For potato crop, local agro-dealers have mainly supplied pesticides and mineral fertilizers to approximately 97% and 93% of households, respectively. Approximately 64% of households used potato seeds bought from local seed producers, and 46% of potato farmers used bought manure from other farmers. Among these households, 33% and 54% used their own organic fertilizers and seeds from previous season, respectively.

Similarly, the local agro-dealers were the major suppliers to the few households that applied pesticides and fertilizers on bean crop. The main source for bean seeds was not the input market, given that 67% of households used their own seeds from the previous season. Regarding the organic fertilizers, 86% of the households that applied it on bean crop used their own fertilizers.

As expressed by farmers during the FGDs, the challenges in participating in input markets were mainly related to high prices particularly due to the poor infrastructure in some villages:

“The transport for fertilizer is expensive, as we have one seller in the whole sector, and the road to reach there is bad…. it becomes unusable, particularly in rainy seasons, and it becomes difficult to get a motorcycle [mostly paid] to reach home on time”. FGDs, Men

It was noted that the use of bought input was mostly dependent on previous agricultural production and commercialization: “ By the time I fail to get enough production to sell, I fail to buy inputs such as fertilizers ”. FGDs, Women.

The difference in the use of bought inputs between bean and potato farmers is consistent with a study by Riwthong et al. (2016) in Thailand. The authors found that farmers with higher level of output commercialization tend to use large quantities of bought inputs such as pesticides. In the present study, potato farmers were more commercialized and thus had higher participation in the fertilizers and pesticides markets. The importance given to this crop as a cash crop lead farmers to make more investment in its production by applying more bought inputs. The higher level of income among potato farmers can also explain their participation to inputs market as they generally use agricultural income in buying inputs.

Gender and women’s market participation

Women’s participation to output market

Findings showed that in 45% of the households participating in potato markets, only husbands were involved in the transactions while in 27%, only wives have participated to the markets. A statistical test⁵ showed that the proportion of households which involved men was significantly higher than those which involved women in potato commercialization and this was significant at 1% level. For the case of bean, the results showed that women have highly participated, as in 52% of the households that sold bean, only wives have participated and engaged the transactions. In contrary, 23% of the households have involved only men and this proportion is significantly (5% level) lower than that of women. This means that the level of women’s market participation is higher for beans than potato. Stated differently, the commercialization of potato is mainly in the hands of husbands, while beans are mainly sold by wives. The first explanation which is consistent with the research conducted in other countries, is that men tend to take control of crops when an opportunity for their commercialization emerges (Fischer & Qaim, 2012; Quisumbing & Pandolfelli, 2010).However, a further analysis of the qualitative data showed another possible cause of this gender difference in crop market participation. It also reveal the linkages between gender differentials in resources management within households. The discussions with women showed that their role in agriculture is perceived to be more associated to food production rather than cash crop management. This was understood during FGDs, when participants emphasized that bean, which is mainly produced for consumption is considered as a woman’s crop while potato is for men:

“There are villages, near the forest where it is known and indisputable that potato crops are men’s property and beans are for women. When a woman has planted beans, a man won’t ask about it, and for potato, the wife will not ask the husband ”. FGD, Women.

This has been also observed by MINAGRI (2010), that in farm households in Rwanda, women tend to manage food crops while men manage cash crops. As highlighted by the author, this situation shows the gendered aspect of agriculture and it sometimes cause conflicts due to the competition between the two categories of crops (MINAGRI, 2010). In this study, there was no particular conflict reported but with the fact that farmers tend to appropriate cash crops to men has been confirmed based on the example of potato. This is interpreted as the result of farmers’ perception of the role of men as breadwinner for his household. In such case, husbands remain the principal members of households who are expected to handle the various source of income including cash crop production. This was also noted when the participants were asked whether wives can sell any of the two crops, the answers from women showed that for beans, it can be possible particularly when they want to buy some small items for the household’s daily needs or sometimes for their personal needs. The findings about bean is consistent with the observation from previous research in Rwanda that that women do most of the bean production and their level of bean commercialization is likely to outstand that of men (Ingabire et al., 2017; Waldman et al., 2014).

