Targeting married women in microfinance programmes: transforming or reinforcing gender inequalities? : evidence from Ethiopia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Existing research on the impact of microfinance on women's empowerment (the intrahousehold gender relation) leads to conflicting conclusions.This may be due to differences in research methodology, scope and focus of the studies (Kabeer, 2001), and the resulting emphasis and interpretation of the research findings.It might for instance be possible that researchers overlook how microfinance intervention improves one dimension of gender relations while undermining another.Secondly, the different programme outcomes in different countries may arise from socio-cultural differences.The prevailing gender-based divisions and customary practices in different countries and communities may influence programme outcomes in different ways.This is because the internal organisation of the Research objectiveThe objective of this study is to investigate if and how microfinance aimed at married women may affect the intra-household division of labour and the decision-making power within households.The study focuses on married women because they live in conjugal relationships with men, which will help us to better understand intra-household power dynamics.Research questions:1. Does women's participation in a microfinance programme affect decision-making patterns within households, and, if so, how? 2. Does women's participation in microfinance affect intra-household labour divisions and responsibilities, and, if so, how?16 Central Statistics Agency
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".