C1. Concepts used
C2. Relevance of the ENHR for gender-sensitive policies
C3. Conclusions
In 1993, the Bureau of Rural Women (OMR) of the Ministry of Agriculture of Colombia69 formulated a development policy for rural women.70 After reviewing the statistical tools of the National Statistics Bureau (DANE) and the various sector structures, it was decided that the rural household survey carried out every year since 199171 by DANE would be used to support this exercise. Only the National Survey of Rural Households (ENHR) supplied data on men and women, especially concerning employment, which was crucial to an understanding of rural women's status. Despite the gender gaps, the survey is unquestionably the most relevant, as no other statistical source in the country even touches on the question of gender.
69 This case study is based on the following documents: Colombia's presentation for the Workshop on Gender Statistics, 21 to 23 November 1995, Bogotá, by A. Suárez, Coordinator of the Household Survey, DANE; and Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. 1995. La Encuesta Nacional de Hogares Rurales y la Formulación de Políticas Públicas con perspectiva de género en Colombia, by P. Alfonse Luque M. of the Bureau of Rural Women. Santa Fé de Bogotá.The ENHR, carried out every year since 1991,72 measures changing levels of employment, underemployment, unemployment and other labour force variables. It also collects data on socio-demographic aspects (sex, age, marital status, education, migration, etc.) and on such economic aspects as employment, unemployment, productive activities, income, access to services and quality of life.70 Política para el desarrollo de la Mujer Rural, document approved by the National Economic and Social Policy Council (CONAPES) in January 1994.
71 In 1993, only the results of the 1991 survey were available. The 1992 and 1993 surveys were still under review.
72 The first was carried out in 1988.The survey is divided into 11 chapters:
1. Identification data on housing and household;
2. General characteristics of all household members;
3. Education for persons aged five and over;
4. Work of children between the ages of six and nine years;
5. Fertility in women aged 15 to 45 years;
6. Labour force - persons aged ten and over;
7. Employed;
8. Unemployed;
9. Secondary activity during the reference week;
10. Productive activity of households;
11. Utilization and consumption of fuel sources.
· Housing: separate and independent dwelling occupied or intended for occupation by a family or group of persons living together, or by one person living alone.
· Household: person or group of persons (related or not) occupying all or part of a dwelling and who make common provision for food and housing.
· Total population (TP): estimated from the results of the population census.
· Working-age population (WAP): persons aged ten and over.
· Economically active population (EAP) (also called labour force): all persons of working age or over who, during the reference week (the week prior to the survey), exercised or were seeking to exercise an activity in the production of goods and services. This category is divided into:
Employed: persons who, during the reference week, exercised a paid productive activity (goods and services) for at least one hour, or unpaid family workers who worked at least 15 hours. Also included were persons who did not work during the reference week but who had a job, or a business, or were generally linked to a production process.
- Underemployed: persons who were employed and would like to work more hours, because:Economically inactive population (EIP): persons of working age who are not participating in activities to produce goods and services because they do not need to, are unable to or are not interested. This includes students, homemakers, retired persons, persons with an independent income, disabled persons, persons who see no point in working and unpaid family workers working less than 15 hours per week.* they worked less than two-thirds of a legal workday;- Unemployed: persons who tried within the reference week to exercise a paid productive activity (goods and services)
* they consider their income insufficient to meet their current expenses;
* they deem their work unrelated to their profession or training.* Newly unemployed: persons without work who worked at least two successive weeks.
* First-time unemployed: persons seeking work for the first time.
The relevance of the ENHR is related to the reorientation of a survey for the purposes of gender-sensitive, scientifically oriented, development-minded planning, and not to a review of the structural and procedural aspects of application and systemization, such as statisticians or information systems experts might propose.
The survey's advantages are reviewed in the light of the concepts and operational arrangements it used. The following pages indicate the most significant statistical definitions in terms of their direct impact on gender issues. The main objective is to analyse the survey's definitions and procedures and to assess the impact of both from the gender standpoint
The ENHR is unquestionably one of the most gender-sensitive tools among the series of data sources now available in Colombia. Although not all of its components have been maximized, it could still serve as a springboard for a deeper understanding and enhanced knowledge of gender issues, producing more relevant statistics. Non only can certain variables be rearranged and approached in greater depth, certain factors hindering the gender perspective and allowing women to remain "invisible" can be eliminated.
IMPACT OF THE CONCEPTS AND OPERATIONAL METHODS USED BY ENHR FOR GENDER-SENSITIVE POLICIES
|
Concepts and operational methods used by ENHR |
Impact |
|
· The analytical unit is the
household. The predominant economic activity of the head of household is
reviewed in depth. The head is clearly distinguished from unpaid family workers.