In the case of potato, the findings show that women rarely participate in its marketing except when the husband works in a different sector or when he is not around:

“…those who do it [sell potato] are those whose husbands are busy with other works …, otherwise a husband cannot ask his wife to take the production to the selling point. Most often it is the responsibility of men. How many women can you find at the collection center [laughing]? Very few”. FGD, Women.

And from the discussion with men, women supply labor on most ofcrops including potato but for the latter, their husband think they are more responsible, particularly when it comes to activities related to production and harvest activities as well as paying workers. However, in the “narrative” below, men tend to consider the activity of selling potato as their responsibility while:

“Nowadays we work together,… I cannot go to harvest alone; I go together with her, even with workers who carry the potatoes to the selling point,… after selling, she comes and helps me in paying workers. She must come to help me, she is actually more responsible ”. Faustin, FGD Men.

Women and men have contradictory views on the extent at which wives engage in the activities related to potato crop. While men considered that their wives are even more responsible for potato, the opinion from women was that wives are not fully involved. They said that wives do not sell potato, though they may be involved in its production. The exception is only when the husband has other duties outside agriculture and far from home, which required women to double their efforts in agricultural activities. This situation is relevant to the concept of feminization of agriculture in which women are pushed to increase their contribution in farming activities as men look for work in off-farm activities. The increase contribution of women in farming is also perceived in the previous “narrative” where men described them as “being actually more responsible” and that “nowadays, they work together”. However, at the same time these men consider wives as “helpers”, in the activities like harvesting, supervising and paying workers. This reflects the thesis by Chant (2014) on the feminization of responsibility. Women though considered as being more responsible are considered as helpers on the other hand, and their contribution does not improve their position in terms of decision making either in production or over agricultural income:

“A husband is the one who determines what to plant …., still he is the one who determines what to give his wife, maybe thanking her for what she does on the farm…”. FGD, Women.

Wives’ access to agricultural income was even perceived as an reward from their husbands for their contribution in farm activities, just like the quotation above. In extreme cases, husbands may decide not to compensate their wives and the latter choose to keep quiet in order to avoid conflict:

“…it would be better working together and sharing [the income] . …when he sells produce, the wife expects him to bring something home, and then, whatever he brings, the wife accepts and keeps quiet to have peace at home…in the case where she gets nothing, she has to keep calm, too. There is nothing else she can do”. FGD, Women (Gakenke).

These findings on the access and control of agricultural income revealed gender gap in power relation. The “narratives” from FGDs show that husbands have more the power to decide on income and wives though not happy, they keep quiet to avoid conflict. Just like in Chant’s feminization of obligation, they are obliged to “do nothing”⁶ and accept the situation to have peace at home. This unbalanced power relation suggest that increased women’s contribution in agriculture that accompany household’s market participation, may also cause emotional stress (Arora & Rada, 2017).Though these women try to avoid direct conflicts, research in other African countries confirmed that such situations where wives do not have access to income negatively impact market-oriented production. Some examples are the cases of chili pepper and French beans production in Kenya, where women withdrew their labor, disturbing the supply chain and the quality of these commodities (Dolan, 2001; Rubin & Manfre, 2014). In these cases, the labor was diverted to subsistence production or to social work in women groups and churches. In the Rwandan case, women in the FGDs considered this lack of economic incentive for their labor as an impediment to agricultural development. They were not able to withdraw their labor or any other type of contribution, but they are conscious that the inequality in income sharing has a negative effect on their progress towards market-oriented farming. Like expressed below:

“...there are times when money from harvest is given, the husband takes it all and does not even give his wife a single coin and forgets that she is the one who struggled hard with the land... That is an impediment to agricultural development ” FGD, Women.

Women’s participation in input markets

The results from quantitative survey showed that for both crops, the husbands are the major actors dealing with inputs markets. For instance, in potato production, 58% of the households reported that only husbands bought the inputs, while wives from 20% of the households were involved. In 22% of households, both spouses were involved. Results from the proportion test comparing the households which involved only involved men and those which involved women was performed. The percentage of households which involved men was found significantly (1% level) superior to those from which only women have participated to inputs market. The number of men who participated in the inputs market was also significantly higher than that of households which involved both spouses.

