challenges the prevailing assumption in microeconomic analysis that Increased calf survival or interventions which permit an increase in the
decision-making within the household is unified and consensual rather number of animals under current land end labor constraints. If improved
than the result of negotiation, and thus brings into question the technologies are to be developed and tested, it is clearly Important to
validity of the technique of interviewing a single family member, i.e., understand vb2 will have an incentive to participate (if additional
the household head (however defined), about decisions to be made across labor Is necessary) and to make cash outlays (if purchased inputs are
the whole range of household enterprises. required).
IncenivesThere are two key conceptual challenges in the use of intrahousehold analysis to strengthen the Fill process:
The final intra-household variable I would like to discuss is the
incentive structure within the household, and the questions that are A. What is the appropriate unIi f nalysis for PSfl? How do we
central to an analysis of participation in proposed technology changes: delineate the boundaries of the household? Who is (are) the farmer(s)
Who benefits from the intervention and who will control the output, within the household to whom research questions end the technology
whether in the form of more cash, more agricultural products, freed design and testing processes are directed? In sum, who are the Fill
land, or freed time? And what are the implications for agricultural clients end research subjects, and how can technological interventions
investment and technology adoption of the distribution of an be tailored to the needs of various client groups?
Intervention's benefits and costs among members within a household?
B. Once we've determined the appropriate unit(s) of analysis, how
Recent evidence has challenged the underlying assumption of can we determine its objectives. with respect to its portfolio of crop
microeconomic analysis that the household's interests can be aggregated and livestock production, complementary enterprises, and off-farm
into a single utility function, with its implicit corollary that the activities? Here it is important to recognize the household as both a
production and consumption objectives of individual family members are production and consumption unit. The household has been postulated to
complementary rather than conflicting and that benefits and costs of have different hierarchies of objectives to be maximized, ranging from
change will be equitably distributed. These assumptions are yield Increases of specific crops to marketable surpluses, for cash sale
particularly problematic in the many societies where the division of or barter to the food/nutritional value of agricultural production to
obligations for family mnst.r rncE is highly gender-specific, so that some measure of return to the household's most limiting production
men and women allocatL e ce :.der their control to activities that constraint. Since the household's objectives are posited to be the most
best enable then to fulfill these obligations, rather than to the important determinant of the technology development process in Fill, it
activities that are most productive from an aggregate household is clearly essential to asaess them accurately, which requires an
perspective. A very clear example of this is the case of polygamous in-depth understanding of household composition and intra-household
households, in which household income generally is not pooled and each processes.
wife has clear and distinct responsibilities for herself f and her
children. In such cases, rather than viewing the household as a single
maximizing small firm, it may be more appropriate to view it as a METHODOLOGICAL PROBLEMS OF ASSESSING INTiAz-HOUSEHOtL AR1&IBLSAND
composite of small firms, allocating resources according to separatePRCSE utility functions. The analysis of incentive structures within the
household helps to explain the abundant evidence of women's search for What data should be collected, at which points within the Fill
and protection of independent income sources, as well as their process, and for what purposes?. Two general issues must be addressed.
preferences to allocate their labor resources to activities over which First, the expense and complexity of FiR field studies places the burden
they control the product, e.g. dairy processing for household upon the Fill team to carefully pioritize a lmited nbr o
consumption and sale, rather than unpaid weeding of cereal fields jInrahousehl vriables and interactions for examination, based upon
controlled by their husbands. its understanding of local production systems, constraints, and
socioeconomic conditions. And second, there is a challenge,
An example of the distributional consequences of a new livestock particularly for social scientists involved in Fill (including
technology may illustrate how the extent to which a new technology is economists), to develop and adapt from their respective disciplines more
viewed as an improvement will vary according to the Individual family "streamlined" methodologies for intra-household measurement and
member's perspective. If men control livestock aintenance and the cash analysis.
from the sale of animals, on the whole they would favor interventions
which would Increase live-weight and quality of stock. Women, If they What are the principal methodological challenges in analyzing the
receive income from sale of milk, cheese, and other dairy products, as farming household in terms Of its patterns of labor allocation,
If often the case, would stand to gain most from interventions which
598 599