The so-called secondary activities of the latter are also considered. ·
|
· The household as analytical
unit leads to restrictive conclusions. The fact that the head of the family has
access to the resources and production factors that promote development does not
imply that all members of the family benefit from them. The "household"
classification hinders identification of individual differences in needs and
expectations, blending the family unit into one entity. The role and activities
of family helpers (often women), who are productive but unpaid, are seen as
secondary and complementary to those of the head of the household. ·
|
|
· A detailed list is made of
main activities of each person by: sex, income, time, workplace, medical
insurance, etc. · |
· For this reason the relevance
of secondary activities remains unknown. Women's reproductive and domestic roles
are meshed and women are seen as being dependent on the head of the family.
· |
|
· Secondary activities are not
listed by individual, but rather reviewed in terms of how the results are used.
· |
· The globalization of data on
secondary activities makes it impossible to measure their importance in terms of
the individual and how the household operates. · |
|
· Productive activities in the
household are reviewed (livestock, crops, shops, crafts, income). The total
number of persons participating in such activities is listed, but not the sex,
age or relationship. · |
· This is also true of
productive activities within the household. This chapter could contribute to the
identification and measurement of the productive contribution of each member of
the family, and not just its head. · |
|
· The economically active
population is made up of persons who worked most of the time during the
reference period, were paid for at least one hour's work, or worked without pay
in a family enterprise. · |
· The conceptual division of
main and secondary occupation obviously enables structural identification of the
economically active population as distinct from the unemployed. |
|
· The reference period is the
week before the survey. · |
· During the reference period
under review, persons without continuing work (often women) were listed as
inactive, and busy with secondary activities such as crafts, livestock or
shops.73 · |
|
· People not classified as
economically active are re-interviewed to clarify their status. · |
· To classify a person as
economically active or inactive the answer concerning work during the week prior
to the survey must be verified. The explanatory options presented apply to
persons with a permanent job, and not a seasonal activity or job.
· |
|
· Employment is codified in line
with a list of professions or jobs for the main occupation and with reference to
tasks concerning agriculture, fisheries, livestock, etc. for secondary
activities. |
· The codification of the
principal occupations, referring to employment, shows that the labour force is
organized statistically in terms of urban professional categories that have
little to do with the rural sector. Moreover, categories linked to secondary
activities are not included even when they produce income. |
|
Children's work (ages six to nine): |
|
|
Labour force: for persons aged ten and over: |
Secondary activity during the past week: |
|
Question 19: Most of last week you were
mainly: Question 20: In addition to the above, last week did
you engage in paid work for at least one hour? Question 21: Did you work in a family undertaking for
15 hours or more without being paid? Question 22: Although you did not work last week, do
you have a job or employment? Question 23: Why were you not at work last week?
· |
Question 52: Last week did you look after animals, work
in the kitchen garden, help in a business, shop, etc.? Question 53: What was the first work you did? Question 54: Where did you do this work? Question 55: Who did you do this work
for? Question 56: During the past month did you receive
money from: |
|
Productive household activities: |
|
|
Question 1: Does any member of the household have an
orchard, parcel or holding on which to grow some product or rear
animals? Question 2: Who sows crops, or rears animals? Question 3: What is the production for? Question 4: What were the earnings from this sale? Question 5: How many persons work in this orchard,
parcel or holding? Question 6: The land on this orchard, parcel or holding
is: · |
Question 7: How extensive is this land? Question 8: Does any member of the household have a
store, basket-making, crafts or clothing shop or small-scale business, or sell
food, vegetables, etc? Question 9: How much is earned from this activity? Question 10: What is this business or production for? Question 11: How many persons work in the business or
production? |
|
Employment codes, selected examples |
Work codes, selected examples |
|
01 Scientists, physicists, chemists and related |
Gardening and grain-growing work |
No statistical tool intended to produce an analytical result is neutral, be it a survey, census, case study or sample. It answers to and is the product of the development model established by policy. The ENHR reflects a rationale that operates in the economic sphere and focuses predominantly on production. Thus, despite an openness to gender issues, the study reflects a classic analytical pattern that is less successful when the focus is on integrated development, including human and social, as well as economic, aspects.
When the household is taken as the analytical unit, it is assumed that the head of the household meets the family's needs through his or her economic activity, which is identified as the head's main occupation. The head of the household may or may not be helped by other members of the family, who are responsible for activities defined as secondary occupations, which are equated with domestic chores. When this approach is followed, development programmes targeted essentially at economic growth approach the family through the head of household, based on the assumption that all members of the family will benefit. This is paralleled by social and community welfare action (health, food, population) targeted at other members of the family, and focusing on the reproductive function rather than on economic activities.