In bean production, the participation to input markets also has mainly involved husbands (44% of households), then wives (34%) and both (22%). Again, these figures show that men remain more involved in input markets than their wives. However, the results from statistical test showed no significant difference between the proportion of households which involved husbands and those which involved wives only. The results from the test suggests that even for the crop that is known to be a woman’s crop, the participation of women in inputs market is not significantly different from that of men. Unexpectedly, women’s participation in inputs market for bean was not more important than that of men. In general, the participation of households in inputs market for bean was low and this had a repercussion on the use of inputs on bean crop and its productivity. Similar patterns were found by Sheahan and Barrett (2017) in their study on agricultural input use in six SSA countries. They found low use of bought inputs in plots managed by women. For the case of Rwanda, this low participation to inputs market and low use of purchased input can be explained by the low commercialization of this crop as well as its production orientation. Moreover in FGDs, women showed that they have limited financial capacity to afford production inputs which limit their market participation. The example given by Kanyange⁷ from a FGDs in Gakenke exposes this financial limitation:

“…the quantity of fertilizer I need for my farm may cost 10,000Rwf, yet we do not have anything at home that I can use to generate such an amount, so I decide not to apply it ”. FGDs, Women.

Women and labor input supply

FFrom our findings, the participation in either input or output markets of potato was mainly the domain of husbands. However, in terms of labor supply, women have equally or sometimes more contributed than men as from the FGDs. In some discussions, husbands considered their participation in farm work to be supporting or helping their wives. This may sounds like the burden of agricultural work is on women whose role in productive works did not change, reflecting the “feminization of responsibility”. A man from FGDs in Gakenke share his time use, on his typical working day. We met in the afternoon and he was planning to go to a center nearby for a drink, in the morning he was on field with his wife:

“We usually work together on the farm: planting potatoes, beans, almost everything. But, ..you see yourself that I have just taken a bath, I’m now heading to Murambo[village center] for a bottle. If I spent the whole day⁸ helping my wife on the farm, and she sees me leaving…, she does not argue. ” FGDs, Faustin.

In the “narrative” from Faustin, it was understood that time use after field activities differ between women and men. They may both work together on field, but after that, men have more time particularly in the afternoon, while women undertake their usual reproductive tacks in the household. This is confirmed in a study by Bigler et al., (2017) in our research area, showing the increased work burden among women and how men have more time for leisure and social networking. Women do not argue on how their husbands use their time or negotiate their gender roles. In one discussion, they told us that “a man is a man in his household” which indirectly show the power reserved to that man in using or deciding over household’ resources including time.

Surprisingly, the increased workload among women is perceived by their husbands who confirmed that women work many more hours than men given their other responsibilities:

“…after spending the whole day together in the field, the time use differs between wife and husband. From the field, women go home to fulfill other responsibilities like cooking and bathing the children, and men do not do such work. Women work many more hours than men ”. FGDs, Men.

In response to the question whether husbands can participate in household tasks that are traditionally for women, some men, mostly in couples without children, testified that they usually help their wives. However, the majority of the men remained skeptical of that idea, and the fear of criticism from their neighbors or relatives was expressed as the major reason:

“… helping women does not occur everywhere, approximately 20% can be helping their wives in their homes duties because people may think that this husband is being ruled by a wife. A man cannot sweep or clean dishes while his wife is doing other things ”. FGDs, Men.

The difference in workloads between women and men from farming households was found by Arora and Rada (2017) in Mozambique. By combining qualitative and quantitative approaches, they concluded that time constraint resulting from the workload among women and unequal burden in household chores have a negative effect on agricultural output. In Rwanda, despite the limited knowledge on how this affects agricultural productivity, women emphasized that inequality in responsibility sharing is a constraint to agricultural transformation. In contrary to men, they do not have time to recover from their daily productive work or even socialize with others and this has consequences on their productivity agriculture.

Conclusion

Despite the policy efforts in mainstreaming gender in agricultural transformation, the case of Northern Province of Rwanda show some gaps within dual-headed smallholder households. First, the analysis of market participation level among these households showed that they are not yet market oriented. For both input and output markets, the participation is high among potato producers, and the majority of them can be qualified as being market oriented. In contrast, the market participation of bean farmers remains lower, with fewer producers who are market oriented. Second, as the opportunities for agricultural commercialization emerge, the crop which is more commercialized (potato) is perceived to be a husbands’ crop, while bean remains under the management of wives. Analysis at individual level showed that participation in both output and input market is higher among men than women.

