are not rooted in biology per se (Rocheleau et al., 1996). Yet gender differences in social and spatial location within an ecosystem result in gendered knowledge, resource rights, and organizations, which all determine definition of and action toward sustainability. Sustainability of all the agroecosystems included in SANREM is challenged by rapid change, exacerbated by the increased mobility of financial capital and human capital (Flora, 1990). The care needed to move
43
social capital and the impossibility of moving environmental capital makes them vulnerable – and threatens sustainability – in all of the sites. Gendered resources Resources can be consumed, stored, or invested. When they are invested to create more resources, we refer to them as “capital.” Investing resources, rather than consuming them, is critical for sustainability. Forms of capital conventionally viewed as important include financial capital, manufactured capital, and human capital. When looking at system sustainability, it is also important to analyze social capital3 (Bebbington, 1999). Interactions of different forms of capital Each resource, or form of capital, can enhance the productivity of other forms of capital. Increasing social capital greatly cuts transaction costs, making other resource use more efficient. A number of scholars have found that social capital has an independent effect on the functioning of economic systems (Granovetter, 1985; Lincoln et al., 1996; Putnam, 1993a; Portes and Sessenbrenner, 1993; Robinson and Hanson, 1995, among others). That literature also demonstrates that male networks dominate the control of corporate capital, and the social capital they represent is critical to cutting transaction costs in capital flows. We found in each SANREM site that overemphasizing the value of a single form of capital can reduce sustainability (Flora, 1997). For example, in the Philippine site (Lantapan in Mindinao), we found that focusing on increasing short term financial gains through growing tomatoes for export to Manila reduced the value of human capital through negative impacts on environmental capital (increasing pesticides in the water and increased soil erosion), on human capital through increased incidence of disease and chronic illness, and on social capital (through bypassing local marketing networks and replacing them with impersonal corporate structures).
Resources Financial capital Financial capital consists of money or instruments of credit for investment and speculation and can be public or private. Futures, stocks, bonds, derivatives, mutual funds, and mortgages are all forms of financial capital. Financial capital is controlled by men in most ecosystems.
44
C ORNELIA B UTLER F LORA
Individuals generate financial capital through salary and wages, and earnings on investments, including lending. Firms generate financial capital through earnings, investments, and debt offerings such as stocks and bonds. Governments generate financial capital through fees, taxes, and borrowing (e.g., bonds and other government debt instruments). The public sector transfers resources to the private sector through loans, grants, tax abatements, and other tax advantages. This form of financial capital is increasingly used as a development tool with little consideration of its impact on other forms of capital within the community. Financial capital is the most mobile of all forms of capital that can be invested in a community. These capital transfers are much more likely to go to men and male-controlled firms than to women. In turn, the way that financial capital is turned into manufactured capital will define certain aspects of other forms of capital as important, privileging the location of those making the decisions, usually upper class men from the urban centers of industrialized countries. The international flow of financial capital has increased markedly over the last 25 years. As the Financial Times of London (September 30, 1994) explained, international financial markets are governed by the principles of fear and greed – neither one conducive to sustainable agriculture or rural development. In all the sites, we found women disadvantaged in terms of access and control of financial resources. However, there were definite differences based on household production strategies. Women day laborers in Nanegal have a marked disadvantage in terms of remuneration. They receive less per day than men do for the same amount of time and type of work. Households of this type have the lowest access to resources and income and the greatest gender inequality. Both men and women have limited access to productive resources. Nevertheless, women day workers have a harder time getting hired directly to do work, and when they do, they are disadvantaged in terms of pay. Those who work outside the home with their husbands or fathers have little probability of controlling and spending the income generated. In contrast, women in households with the most resources had greater proportional access to financial capital. Women in comerciantes households are highly involved in the production strategies of the larger farmers, but not necessarily in field production. They have access to and control over resources, which depends on the degree to which they are involved in marketing, particularly at the local level. Men generally have control over marketing activities outside the area, the sale of cattle, and the buying and selling of land. Women in these households often have control
