ABSTRACT
This study examined the Reciprocal Goat Share as a Socio economic tool for Alleviating Women Poverty in Benue State. The population of this study consists of all women practicing goat share in Benue State. Primary data were collected using structured questionnaire and a total of 209 respondents were selected through purposive and multistage sampling technique. The data collected were analysed using descriptive statistics, Foster-Greer-Thorbeck index (FGT), logit regression, multiple regression and gross margin. The result of the analysis revealed that 33.33% of the respondents were in their active ages of 29-39 years with a mean age of 42years. About 67.66% of the respondents were married with a mean household size of 7 persons. About 50.25% of the respondents had experience of 10-14 years in goat rearing with a mean of 12 years. The FGT result shows that 21% of the respondents are poor. To escape poverty, the averagely poor has to mobilise financial resources to be able to meet 4% of N 137,313 household per capital income yearly and the core poor has to mobilise financial resources up to 5% more of N137,313 household per capital income yearly than that required for the averagely poor. The logit result showed that a unit increase in flock size increases the probability of the women not being poor by 1.8. The gross margin result revealed that goat rearing is profitable with a gross margin of N10, 493.49 per goat per year while the regression result showed a significant relationship between goat share and productive assets like livestock and crop. Seasonality of feed resource, disease incidence, poor foundation stock and inadequate knowledge on goat husbandry were the major constraints to the practice of goat share in the study area. It is therefore recommended that the government and other stakeholders adopt this practice and provide women with improved breeds of goat that have high genetic potentials.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background to the Study
The skewed distribution of resources and income makes millions of people to live in poverty (Van Der Westhuizen, 2012). Poverty and inequality reflects many of the structural strains in society (Mtshali and Khan, 2014). Poverty is a web of disadvantages; it is defined by World Bank (2011) as an unacceptable deprivation in human well-being that comprises physiological and social deprivation. The United Nations Development Programme report (UNDP, 2005), explains that poverty has a woman face because 70 percent of the 1.3 billion people living in poverty are women. The increasing poverty among women stems from their unequal situation in the labour market, their status and power in the family. In relation to men, women record higher rate of illiteracy, unemployment and women wages are below average (Fapohunda, 2012). The sustained interest in women self-sufficiency stems from their numerous contributions to household welfare. The inter linkage between asset portfolio and household poverty have been the driving force for policy interventions in poverty alleviation in Nigeria (Oladimeji, 1999).
Poverty alleviation strategies have a long history across the globe with credit in cash and kind at its core. Ater and Aye (2015) stated that credit programmes are provided by Government and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO) to improve the quality of life and to alleviate poverty among men and women involved in agricultural activities. The Family Support Program (FSP), National Poverty Eradication Programme (NAPEP), Better Life Program (BLP) and Women-In-Agriculture (WIA) programs were all established to ensure quality life for women by securing productive input and incentive to women. Nevertheless, women benefit less from formal credit institutions (Bruton et al., 2011); they are usually deprived of low interest loan due to their vulnerability to income shock and higher likelihood of default (Sun and Im, 2015). This limitation arises because of the chauvinistic traditional system stated by Onyejekwe (2011) as those prohibiting women from taking separate decision from their spouses and the idea that an empowered woman is rude. These limitations culminate into poor track record, lack of access to information and lack of collateral to secure credit. Those that are able to access formal loan are often forced to handover the loan to men who subsequently use the loan for their own benefits. This may incur additional burden on the women if they are held responsible for repayment.
The reciprocal goat share is an indigenous tenancy arrangement and a social security system (Oba, 1992), that gives out goat as a productive asset in exchange for future compensation in kind (Kranton, 1996). The reciprocal share is a non-market exchange of goods where a return is expected. The exchange is embedded in pre-existing network of social relations. The practice of reciprocal share has attenuated the fluctuation of income and food security inherent in rural communities (Jonathan and Tim, 2000) by creating access to, and ownership of asset which is fundamental to livelihood [International Fund for Agricultural Development, (IFAD), 2001]. The reciprocal share as an informal credit in kind functions by allocating resources through non-monetary institutions thereby acting as a partial and imperfect substitute for the absent or missing market (Jonathan and Tim, 2000). The reciprocal goat share is not based on contracts that are upheld by a court of law nor with the use of collateral but an agreement on repayment schedule (McPeak, 2004). The basis of reciprocal goat share is capital accumulation at the community level with an ardent believe that a gift in kind results in substantial increase in productivity than an equivalent cash gift (Kube et al., 2008) thereby alleviating poverty by increasing the beneficiary’s asset.