It is important to point out that this approach gives rise to a paradox. Economic growth is not necessarily synonymous with social betterment. Often, a rise in gross domestic product (GDP) or other similar per caput indicators goes hand-in-hand with social decline in the family and increased poverty.
None of the items reviewed by the ENHR (main and secondary occupations, economically active population, reference period, etc.) gave data on individual members of the household. The needs and expectations of individual members remained undifferentiated and, above all, the economic contributions of family helpers were not brought out, especially the contribution of women. Thus, despite the productive work performed by women, they are relegated to the status of "homemakers", where their work remains invisible, or else they are counted as economically inactive.
Taking gender issues into account does not necessarily imply a new methodology, it simply means incorporating another form of analysis - the gender perspective. A gender approach is essential for statistical tools that are intended to describe populations, identify social, cultural and economic diversity, define specific or differentiated strategies, and formulate equitable, sustainable policies.
The gender perspective considers that integrated development depends on the acknowledgement of family realities wherein each family member has his or her own role, concerns and interests. Each family member is identified as an individual, and not viewed solely with reference to their relationship with the head of the family. Each person's importance and value are recognized, as well as the ways in which their activities and functions mesh with the whole. This makes it easier to overcome the structural barriers that generate dependency and foster the cycle of poverty.
From this point of view, the concept of the production system fits perfectly with gender analysis. It acknowledges that rural family units are not dependent on a single economic activity, but rather a multitude of productive combinations. This concept gives a whole new dimension to the notion of the rural household, revealing the underlying social and economic dynamics.
An analysis of the situation of households, therefore, calls for instruments that can analyse the social as well as the economic aspects. The ENHR needs to be reoriented, to abandon the traditional image of the rural household and to deal with gender issues in greater depth. The incorporation of gender analysis and production systems is deemed an essential tool for identifying the diverse fabric of productive activities, employment, the economically active population and the social and economic tissue underlying the workings of the study unit, which is the rural household.
The design and conception of statistical tools should be founded on the basic assumption that all individuals - men, women, young people and old people - are taken into account, both singly and within the context in which they live. This will facilitate the efforts of development policies that are founded on statistics to foster equality, justice and sustainability.
ENHR NUMBER RESULTS IN 1988, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994:
In 1994:
|
· The population totaled 14 037 802, of whom 7 153 376 were male (51 percent) and 6 878 426 female (49 percent). · Economically active population totaled 71,5% of men and 28,5% of women · 41,6% men were unemployed and
56,4%; of women were unemployed |
|
· The rate of women's
participation rose from 28.6 to 31.3 percent (Table 2). The following conclusions can be drawn: ® Women are increasingly present
in the labour market, which explains the higher unemployment rate. |
|
