Women’s employment in rural Senegal: what can we learn from non-farm diversification strategies?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose As rural nonfarm activities grow in developing countries, less attention is being paid to the opportunities they may provide for women. The purpose of this study is to examine the gender-differentiated impact of nonfarm diversification strategies in rural Senegal. Design/methodology/approach This study uses data collected from the Senegalese poverty monitoring survey and employs an instrumental variable (IV) approach and a multinomial endogenous treatment model to investigate the extent to which diversification strategies lead to improved outcomes for rural women and their households. Findings While nonfarm diversification is a male-dominated livelihood strategy, rural women make the most of it, regardless of whether they diversify into low- or high-return nonfarm activities. At the individual level, diversification improves rural women’s well-being through large income-increasing effects and higher empowerment but has no effect on rural men’s well-being. At the household level, the authors find that, when only women diversify, households have lower per capita income but are less likely to be food insecure than when only men or both genders diversify. Research limitations/implications This study is based on cross-sectional data, making it impossible to examine the dynamic effects of nonfarm diversification strategies on well-being outcomes. Originality/value This study contributes to the current literature on rural livelihood diversification. While much attention has been paid to the feminization of agriculture, remarkably little is known about the expanding role of rural women in the nonfarm sector.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".