Household concept

4.4.1 Household: the differing views

The household is a common ground which different theoretical lenses can be focused on. When taken narrowly, these lenses could be limiting our insights into social reality. The household has particular relevance to all the colours of social sciences since it represents the microcosm of all dimensions of societal behaviour.

Kabeer (1994) aptly described the differences among the social scientists’ concept of household and its application for enlightened reasoning.

Economists tend to use a reductionist approach, with simplicity and elegance achieved through a process of theoretical and methodological reductionism. In order to obtain determinate outcomes, they transform the complex realities of life into an explicitly defined econometric model using tightly bound concepts which lend themselves to quantitative approximation (Kabeer, 1994).

Economists tend to represent behavioural realities to their barest essentials.

They are concerned with how the basic allocation activities are organized through the fabric of family, kinship and other relations (the traditional domain of anthropologists), using quantitative models in order derive

“signals” to inform policy. Households are viewed as performing generic dual functions: that of production and consumption. As a producer it uses resources to produce with the profit maximizing objective. As a consumer, it maximizes utility or satisfaction. These basic assumptions have guided economists in their empirical investigations, and have informed and shaped a range of different policies. The economists' main explanation of household behaviour dealt with two major streams of theories (with various specifications in recent years): one which treats the household as a unit of altruistic decision making, and one which considers it a site of bargaining and conflict.

On the other hand, sociologists and anthropologists are dubbed as students of noise because of their tendency to give attention to exceptions, details and diversity, and a general aversion to certainties, generalizable patterns of behaviour and the larger picture; just “too much noise and not enough signals” (Kabeer, 1994:97). Anthropologists see households with the filter of cross-cultural diversity of household forms characterized as shifting flexible structures. Boundaries are difficult to draw because of the wide range of composition and social relations made possible through marriage, kinship, and other forms of inclusion. Thus, different conjugal and residential arrangements are possible across cultures (Evans, 1991). Some even question the validity of household as a concept (Roberts, 1991), and challenge having the notion of residence, the productive and reproductive functions fused into a single entity, resulting in a monolithic, bounded and unchanging domestic group (Kabeer, 1994).

The volumes of discourses on even just defining the household should be quite enlightening. First, because they further confirm the critical importance of the household as a unit of analysis. Secondly, for a researcher, these allow one to better screen off what is relevant for one’s purpose, while being informed of the differing views.

4.4.2 Household: the point of analysis and definition

The definition of a household is not without difficulties. Each country uses its own definition for its own official statistical purposes. This is also the basis by which income and expenditure account, and food balance sheets are made and estimated, and poverty figures constructed. Comparability then becomes an issue when such country statistics are used to depict poverty and the food security situation. If in consideration of the researcher’s purposes the official

definition does not correspond perfectly, care needs to be taken that the limitations are understood.

The household is the focal point of analysis since it is the basic social unit with social and economic interaction among its members who combine their capabilities, resources and skills to undertake activities related to production, reproduction and daily maintenance. Interests may be shared by members as their general well-being, but with room for familial and personal conflict and struggles. Analysis takes into account the individual and collective considerations and decisions. Distinct and separate choices of each member become part of the analyses, referred to as intra-household dynamics.

Within the household, there is some kind of joint strategy or joint decision-making. Yet, individual members can follow their own decisions or strategies for their individual pursuits, not necessarily benefiting the whole household.

There could be limits to these individual pursuits as being in a household entails preserving a minimum level of solidarity. Where relevant, inter-household linkages among different inter-households within a cluster or community are considered particularly when they impact on decisions by household members (Jelin, 1991; Hardon-Baars, 1996; Pennartz and Niehof, 1999;

Niehof, 2004). This implies that livelihood portfolio and livelihood strategies are analyzed at the household level as well as taking into account differences within households as brought about by gender, age and differences in assets and resources (Harris, 1981; Kabeer, 1985; Murray, 1987; Brydon, 1993).

Social scientists themselves lack unanimity both as to the concept of household and its application. Household is defined with reference to a physical place, a mode of social organization, or as a cluster of functions (Wilk and Netting, 1984). Ingrid Rudie’s (1995:228) definition as that of “a co-residential unit, usually family-based, which takes care of resource management and primary needs of its members” combines all three criteria.

The “common hearth and common pot” idea focuses at first glance on the eating arrangements, but also implies the inclusion of those involved in the processes of securing and preparing food irrespective of kinship ties or dwelling place. Using this broad sense, complex or extended families that live in separate residences within a compound, but who have common eating arrangements can comprise a household. Many cases in Africa and Asia render its applicability useful.

While inclusive of the “common hearth and common pot” idea, this study views the household as the smallest unit where “production, consumption and social reproduction are organized, and where dimensions of social order and economic obligations are made manifest in intra-household relations” (Berman et al., 1994:207). This study sees the household as the main setting within which daily life takes place and the center of processes that determine the welfare of the individual member. Using “function” as the criterion, this enables the inclusion of members living outside the home but contributing significantly and regularly to the household functions. These could be children or spouse working in the town, city, or abroad who send remittances for the sustenance of parents/family or help in capital inputs to

farm and enterprise. That is, for as long as they play a significant role in decisions and actions relating to livelihood strategies and food security of the household. Otherwise, such members are considered mainly as support, not household members. An example would be a daughter married to a foreigner, who sends an allowance but only irregularly.