over land and decide who will share what crop where. They are active in the local marketing activities, although the men in these households tend to control the external markets. Women in these households often run local retail establishments. In Donsin, women have some access to commerce. They engage in multiple income generating activities. Participation in these activities depends mostly on individual women’s own initiative. Marie Claire Sorgho, the Burkinabe sociologist with SANREM, once said that success in these activities translated into more power to bargain in the household (SilvaBarbeau, 1999, personal communication). Manufactured capital Manufactured capital is composed of physical infrastructure such as machinery, chemical fertilizers, pesticides, housing, office buildings, schools, roads, sewers, factories, and water systems. Financial capital is turned into manufactured capital by either the private or public sector. The choice of investment in manufactured capital is highly gendered, which in turn has real implications for long-term sustainability. In both the Philippines and in Ecuador, we found that men had more access to manufactured capital, including agricultural tool and inputs. However, women often had control over the trapiches and stills critical for producing a popular alcoholic beverage (trago) and sweetener (panela). While women in Donsin do not own land by traditional law, traditional law also prohibits them from owning livestock as well. However, Burkinabe researchers discovered during SANREM’s PLLA that women in Donsin now aspire to own cattle. A few already own a few head, but keep them hidden by attributing them to their sons (Silva-Barbeau, 1999, personal communication). Some women keep their cattle with their brothers too. However, in times of dire need, as in 1998, women willingly sold their own animals to feed the family. In some cases husbands may take the animal and sell it, with her consent. There is a great deal of variation as to how these transactions are dealt with within the households, which depends on age, polygyny, wealth, etc. But, in general, women will consent to selling their property for food. In some cases, the husband will replace the sold animals when he has the money. (Roncoli, 2000, personal communication). Human capital Human capital includes individual capacity, training, human health, values, and leadership. Economists use the term labor, consisting of the skills, abilities, education, and training that workers possess and bring
ACCESS AND CONTROL OF RESOURCES
to their jobs. Human capital includes non-formal skills associated with experience carrying out a particular task and indigenous knowledge about an area. Women’s knowledge is often different than men’s knowledge; systems for knowledge and skill transfer are also different. Health status and commitment are aspects of human capital important for sustainability. Women’s traditional responsibility for human health care, particularly in poor families, gives them a different perspective on the use of other forms of capital. It also means that they may be the first to notice health problems associated with shifts in environmental quality. Women and men can be committed to sustainability, but to different aspects of sustainability (Meares, 1997; Chiappe and Flora, 1998; Buenavista et al., 1994). For some small producers in both the Philippines and Ecuador, increasing human capital through education was an important strategy for their children – male and female – to have a better life. Particularly in Ecuador, women’s input into this issue had an impact on production strategies. For example, among those who had relatively large extensions of land far from the villages, women insisted on moving to the village when their children reached school age. Both parents highly value schooling for their children, which obligates them to live far from their lands. The montañero households have a resource conflict between current and future earnings. The women in the households have a strong voice in the place that the household lives, and thus indirectly, how their land is used. “I wanted to live at the farm in order to work it right. Now it is semi-abandoned – but there is no way we can be there because of the children’s education.” In the Nanegal community in our census (Flora et al., 1997), we found that women actually had a higher level of education than men. And women in leadership positions had higher educational levels than men in similar posts. In Donsin, both men and women had very low levels of education. They did not value it for children of either sex (Ronconi, 1999). Environmental capital Environmental capital consists of air quality, water (its quality and quantity), soil (its quality and quantity), biodiversity (plants and animals), and landscape. The components of environmental capital are highly interrelated and tend to enhance one another. Attention to biodiversity helps maintain soil cover, which decreases soil erosion and enhances soil quality in terms of organic materials and biological communities within the soil. This in turn contributes to water quality.