With this, the study identified three gender-related hindrances that maybe contributing to the low market participation and the persistence of subsistence farming. First is the low participation of women in input and output markets. Women’s contribution in production is considerable and compared to men, they are sometimes considered as being more responsible of this. Their limited participation in purchasing inputs and being in contact with the agro-dealers would reduce their ability to handle these products (e.g., dosage and storage) at the expense of agricultural productivity. Similarly, their low participation in output markets limits their access to other agribusiness opportunities. For example, little experience with output markets could limit the commercialization of beans (considered as women’s crop) and further commercialization initiatives for other crops. Second is the lower participation of women in decision making on agricultural activities and income. From the findings, there is gap in power relations when it comes to agricultural income and men are more privileged. This can be a source of demotivation to fully engage in cash crop production and market orientation in the long run. Experiences from chili pepper and French beans value chain in Kenya showed that in such circumstances, women may withdraw their labor from producing for market and concentrate on subsistence production.Third, there is a gender inequality in farm and household work. The work burden for women is higher as they combine farm work (perceived as productive) and their usual reproductive work. On the other hand, men’s role of working in productive activities (agriculture) has not changed. They become physically and emotionally exhausted and have no time for rest or networking. This affect their capacity to innovate and improve their contribution in agriculture. They considered this as an impediment to agricultural transformation in their households.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the Swiss Development Cooperation and Swiss National Science Foundation for funding this research through the Feminization, Agricultural Transition and rural Employment project by the International Centre for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT).

Footnotes

¹ Subsistence farming consists in producing for household consumption while in market oriented farming, the agricultural production is predestined to be commercialized and generate income.

² Market participation refers to when households sell their agricultural production even when it was not a priori planned. It is assumed to be either a result (then an indicator) or a driver of the so-called agricultural transformation from subsistence to market oriented farming (Biénabe & Vermeulen, 2011; Okezie et al., 2012). In this study, market participation is considered to be a proxy indicator and key step towards a transformed agriculture.

³ The process of separating grains and their hulls or husk using wind.

⁴ This refers to the place where production factors such as fertilizers, seeds and pesticides are exchanged while the output market consists in the place where farm produce are exchanged.

⁵This is a two-sided proportion test that was done to check whether the proportion of men is not statistically different from the proportion of women.

⁶ Doing nothing implies that they keep their contribution intact.

⁷ The names have been modified for privacy.

⁸In this context the farmers was referring to the time spent in field (Between 6am and 1 pm in that area).

Appendix

Appendix 1. Map of Rwanda showing the study area

Appendix 2. Questionnaire for household survey

Module B: Household listing and demographics.
(The respondent should be the one most knowledgeable about the age, completed education, and other characteristics of household members).

B01: How many people are living in this household during the last 12 months?
B02: We would like to ask you about each member of your household. [Respondent ID in relation to the household head (Code 2)]:

Name of household member [start with primary respondent, continue with the secondary respondent, and other members in descending order of age]		What is [NAME's] sex?	What is [NAME's] relationship to the head of household?	What is [NAME's] age? (in complete years)	What is [NAME's] marital status?	What is [NAME's] main occupation	Can [NAME] read and write?	Is [NAME] currently attending school?	What is the highest level of education completed by [NAME]
		Code 1	Code 2		Code 3	Code 4	Code 5	Code 6	Code 7
B03		B04	B05	B06	B07	B08	B09	B10	B11
Code 1 1 = female 2 = male	Code 2 11 Household head (man) 12 Household head (woman) 21 Children above 18 22 Children below 18 31 Grandson 41 Mother 42 Father 43 Mother in Law 44 Father in Law 51 Nephew/ nieces 61 Brothers and sisters in law 71 Other relatives 81 Maid 91. Others (specify)	Code 3 1. Single/never married 2. Divorced 3. Separated 4. Widowed 5. Religious marriage 6. Civil marriage 7. Cohabiting, single partner 8. Offical marriage (civil and religiouse) 9. Child under 18 years		Code 4 1.Self-employed Farming 2.Trade 3.Handcraft 4.Casual labor (farm) 5.Casual labor (Non-farm) 6.Touristic guide 7.Formal job 8.Others 9. Student 10. Family labour		Code 5 1. Cannot read and write 2. Can read and write	Code 6 1 = yes 0= = no	Code 7 0. Less than P1 (or no school) 1. Primary level 1 2. Primary level 2 3. Primary level 3 4. Primary level 4 5. Primary level 5 6. Primary level 6 7. 9 years education 8. Senior Secondary 15. Univeristy degree or above 16. Technical or professional training	17. Adult literacy only (no formal education) 18. Koranic/religious school only Ishuri
98 = I don't know 99 = No answer