4.4.3 The farming household

Most of the households in the study are farming households where the reported major activity is agriculture but where the dimension of farm is integrated with the dimension of the household. In this way the farming system becomes an integral part of the household and livelihood systems.

Empirical evidence shows that what may at first be called “farming households” may have a large component of their income coming from non-farm sources. This has important policy implications because such reality-distortion can give wrong signals even to the local policymakers.

A small farm household is a composite of the attributes of two basic micro-analytical entities: the “household” (as a consumption unit) and the

“firm” (as a production unit). Traditional economic theory has dealt with each separately by simplifying the economic allocation problem in terms of a constrained utility maximization. This dichotomy is acceptable for economies where consumers derive most of their incomes from wages and do not produce for their own use, where producing units are distinct from consuming units.

These distinctions are not quite useful in a “farm household economy” where the “household” depends on the “firm” to provide for its own requirement for food and other needs, and the “firm” depends upon the “household” to provide its major inputs into production (i.e. family labor mainly, and time). The household-firm is one and the same unit. Thus, its decision-making processes must simultaneously take into account the considerations applicable to each of these ‘conventionally’ discrete units. The small farm household chooses between work and leisure (i.e. non-work use of time), between present income (for consumption) and future income (saving to invest in the future), and between the amount of income converted to money income. These will affect their choices between different technologies, various livelihood options, production for own food or for cash, or between the use of own and indigenous and commercial inputs (Singh, 1988). The interdependence between the firm and household contexts of the household imply that their decisions cannot be treated singly or separately as in dealing with separate markets. The intra-household decision-making process cannot be viewed pure-ly in economic terms.

Niehof (1998) views a farming household as one particular type where food production and consumption activities merge. The household has to be located within the food chain and its various interconnections. Thus, household food security, as a policy issue, research agenda and development goal needs to be viewed within the context of these inter-linkages. There is a need of an analytical model that highlights the linkages between the elements

in the production-consumption chain, the processes within the household, and the interaction of the linkages with the environment (Niehof, 1998).

Recent literature focused mainly on policy impacts on the welfare of farming households (i.e. using poverty indicators, health and nutrition indicators, etc.) as well as the resultant status of land (i.e. degraded or not) as explained through various survival or coping strategies in risk or stressed situation, or in situations of deficient natural resource endowments. Other studies traced the impact of women’s allocation of time and income resources on household health and nutrition. However, there has been a heavy focus on outcomes or impacts, and a marked lack of attention to process. The latter could possibly explain why many of the findings (i.e. across and within countries) of the development pathways tradition are mixed as to the defined framework of relationships, and at times ambiguous with respect to gender roles. Others suggest that analysis should be grounded on the dynamics of the farming households, using the livelihood approach.

4.4.4 Gender-based intra-household analysis

Gender-based analysis of the household’s various activities (i.e. productive, reproductive and maintenance), access and control of assets and resources, and decision-making is recognised as a useful perspective and tool in analysing how a household pursues its livelihood strategies, or in determining factors that affect household welfare. Various studies have confirmed that gender is a strong organising principle within the household and the role that each household member plays has important consequences for the household livelihood portfolio (Haddad, 1986, 1991; Quisumbing, 2000; Kabeer et al., 1991; Niehof and Price, 2001). Whether and how gender matters is a subject of empirical investigation. Farming households may be jointly managed, mainly male or female managed, and exclusively male or female managed.

The role of men and women in decision-making on livelihood and domestic issues may differ significantly according to the type of household and family or community subcultures. This is a complex issue and can only be clearly understood by empirical investigation. The household is the primary site for the structuring of gender relations and women's specific experience (Brydon, 1993; Chen, 1996).

Gender is critical in various aspects of the intra-household processes such as those that improve domestic chores and farm outputs, in the access and control of assets and resources, or in undertaking enterprises. Gender differentiation could exist in labour markets and cause different livelihood portfolio options for men and women, thus affecting household livelihood strategies. How assets and resources are accessed, used or controlled by men and women determine options and barriers to means of living. These also help explain income differences as well as the control and use over these incomes.

Gender differentials can have impact on food security and household welfare (Ellis, 2000; Quisumbing, 2003).

Gender-based roles and responsibilities within the household are recognized as important for how a household pursues its livelihood strategies.

However, these are coloured by culture and personal attributes, social norms, wealth and economic status, or technology use. In certain societies, women do not have the right to own property, neither do they have access to or control of household income, entitled only to the part they earn. Heavy farm work is usually relegated to men, household chores to women. More educated women who can earn better income, or are socially stable, are more engaged in household decision-making. With more opportunities in industry and cities, and pushed by declining farm productivity, men migrate to work in non-farm work outside, while women do the farm and household work assisted by the children. The control and allocation of resources within the household is a complex process which has to be seen in relation to a web of rights and obligations. The management of labor, income and resources is one which is crucially bound up with household organization and the sexual division of labor (Moore, 1988; Kabeer, 1994).