In the reciprocal goat share, the goat owner ‘share’ the management responsibility and the product generated from their goat with family and friends through a tenancy arrangement requiring no collateral or interest payment but trust. The beneficiary houses and takes the management responsibility of the goat in exchange for an offspring from the goat. Upon parturition, the kids are shared based on pre-existing arrangement; the beneficiary takes one kid out of every set of offspring (usually a heifer) and returns the rest of the offspring to the investor (benefactor) while retaining the initial breeding stock. With continuous parturition, the beneficiary builds her own herd which provides her with a source of income. Thus, each side in the ‘share’ relation experiences an equivalence of value (Bell, 1991). The reciprocal share may take a form of contract whereby women herd animals owned by absentee investors (McIntire, 1992). In the reciprocal goat share, the goat (Doe) ‘shared’ are mostly raised on an extensive system thereby reducing maintenance cost while shelter are provided for the animals at night.
Livestock production has the potential to increase household income, particularly for the poor and food insecure in rural households (Faizal and Kwasi, 2014). Delia and Macmillan, (2001) stated that livestock are among the few assets that women can own as they are important in women’s livelihood and asset portfolios and have significant potential for women empowerment. Livestock production serves as insurance against food deficit and provides households with income to enhance production (Asafu-Adjei and Dantankwa, 2001). Small ruminant production has been identified as a viable means of improving overall well-being and reducing household poverty (Devendra, 2001; Lebbie, 2004; Peacock, 2005). Goats (Capra hircus) are more efficient in converting non–grain feed into meat compared with beef, pork and poultry (Peacock 2005). Competition for productive input is less for small ruminant than for other livestock like pig, cattle and poultry; capital investment in housing and material are lower for goat compared with cattle; the smaller size of goat also makes them more suitable for home consumption among households, thereby helping to improve the nutrition, animal protein requirement and food security situation of rural households (Oluwatayo and Oluwatayo, 2012). Baruwa (2013) states that goats are unique due to their short production cycle, high prolificacy, rapid growth rate, and by virtue of its hardiness to adapt and thrive in diverse economic system constrained by climatic stress and resources limitation. The purpose of this study is therefore, to examine the practice of reciprocal goat share as a socio economic tool for alleviating women poverty in Benue State.
1.2 Statement of the Problem
Report across different societies gives credence to the productive capacity of women in national development. Women play central role in most farm and off farm operations to produce food and support their families. Nonetheless, they face serious social and legal constraints which inhibit their access to, and control over productive assets (Ekwe, 1996). The various agricultural innovations proposed by agricultural researchers were often not adopted or were adopted in a partial or modified form (Olawoye, 1993).
The persistent level of poverty and the limited success of Government poverty intervention projects to ameliorate gender pervasive poverty necessitates alternative approach that employ cultural and micro level dimension (Ater and Aye, 2015; Mihindou, 2006). A lot of research work has been done on the various Government intervention projects that provide rural women with goat. Such studies include: Kustantinah et al. (2002) who examined Animal production through women's Group-Goat-Sharing- Scheme; Thliza et al. (2007) analysed the Goat Share Scheme for Women in Promoting Sustainable Agriculture; Tefera (2007) examined Improving Women Farmers' Welfare through a Goat Credit Scheme. However, there is dearth of information on the reciprocal goat share as an indigenous/customary practice that is efficient in cushioning the various constraints faced by women in undertaking economic activities: credit, asset ownership, income generation, improved household nutrition and family food sufficiency. It is against this background that this study was formulated to examine and expose the practice of Reciprocal Goat Share as a Socio economic tool for Alleviating Women Poverty in Benue State.
1.3 Research Questions
In consideration of the poor financial and economic condition of most women in Benue State, the following research questions became inevitable:
- what are the socio-economic characteristics of the women practicing reciprocal goat share in the study area?
- how has the practice of reciprocal goat share influenced the financial status of women in the study area?
- in what ways has the practice helped in alleviating women’s poverty in the study area?
4. what is the relationship between reciprocal goat share and the poverty profile of the women in the study area?
5. what is the relationship between reciprocal goat share and women asset portfolio?
6. what is the profitability of the practice of reciprocal goat share?
7. what are the existing constraints to the reciprocal goat share practice in the study area?
1.4 Objectives of the Study
The broad objective of the study is to examine the reciprocal goat share as a socio economic tool for alleviating women poverty in Benue State. The specific objectives are to:
- describe the socio-economic characteristics of women practicing goat share in the study area;
- identify the influence of the practice of reciprocal goat share on the financial status of women in the study area;
- examine the ways through which the reciprocal goat share has helped in alleviating women poverty in the study area;
- examine the relationship between reciprocal goat share and the poverty profile of women in the study area;
- determine the relationship between reciprocal goat share and women asset portfolio;
- determine the profitability of the goat share practice and;
- identify the constraints associated with the practice of reciprocal goat share.