Module Da: Land and Land tenure

Land and access to land for production		Size / area of land in hectare	Unit 1.Ha   2.m2  3.Are	Type of ownership	How did you acquire this Land
				Code 2	Code 3
				1	2
Da1	Do you own any land?(Total owned land) Code 1
Da2	if yes, what is the total surface that you own for agricultural production?
Da9	Do you have any home gardens? Code 1
Da10	Do you have any land GIVEN or LEASED to a cooperative? If yes, give the size of land?
Da11	Do you rent out (LEASE) some land to other people? If yes, give the size of said land?
Da12	Land given to land consolidation

Module Db: Production and Marketing: Season 2015

Three main crops cultivated by the household during Season 2015B If no crops cultivated skip to next page	Who was in charge of this crop?	Areas cultivated (in hectares, indicate if other measures)	Total production (In kg)	Production kept by the household for own consumption (in kg)	Production kept for seed and donation (In kg)	Production sold (In kg)	What was the Price per kg sold?	How was the price negotiated?	Where was it sold? (more than 1 answer are possible)	To whom was it sold?	Who from the household sold the crops?
Code 1	Code 2							Code 3	Code 4	Code 5	Code 2
Db1	Db2	Db3	Db4	Db5	Db6	Db7	Db8	Db9	Db10	Db11	Dd12

Code 1 1: Maize 2:Irish Potatoes 3: Wheat 4 Rice 5: Pyretrum 6: Plantain 7. Cassava 8. Cabbages/tomato/ other vegetables 9.Beans 10.Sweet potato 11.Other (specify)

Code 2 1 Male household head 2 Female household head/wife 3 Both spouses 4 Other male's household members 5.Other female household members

Code 3 1: Prices negotiated BEFORE the harvest (contract farming) 2. Prices negotiated AFTER the harvest 3. Fixed prices set up yearly (for example cooperatives) current price of the market for this commodity

Code 4 1 At farm/field 2 Local Market 3 Regional Market 4 National Market 5 Export) 6.Cooperative

Code 5 1.Local market 2. Cooperative 3. State - regional authority 4. Private company 5. Other intermediary (local traders) 6. Family / friends or other personal relations. 7.Cross-boarding traders 8. Others (specify)

Dd. Detailed use of main inputs in crops production (maximum 3 crops)

Code/name of the crop Kode / (Code1)	Type of inputs	Source of this input	If bought, by who?	Estimated amount/number per season	Unit	Approximated cost per season
Dd1	Dd2	Dd3	Dd4	Dd5	Dd6	Dd7
Code 1	Code 2	Code 3	Code 4		Code 5
Code 1 1: Maize 2: Potatoes 3: Wheat 4. Rice 5: Pyretrum 6: Plantain 7. Cassava 8. Cabbages/Tomato/other vegetable 9. Beans 10.Other (specify)	Code 2: 1. Pesticide 2. Chemical fertiliser 3. Seeds 4. Manure 5. labour	Code 3: 1. Local market 2. Own 3. Cooperative 4. Other farmers(donation) 5. RAB 6. NGO 7. Family members 8. Hired labour 9. Other specify	Code 4: 1. Male household head 2. Female household head/wife 3. Both spouses 4. Other males household members 5. Other	Code 5: 1. Kg 2. L 3. Number