Year and sex |
Total population |
EAP |
EAP |
Employed |
Under-employed |
EIP |
Un-employed |
|
Men |
|||||||
|
1988 |
50.5 |
50.1 |
73.7 |
75.0 |
78.7 |
22.3 |
46.1 |
|
1991 |
50.7 |
50.2 |
71.1 |
72.3 |
71.9 |
22.8 |
42.3 |
|
1992 |
51.2 |
50.7 |
72.2 |
73.6 |
72.9 |
24.7 |
42.0 |
|
1993 |
50.9 |
50.5 |
72.5 |
74.0 |
73.4 |
24.9 |
41.6 |
|
1994 |
51.0 |
50.6 |
71.5 |
73.3 |
72.2 |
25.6 |
41.6 |
|
Women |
|||||||
|
1988 |
49.5 |
49.9 |
26.3 |
25.0 |
21.3 |
77.7 |
53.9 |
|
1991 |
49.3 |
49.8 |
28.9 |
27.7 |
28.1 |
77.2 |
57.7 |
|
1992 |
48.8 |
49.3 |
27.8 |
26.4 |
27.1 |
75.3 |
58.0 |
|
1993 |
49.1 |
49.5 |
27.5 |
26.0 |
26.6 |
75.1 |
58.4 |
|
1994 |
49.0 |
49.4 |
28.5 |
26.7 |
27.8 |
74.4 |
58.4 |
Source: DANE National Survey of Rural Households, 1988, 1991, 1992, 1993 and 1994.TABLE 2. Percentages of rural population in labour force by sex
|
Year and sex |
Overall rate of participation (a) |
Rate of inactivity (b) |
Employment rate (c) |
Under-employment rate (d) |
Un- employment rate (e) |
|
1988 |
54.2 |
45.8 |
51.7 |
15.7 |
4.6 |
|
1991 |
56.8 |
43.2 |
54.3 |
12.9 |
4.2 |
|
1992 |
54.7 |
45.3 |
52.4 |
12.9 |
4.4 |
|
1993 |
53.8 |
46.2 |
51.4 |
14.4 |
4.4 |
|
1994 |
54.4 |
45.6 |
51.4 |
14.0 |
4.5 |
|
Men |
|||||
|
1988 |
79.6 |
20.4 |
77.3 |
16.8 |
2.9 |
|
1991 |
80.3 |
19.7 |
78.3 |
13.0 |
2.5 |
|
1992 |
78.0 |
22.0 |
76.0 |
13.1 |
2.5 |
|
1993 |
77.2 |
22.8 |
75.2 |
14.6 |
2.5 |
|
1994 |
76.9 |
23.1 |
74.4 |
14.2 |
3.2 |
|
Women |
|||||
|
1988 |
28.6 |
71.4 |
25.9 |
12.7 |
9.4 |
|
1991 |
33.0 |
67.0 |
30.2 |
12.5 |
8.4 |
|
1992 |
30.9 |
69.1 |
28.1 |
12.6 |
9.1 |
|
1993 |
29.9 |
70.1 |
27.0 |
13.9 |
9.4 |
|
1994 |
31.3 |
68.7 |
27.8 |
13.7 |
11.4 |
Source: DANE National Survey of Rural Households, 1988, 1991, 1992, 1993 and 1994.TABLE 3. Percentage of population in employment, by education and sexNotes:
(a) = the ratio of economically active population to working-age population. Expresses the pressure of population on the labour market.
(b) = the ratio of economically inactive to working-age population.
(c) = the ratio of employed persons to working-age population.
(d) = the ratio of underemployed to working-age population.
(e) = the ratio of people out of work to the working-age population.
|
Year and sex |
National total |
None |
Primary |
Secondary |
Higher |
No response |
|
Men |
||||||
|
1991 |
100 |
15.1 |
64.0 |
19.1 |
1.5 |
0.2 |
|
1992 |
100 |
14.6 |
65.3 |
17.5 |
1.8 |
0.9 |
|
1993 |
100 |
14.8 |
64.1 |
18.9 |
1.6 |
0.6 |
|
1994 |
100 |
14.3 |
63.4 |
20.0 |
2.1 |
0.3 |
|
Women |
||||||
|
1991 |
100 |
14.8 |
57.2 |
24.8 |
3.1 |
0.1 |
|
1922 |
100 |
12.4 |
55.5 |
27.7 |
3.8 |
0.7 |
|
1993 |
100 |
12.1 |
54.3 |
29.5 |
3.7 |
0.4 |
|
1994 |
100 |
11.3 |
54.2 |
29.1 |
4.9 |
0.4 |
Source: DANE National Survey of Rural Households, 1988, 1991, 1992, 1993 and 1994.TABLE 4. Percentages of salaries for employed population in relation to the minimum wage
|
Year and sex |
No resp. |
None |
< half |
Half to < 1 |
1 to < 2 |
2 to < 3 |
3 to < 5 |
5 to < 8 |
8 to < 10 |
10 and more |
|
Men |
||||||||||
|
1991 |
11.5 |
13.9 |
8.2 |
20.6 |
21.7 |
4.0 |
4.5 |
4.7 |
2.1 |
8.8 |
|
1992 |
14.6 |
13.7 |
9.0 |
21.3 |
19.5 |
2.7 |
6.0 |
4.7 |
1.6 |
6.8 |
|
1993 |
15.6 |
10.1 |
10.7 |
23.8 |
18.2 |
4.0 |
4.7 |
4.4 |
1.9 |
6.5 |
|
1994 |
6.9 |
9.3 |
8.2 |
23.2 |
22.7 |
5.2 |
5.9 |
5.5 |
3.1 |
10.0 |
|
Women |
||||||||||
|
1991 |
8.3 |
21.5 |
16.8 |
13.9 |
17.8 |
5.8 |
6.3 |
4.6 |
1.3 |
3.8 |
|
1992 |
8.5 |
18.6 |
17.9 |
14.o |
18.8 |
4.9 |
7.9 |
5.2 |
0.9 |
3.4 |
|
1993 |
11.0 |
15.0 |
17.7 |
16.6 |
17.8 |
7.2 |
5.7 |
4.1 |
1.8 |
3.2 |
|
1994 |
6.8 |
14.4 |
17.2 |
13.9 |
20.9 |
7.4 |
7.5 |
5.7 |
1.5 |
4.8 |
Source: DANE National Survey of Rural Households, 1991, 1992, 1993 and 1994.