45
Environmental capital creates fresh air, clean water, food and fiber, and scenery. Men and women in different contexts may value and act toward different elements of environmental capital. Men are often concerned with soil quality, while women may focus on biodiversity, based on their specific material responsibilities within the household and control over and access to different resources. Men often control land, and women depend on men for their access to it. Women have access to common areas, or specific garden areas, where biodiversity contributes to household as well as environmental sustainability. Often investments are made in soil quality (soil amendments) that define soil quality in terms of chemistry, and can be detrimental to biodiversity by favoring monoculture. SANREM-related research in Burkina Faso found differences in kinds of environmental knowledge held by men and women that have to do with their different social roles and action spaces. For instance, among a variety of environmental indicators for rainfall forecasting, those associated with water sources, women more often mentioned tree production and insect behavior near dwellings, while men also cited star and moon movements (Roncoli et al., 1999). Social capital Putnam (1993b) describes social capital as “features of social organization, such as networks, norms, and trust, that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit. Social capital enhances the benefits of investment in physical and human capital.” Social capital for sustainability depends on strengthening communities of interest and communities of place. Social capital in both these types of communities is often gender-based and has implications for environmental capital. Share cropping in Ecuador depends on good community relations, and these are often maintained by the participation of the female members of sharecropper families in community work, particularly in providing food to various community activities. Women in these households must be available to participate in non-paid work for the community and for the informal networks that link the family to the productive resources that they need. The SANREM CRSP (Sustainable Agriculture and Natural Resource Management Collaborative Research Support Program) in Mindanao in the Philippines focuses on increasing long term sustainability. The Manupali watershed, the project site, degrades greatly from the top (cloud forest) to the bottom (Pulangi IV River Reservoir). Further, there is ethnic diversity, with indigenous people living in
46
C ORNELIA B UTLER F LORA
the higher, less degraded part of the watershed. A SANREM-sponsored NGO was formed to monitor water quality of the river. That organization, while open to both men and women, is made up primarily of men. In assessing perceptions of the environment, particularly the degree to which the various parts of the environment are interconnected, Gabriela Flora (1997) found no difference by ethnic group or location on the watershed. There was a significant difference by gender, but the greatest difference was between those who were members of the water-monitoring organization and those who were not. Membership in the water monitoring team made a very large difference for men – and no difference for women. Future action will include recruitment of women to the existing organizations, instituting mechanisms to make sure that women’s water quality concerns are addressed in the water monitoring activity (which has begun, as the women requested specifically that E. coli concentrations be measured, because of their immediate impact on the health of their children), and consideration of establishing women-only water monitoring teams. Attention to the gendered nature of social capital can have important environmental implications. It has been suggested that community groups and associations function as more viable vehicles for implementing programs geared towards community development because of the greater degree of participation of women and the equity their participation enhances (Rocheleau, 1991; Moser, 1993). It has also been posited that these community groups and associations foster a greater degree of effectiveness and accountability of programs. The presence of community self help groups is an indicator of social capital within the community. The gendered nature of reliance on social capital Both men and women rely on social capital to enhance the productivity of other forms of capital. But reliance on social capital – and the impacts of its absence – are more visible at lower social strata. Relying on social capital is part of a survival strategy that, though not exclusively, is frequently gendered due to the multiple roles that women play in the private sphere of the household and the public sphere of the community. Survival strategies can either enhance or decrease long term sustainability. Careful consideration of how communities and households are organized by gender, class, and race – how they are stratified – can reveal systems of reliance on social capital as a livelihood or survival strategy. Social inequalities are sometimes embedded in social capital.
Men tend to play a greater role in community politics (where they draw heavily on social capital), while women are responsible for community management as a “natural extension of their domestic work” (Moser, 1993: 35). Community management, according to Moser, consists of “work undertaken at the community level, around the allocation, provisioning and managing of items of collective consumption” (1993: 34). These items include water, health care, education, garbage collection, community gardens, playground construction, Christmas bazaars, altar guild, etc. A part of sustainability is resiliency in the face of rapid change, rural development that ignores the importance of informal social capital – and therefore undermines it through creating new dependencies – is unsustainable. Jornaleros are households with the least resources in Nanegal. Networks of work and family friendships are a constant referent for potential sources of work of the jornaleros. Women play an important part in the construction and maintenance of those networks. Nevertheless, the men in these households are assumed to have responsibility to maintain the family, and they are the ones who can most easily sell their labor locally