FGDs on Transformation to Commercial agriculture and Marketing systems

Thematic section	Narrative Questions	Supplement Question	"Checklist" questions
1.Transformation to commercial agriculture	1. Could you describe how the transformation to agricultural commercialisation is going in this location?	1.1. If you think about the last 10 years have there been any changes in references to agricultural commercialization?	1.1.a.What does the transformation towards commercialization means for you? 1.1.b. In reference to agricultural commercialization, what have changed in your households (production, harvesting, processing, and commercialization, consumption relationship with others and within household)? 1.1.c. Are there crops reserved for this transformation If yes which ones and why?). 1.2.a. What is the current level of commercialization in your household >1.2.b. What is the current impact on livelihoods (job, income) and food security? 1.2.c. What are the constraints do you face in the process of this transformation from outside the household (Production, processing, commercialization) ? 1.2.d. What are the constraints do you face in the process of this transformation from inside the household (some disagreement, time management, ...) ?
		1.2. Could you describe the current situation about agricultural commercialization in your household?
		1.3.What do you think about the agricultural transformation policy in our Country?	1.3.a. What do you know about the agricultural transformation policy? 1.3.b. From where/whom do you have this information? 1.3.c. Do you think it is the best option to combat poverty and food insecurity?
2.Marketing Channels	2.1. Could you describe the process of commercialization of your products? (Where commercialization occurs and please specify the crop you are talking about)	2.1. How do you sell (seek to know the channels) your agricultural products?	2.1.a. To whom do you sell your agricultural production? 2.1.b. How often do you sell your products (also the quantity taken to the market)? 2.1.c. In the household, who mostly deals with the buyers and why? 2.1.d. Do you sometimes negotiate the price before harvest (When do they negotiate price)?
	2.2. Could you describe your relationship with the buyer of your agricultural products (specify crops)?	2.2.a. Could you describe your relationship with the buyers of your products? 2.2.b. What do you observe in your village about the relationship between buyer and farm household sellers? 3.1.b. Could you describe their roles in the agricultural transformation in your area(describing other farmers case)?	2.2.a. Do you know them even before the harvest of your products ? 2.2.b. Do you have any kind of agreement related to production, processing or commercialization (includes transport) of your products? 2.2.c. Do you receive any support from them?
4. Gender	Could you tell us what you think should be done for to accelerate the transformation to commercial agriculture in your area?	4.1. Could you tell us what you think should be done to increase the market participation and commercialisation level in your household (seek to understand the need)? 4.2. Could you tell us what you think should be done to increase the market participation and commercialisation level in this area (seek to understand the need)? 4.3.Do women and men have the same needs ?	4.1. Within household: at Production, processing and commercialization level? 4.2. At community level: Production, processing and commercialization level? 4.3.a. Please describe what you think are the women' needs. 4.3.b. Please describe what you think are the men' needs.