1.5 Statement of the Hypotheses
To achieve the stated objectives, these hypotheses were tested
Ho1: There is no significant relationship between the practice of reciprocal goat share and the women’s asset portfolio.
Ho2: The practice of reciprocal goat share is not profitable in the study area.
1.6 Significance of the Study
Individuals and households observe social norms and use different activities to construct social relations which enable them to obtain support and cooperation from other members of the society (Ayele, 2008). The reciprocal goat share as an indigenous practice attempts to catalyze economic development by assisting women who are asset poor and subsistence oriented to acquire productive asset (goat) through reciprocal share and stimulate capital accumulation by profitably engaging in goat production. Thus, a study of the reciprocal goat share as a socio economic tool for alleviating women poverty is an important call for re-vitalizing the reciprocal goat share practice by finding out the ways through which the practice has helped in alleviating women poverty and the extent to which the practice has increased the women asset portfolio in the study area. Academics, students, extension workers, livestock technical staff, policy makers, and researchers will find this study useful as it will provide a base for the formulation of policies that would create means for the rural women to acquire productive asset. Furthermore, the result from the study will add to existing literature on the practice of reciprocal share.
1.7 Scope and Limitations of the Study
This research cover the socio economic characteristics of women practicing reciprocal goat share in the study area, the ways through which the practice has helped in alleviating women poverty and constraints associated with the reciprocal goat share practice among women in Benue State.
Limitations encountered in carrying out this work include poor road network, language barrier, illiteracy, inaccurate record keeping by the women practicing goat share, resource constraint and time. The researcher made use of motorcycles to ease movement within the study area; employed field assistances to ease the problem of language barrier and illiteracy; majority of those with formal education and those without formal education had no records of their production but depended on their memory in providing responses, hence the researcher depended on the consistency of participants’ responses to solve the problem of inaccurate records.
1.8 Definition of Terms
1. Socio economic: This refers to how a particular group of people act within the society. It is usually conceptualized as the social standing of an individual or group. It is often measured as a combination of education, income, and occupation.
2. Poverty status: this expresses the classification of the degree of poverty situations of an individual, household or a society.
3. Livelihood: A living gained using endowments (asset), activities and opportunities (Ayele, 2008). It comprises the assets (natural, physical, human, financial, and social capital), the activities, and the access to these (mediated by social relations) that together determine the living gained by the individual or household (Ellis, 2000).
4. Poverty: A situation where a person’s resources are not sufficient to meet their minimum needs. It is the inability of a person to perform obligatory functions to the households in feeding, housing, education, and clothing (Alaye-Ogan, 2008).
5. Poverty alleviation: Are efforts aimed at reducing the magnitude of poverty. It can be referred to as a set of measures, both economic and humanitarian, that are intended to permanently lift people out of poverty.
6. Poverty Line: Is the minimum level of income needed to meet the basic necessity of life.
7. Poverty incidence: Is the fraction of the population below the poverty line.
8. Household: A group of persons living together under the same roof or in the same compound who share the same source of food and think of themselves as a unit.
9. Social Capital: The various resources that people have through their relationships in families, community and other social networks (Catts&Ozga, 2005)
10. Reciprocal Goat Share: An indigenous tenancy arrangement and a system of economic exchange in which goat are given out as productive asset.
11. Credit: Refers to the terms and conditions associated with deferred payment arrangement.
12. Norms: A non-stated set of guidelines which specify normal behavior in a social context. It is a pattern of behavior that is typical of a social group.
13. Asset: It is a valuable resource that can be acquired, developed and reused to generate flows or consumption as well as additional stock.
14. Portfolio: A list of the financial/investment asset held by an individual.
15. Feminization of poverty: It is an increase in the role that gender inequality have as a determinant of poverty.
16. Per capita income: Is a measure of the average income earned per person in a given area.
17.Absolute poverty: This refers to a condition where a person do not have the minimum amount of income needed to meet requirements for the basic living needs (food, water, housing, clothing) over an extended period of time.
18. Relative poverty: Is a comparative economic deprivation. It refers to an individual or group lack of resources when compared with that of other members if the society.
19. Human poverty index (HPI): Is a measure of deprivation in the three aspects of human development (i.e longevity, knowledge, and a decent standard of living).
20. Gross margin: this is simply the difference between the gross income and the total variable cost.