Differential gendered access and control of resources within the sites In Ecuador, we found each household strategy means different levels of access to and control of resources by women, beyond the actual division of labor within the household. In all the production strategies, the activities of women are critical to produce the resources needed to maintain the enterprises. Further, we found that their critical roles are relatively unrecognized by their husbands or children. In the production strategies with greater access to land, women have a greater participation in productive activities and a greater access to resources, particularly in the activities of transformation of sugar cane and in livestock production. They participate in many aspects of the production process, but, most importantly, they are directly involved in the local marketing of these products. Production strategy types with diverse enterprises do not have a marked division of labor by sex. Women have more direct access to resources and decision making, which makes role negotiation more equal. That women participate in most important production activities in the landscape (cattle and sugar cane liquor) permits them access to resources, changes their roles, and increases their opportunities to make decisions. As new industrial crops are introduced,
ACCESS AND CONTROL OF RESOURCES
particularly if they are short cycle crops, it is likely that women will have less participation and less access and control over resources. On the other hand, if more labor intensive crops come to the area, which employ individuals in more skilled manual work than cane cutting, it is likely that women will be employed directly, increasing their access to resources. However, whether they control their own incomes, which helps equalize the familial power relationship, is open to question, given what has happened in other areas (Truelove, 1987; Blumerberg, 1995; Blumberg et al., 1994). In terms of production strategies and natural resource degradation, the montañero households have the potential to do the most damage to the forest remnants. Women in this household type are now quite separate from the community in terms of leadership, but could be involved in non-wood forest product extraction from their lands. Considerable organization – and links with women who have marketing ties and experience – could be a critical strategy for maintaining and enhancing the natural resources of the area. The community organizations where women are currently involved, particularly the churches and the schools, might be a vehicle for cross-type linkages for sustainable production activities that enhance women’s access to and control over resources and the quality of life for themselves and their families. In Donsin, women of higher social status were less malnourished than women of lower social status during the pre-harvest hungry period (Silva-Barbeau, 1999, personal communication). Roncoli (1999) found that in the Mossi community of Donsin, as in other Mossi communities, gender inequalities are greater in wealthier households. In all households, women and men’s economic resources are quite separate. Women’s labor is crucial to men’s (and household’s) wealth accumulation. Unlike customary belief systems, gender ideologies associated with Islam (which is sometimes embraced by better off households, especially farmer-traders) may be used to support such inequalities. Further, wealth and polygyny are closely correlated, thus diffusing a wife’s access to existing household resources compared to monogamous household. Kevane and Gray quote a woman in a polygamous household explaining why she did not get access to land. “If I want to cultivate a field, my husband will say that my three co-wives can also cultivate their own fields, and there won’t be enough time to work on his fields” (1999: 22). Finally, in poorer households, women’s key roles in ensuring household survival at times of crisis places them in a stronger position vis-à-vis their husbands (especially as the latter fail to fulfill their expected responsibilities of providers).
47
Conclusions The superstructure that relegates women’s voices to background noise must be seriously addressed. This occurs through implementing policies that do not disadvantage women, and through fostering the creation and strengthening of women’s participation in groups – formal and informal – that allow them to collectively leverage the various forms of capital inside and outside their community. In the SANREM CRSP, we found that by establishing venues where they could seriously address questions of sustainability based on the resources to which they had access, real changes occurred in both the efficiency and the equity of the activities carried out. Although different degrees of gender inclusion occurred in each of the main sites, in each site the research teams insisted on hearing female voices. Further, female researchers on each team worked hard to provide space for the ideas that local women articulated to be carried out. Such insistence and space proved crucial in moving toward project goals of sustainable agriculture and natural resource management that contribute to ecosystem health, economic vitality, and social equality.
Notes 1. The model linking superstructure and base to actions impacting sustainability is based on Eide (1982). 2. C. Roncoli and I. Silva-Barbeau contributed insights to this section. 3. This section is based on Flora (1997).
References Bebbington, A. (1999). “Capitals and capabilities: A framework for analyzing peasant viability, rural livelihoods and poverty.” World Development 27(12): 2021–2044. Board on Agriculture, National Research Council (1991). Toward Sustainability: A Plan for Collaborative Research on Agriculture and Natural Resource Management. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Blumberg, R. L. (1995). “Gender, microenterprise, performance, and power: case studies from the Dominican Republic,” in C. E. Bose and E. Acosta-Belen (eds.), Women in the Latin American Development Process (pp. 194–226). Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Blumberg, R. L., M. R. Estada de Batres, and J. X. Cuxil (1994).“Women’s work, wealth, and family survival strategy: The impact of Guatemala’s ALCOSA agribusiness project,” in E. N. Chow and C. W. Berheide (eds.), Women, the Family, and Policy: A Global Perspective (pp. 117–141). Albany: State University of New York Press.