References

• Arora, D., & Rada, C. (2017). A Gendered Model of the Peasant Household: Time poverty and Farm Production in Rural Mozambique. Feminist Economics, 23(2), 93–119.
• Bekele, A., Belay, K., Legesse, B., & Lemma, T. (2010). Effects of crop commercial orientation on productivity of smallholder farmers in drought-prone areas of the central Rift-Valley of Ethiopia. Journal of Rural Development, 33(4), 105–128.
• Biénabe, E., & Vermeulen, H. (2011). Improving smallholders’ market participation: Insights from a business scheme for maize in Limpopo Province, South Africa. Development Southern Africa, 28(4), 493–507.
• Bigler, C., Amacker, M., Ingabire, C., & Birachi, E. (2017). Rwanda’s gendered agricultural transformation: A mixed-method study on the rural labour market, wage gap and care penalty. Women’s Studies International Forum, 64, 17–27.
• Carletto, C., Corral, P., & Guelfi, A. (2017). Agricultural commercialization and nutrition revisited: Empirical evidence from three African countries. Food Policy, 67, 106–118.
• Chamberlin, J., & Jayne, T. S. (2013). Unpacking the Meaning of ‘Market Access’: Evidence from Rural Kenya. World Development, 41, 245–264.
• Chant, S. (2014). Exploring the “feminisation of poverty” in relation to women’s work and home-based enterprise in slums of the Global South. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 6(3), 296–316.
• Collier, P., & Dercon, S. (2014). African Agriculture in 50Years: Smallholders in a Rapidly Changing World? World Development, 63, 92–101.
• Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed). Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications.
• Daley, E., & Englert, B. (2010). Securing land rights for women. Journal of Eastern African Studies, 4(1), 91–113.
• De Schutter, O. (2013). The agrarian transition and the feminization of agriculture (pp. 1–46). Presented at the Food Sovereignty: A Critical Dialogue, New Haven,USA: Program in Agrarian Studies, Yale University.
• Delaney, S., Livingston, G., & Schonberger, S. (2011). Right place, right time: Increasing the effectiveness of agricultural development support in sub-Saharan Africa. South African Journal of International Affairs, 18(3), 341–365.
• Diao, X., Hazell, P., & Thurlow, J. (2010). The Role of Agriculture in African Development. World Development, 38(10), 1375–1383.
• Dolan, C. (2001). The “Good Wife”: Struggles over Resources in the Kenyan Horticultural Sector. Journal of Development Studies, 37(3), 39–70.
• Doss, C. R. (2002). Men’s crops? Women’s crops? The gender patterns of cropping in Ghana. World Development, 30(11), 1987–2000.
• Fischer, E., & Qaim, M. (2012). Gender, agricultural commercialization, and collective action in Kenya. Food Security, 4(3), 441–453.
• Gebremedhin, B., Jaleta, M., & Hoekstra, D. (2009). Smallholders, institutional services, and commercial transformation in Ethiopia. Agricultural Economics, 40, 773–787.
• Gladwin, C. H., Thomson, A. M., Peterson, J. S., & Anderson, A. S. (2001). Addressing food security in Africa via multiple livelihood strategies of women farmers. Food Policy, 26(2), 177–207.
• Harrison, G. (2016). Rwanda: an agrarian developmental state? Third World Quarterly, 37(2), 354–370.
• Hjelm, L., Williams, K., & Moris, L. (2016). Rwanda 2015: Comprehensive food security and vulnerability analysis (p. 132). Rome, Italy: World Food Program(WFP),
• Holden, S. T., & Otsuka, K. (2014). The roles of land tenure reforms and land markets in the context of population growth and land use intensification in Africa. Food Policy, 48, 88–97.
• Ingabire, C., Mshenga, M., Langat, K., Bigler, C., Musoni, A., Butare, L., & Birachi, E. (2017). Towards commercial agriculture in Rwanda: Understanding the determinants of market participation among smallholder bean farmers.African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development, 17(04), 12492–12508.
• Jiggins, J. (1998). The Feminization of Agriculture. The Brown Journal of World Affairs, 5(2), 251–262.
• Lastarria-Cornhiel, S. (2006). Feminization of agriculture: Trends and driving forces. Latin American Center for Rural Development (RIMISP). Retrieved from: https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/handle/10919/68838
• Markelova, H., Meinzen-Dick, R., Hellin, J., & Dohrn, S. (2009). Collective action for smallholder market access. Food Policy, 34(1), 1–7.
• Meier zu Selhausen, F. (2016). What Determines Women’s Participation in Collective Action? Evidence from a Western Ugandan Coffee Cooperative. Feminist Economics, 22(1), 130–157.
• Mersha, A. A., & Van Laerhoven, F. (2016). A gender approach to understanding the differentiated impact of barriers to adaptation: responses to climate change in rural Ethiopia. Regional Environmental Change, 16(6), 1701–1713.
• MINAGRI. (2004). National Agricultural Policy. Ministry of Agriculture and Animal Resources.
• MINAGRI. (2010). Agriculture Gender Strategy. Government of Rwanda.
• MINECOFIN. (2013). Economic Development and Poverty Reduction Strategy II (2013-2018). Government of Rwanda. Retrieved from: http://www.minecofin.gov.rw/index.php?id=149
• Mmbando, F. E., Wale, E. Z., & Baiyegunhi, L. J. S. (2015). Determinants of smallholder farmers’ participation in maize and pigeon pea markets in Tanzania. Agrekon, 54(1), 96–119.
• Morgan, L. D., & Hoffman, K. (2018). In U. Flick (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative data collection: Focus Groups (pp. 250–263). Los Angeles: SAGE reference.
• Mudege, N. N., Nyekanyeka, T., Kapalasa, E., Chevo, T., & Demo, P. (2015). Understanding collective action and women’s empowerment in potato farmer groups in Ntcheu and Dedza in Malawi. Journal of Rural Studies, 42, 91–101.
• Muyanga, M., & Jayne, T. S. (2014). Effects of rising rural population density on smallholder agriculture in Kenya. Food Policy, 48, 98–113.
• NEPAD. (2016). Sustaining CAADP momentum to spur agricultural transformation: achivieng Malabo declaration through four thematic areas. New Partnership for Africa’s Development.
• NEPAD. (2018). Introducing CAADP. Retrieved September 28, 2018, Retrieved from: www.nepad.org/download/file/fid/3606%20
• NISR, & MINECOFIN. (2014). Rwanda Fourth Population and Housing Census.Thematic Report: Labour force participation (Institutional) (p. 160). Kigali,Rwanda: National Institute of Statistics of Rwanda and Ministry of Finance and Economic planning.
• Okezie, C. A., Sulaiman, J., & Chidi Nwosu, A. (2012). Farm – Level Determinants of Agricultural Commercialization. International Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, 2(2), 1–5.
• Olwande, J., Smale, M., Mathenge, M. K., Place, F., & Mithöfer, D. (2015). Agricultural marketing by smallholders in Kenya: A comparison of maize, kale and dairy. Food Policy, 52, 22–32.
• Onyemah, V., & Akpa, S. O. (2016). Open air markets: uniquenesses about African marketing channels. International Marketing Review, 33(1), 112–136.
• O’Sullivan, M., Rao, A., Barnejee, R., Gujalati, K., & Vinez, M. (2014). LevelLing the field: Improving Opportunities for Women Farmers in Africa (No. 86039) (pp. 1–86). Washington, DC: The World Bank.
• Quisumbing, A. R., & Pandolfelli, L. (2010). Promising Approaches to Address the Needs of Poor Female Farmers: Resources, Constraints, and Interventions. World Development, 38(4), 581–592.
• Ritchie, J., & Lewis, J. (Eds.). (2003). Qualitative research practice: a guide for social science students and researchers . London ; Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications.
• Riwthong, S., Schreinemachers, P., Grovermann, C., & Berger, T. (2016). Agricultural commercialization: Risk perceptions, risk management and the role of pesticides in Thailand. Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences .
• Roncolato, L. (2016). The Feminization U in South Africa: Economic Structure and Women’s Labor Force Participation. Feminist Economics, 22(4), 54–81.
• Rubin, D., & Manfre, C. (2014). Promoting Gender-Equitable Agricultural Value Chains: Issues, Opportunities, and Next Steps. In A. R. Quisumbing, R. Meinzen-Dick, T. L. Raney, A. Croppenstedt, J. A. Behrman, & A. Peterman (Eds.), Gender in Agriculture: Closing the knowledge gap. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
• Sheahan, M., & Barrett, C. B. (2017). Ten striking facts about agricultural input use in Sub-Saharan Africa. Food Policy, 67 , 12–25.
• Strasberg, P. J., Jayne, T. S., Yamano, T., Nyoro, J., Karanja, D., & Strauss, J. (1999). Effect of agricultural commercialization on food crop input use and productivity in Kenya. Michigan State University, 1–43.
• Twyman, J., Muriel, J., & Garcia, M. A. (2015). Identifying women farmers: Informal gender norms as institutional barriers to recognizing women’s contributions to agriculture. Journal of Gender, Agriculture and Food Security, 1(2), 1–17.
• Vaismoradi, M., Turunen, H., & Bondas, T. (2013). Content analysis and thematic analysis: Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study: Qualitative descriptive study. Nursing & Health Sciences, 15(3), 398–405.
• Verhofstadt, E., & Maertens, M. (2015). Can Agricultural Cooperatives Reduce Poverty? Heterogeneous Impact of Cooperative Membership on Farmers’ Welfare in Rwanda. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 37(1), 86–106.
• Verhofstadt, Ellen, & Maertens, M. (2014). Smallholder cooperatives and agricultural performance in Rwanda: do organizational differences matter? Agricultural Economics, 45(S1), 39–52.
• Waldman, K. B., Kerr, J. M., & Isaacs, K. B. (2014). Combining participatory crop trials and experimental auctions to estimate farmer preferences for improved common bean in Rwanda. Food Policy, 46, 183–192.