48
C ORNELIA B UTLER F LORA
Buenavista, G., C. B. Flora, and A. Meares (1994). Surviving Natural Resource Decline: Exploring Gender, Class and Social Capital in Agbanga, Philippines. Blacksburg, Virginia: An ECOGEN Case Study, Office of International Research and Development, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Chiappe, M. B. and C. Butler Flora (1998). “Gendered elements of the sustainable agriculture paradigm.” Rural Sociology 63(3): 372–393. Coleman, J. C. (1988). “Social capital in the creation of human capital.” American Journal of Sociology 94 (Supplement S95–S120): 95–119. Flora, C. B. (1990). “Rural peoples in a global economy.” Rural Sociology: 157–177. Flora, C. B. (1997). “Enhancing community capitals: The optimization equation.” Rural Development News 21: 1–3. Flora, C. B., F. Larrea, C. Ehrhart, M. Ordonez, S. Baez, F. Guerrero, S. Chancay, and J. L. Flora (1997). “Negotiating participatory action research in an Ecuadorian sustainable agriculture and natural resource management program.” Practicing Anthropology 19(3): 20–25. Flora, G. C. (1997). “Do geographic location, ethnicity, group membership and gender impact perceptions of environmental connection? a case study from the Philippines.” Bifurcation 4(1): 9–12. Flora, J. L. (1998). “Social capital and communities of place.” Rural Sociology 63(4): 481–506. Granovetter, M. (1985). “Economic action, social structure and imbeddedness.” American Journal of Sociology 91: 481–510. Holling, C. S., F. Berkes, and C. Folke (1997). “Science, sustainability and resource management,” in F. Berkes and C. Folke (eds.), Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Institutional Learning for Resilience (pp. 346–366). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Kevane, M. and L. S. Gray (1999). “A woman’s field is made at night: Gendered land rights and norms in Burkina Faso.” Feminist Economics 5(9): 1–26. Larrea, F., C. B. Flora, M. Ordóñez, S. Chancay, S. Báez, and F. Guerrero (1998). “Una tipologia de las estragegias productivas familiares para la agricultura sustentable y el manejo de recursos naturales.” Tercer Simposio Latino Americano sobre Investigacion y Extension en Sistemas Agropecuarios: Superacion de la Pobreza Rural para el Desarrollo de las Capacidades Locales. Lima, Peru. Lennie, J. (1999). “Deconstructing gendered power relations in participatory planning: Towards an empowering feminist framework of participation and action.” Women’s Studies International Forum 22(1): 97–112. Lincoln, J. R., M. L. Gerlach, and C. L. Ahmadjian (1996). “Keiretsu networks and corporate performance in Japan.” American Sociological Review 61: 67–88.
Meares, A. C. (1997). “Making the transition from conventional to sustainable agriculture: Gender, social movement participation, and quality of life on the family farm.” Rural Sociology 62: 21–47. Moser, C. O. N. (1993). Gender Planning and Development. London and New York: Routledge. Portes, A. and J. Sensenbrenner (1993). “Embeddedness and immigration: Notes on the social determinants of economic action.” American Journal of Sociology 98(6): 1320–1350. Putnam, R. D. (1993a). Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Putnam, R. D. (1993b). “The prosperous community: social capital and public life.” The American Prospect 13: 35–42. Robinson, L. J. and S. D. Hanson (1995). “Social capital and economic cooperation.” Journal of Agriculture and Applied Economics 27: 43–58. Rocheleau, D. 1991. “Gender, ecology and the science of survival: stories and lessons from Kenya.” Agriculture and Human Values 8(1/2): 156–165. Rocheleau, D., B. Thomas-Slayter, and E. Wangari (1996). “Gender and environment: A feminist political ecology perspective,” in D. C. B. Rocheleau, Thomas-Slayter, and E. Wangari (eds.), Feminist Political Ecology: Global Issues and Local Experiences (pp. 2–26). London: Routledge. Roncoli, C. (1999). “A Time Like No Other: Coping with Drought in Burkina Faso.” Paper presented at the Meetings of the Society for Applied Anthropology, Tucson, Arizona. Roncoli, C., S. Bahadio, and S. Boena (1999). The Role of Rainfall Information in Farmers’ Decisions: Ethnographic Research in the Central Plateau (Burkina Faso). Technical Report, Climate Forecasting and Agricultural Resources Project, University of Georgia, Athens, Shields, M. D., C. B. Flora, B. Thomas-Slayer, and G. Buenavista (1996). “Developing and dismantling social capital: Gener and resource management in the Philippines,” in D. Rocheleau, B. Thomas-Slayter, and E. Wangari (eds.), Feminist Political Ecology: Global Perspectives and Local Experience (pp. 155–179). London: Routledge. Truelove, C. (1987). “The informal sector revisited: The case of the talleres rurales mini-maquilas in Colombia,” in R. Tardanico (ed.), Crisis in the Caribbean Basin (pp. 95–110). Newberry Park, California: Sage Publications, Inc. Address for correspondence: Cornelia Butler Flora, North Central Regional Center for Rural Development, Department of Sociology, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50010-5010, USA Phone: +1-515-294-1329; Fax: +1-515-294-3180; E-mail:
[email protected]
