JENDA: A JOURNAL OF CULTURE AND AFRICAN WOMEN STUDIES ISSN: 1530-5686 Issue 8 (2006)

Lekan Sanni

Abstract

This study makes a comparative study of socio-economic characteristics of female-headed households within the metropolitan city of Ibadan. Socio-economic variables on which information was collected, and that were assessed adequate enough for the task of comparing the various female-headed households in the residential districts, are: “place of origin,” “highest level of education,” “employment,” “occupation,” “marital status,” “type of building,” “average family size,” and “occupancy rate.” The analysis is based on statistical estimation and conclusions are based on the results obtained from these estimations. Our findings indicate that socio-economic level of female-headed households in the city of Ibadan generally varies with the residential districts in which they reside, increasing in quality from the city centre in Mapo through Mokola to Bodija. Hence broad generalizations for the whole city could be erroneous. Significance of the findings revolves round emphasizing the need to ensure that planning welfare and other packages for female-headed households are preceded by conducting thorough investigations on the spatial pattern of their characteristics to ensure that the right packages are provided for the right beneficiaries in the right locations.

Key words: Household; household head; female-headed household; residential district.

Introduction

The term “household” has been perceived in diverse ways in scholarly literature on development. The most inclusive and comprehensive definition adopted for this study is the one given by the Philippines National Statistics Office (NSO) as used in their Labor Force Survey (LFS). The NSO defines “household” as:

an aggregate of persons, generally but not necessarily bound by ties of kinship, who live together under the same roof and eat together or share in common the household food. A household is composed of a head, relatives living with him/her, and other persons who share the community life for reasons of work or other consideration. Furthermore, a person who lives alone is considered a separate household, as also a person who rents bed space but makes arrangements for his/her own food. Moreover, a group of persons who share and take their meals together but live on separate but adjacent living quarters for convenience is also considered one household (LFS Enumerator’s Manual, 1987, cited in Morada et. al, 2001).

Medina (1991) contends that the headship of the household is usually identified with the person who has the greater authority in the family or household. Power and authority in turn may be vested in the member who has control over the general affairs of the family unit, including decision-making concerning its economic, social and political interactions. Illo (1989), however cautions that while females are recognized as potential household heads, in reality, [official] data collection, men are most often ascribed the headship position “ a practice that still subscribes to the patriarchal view that men provide for the family while the women nurture it. Thus, headship may be assigned without due regard to the actual economic contributions of the female members.

The definition of ˜female-headed household adopted for this study, is the one given by The Communication and Educational Technology Services, University of Minnesota Extension Service. (2004) as: one headed by female household head/reference person who is not currently married and living with her spouse.

Two different types of female-headed household have been identified in the literature. These are: the de jure, where the female head belongs to one of these categories: single, widowed, divorced or separated; and, the de facto, where the head is the wife of a male migrant. Of the two, the de facto headship is usually more temporary in nature since the husband will automatically assume the headship whenever he is around. Even while away, some vital decisions have to be referred to him for his final decision. A variant of the de jure type is the case where widowed mother is living with her son and his family. In such instances, the married son will often designate his mother as head of the household out of respect. This does not mean that she has major decision-making power (Perrett, 1996; IFAD, 1999a; IFAD, 1999b).

Scholars have subjected female-headed households to much research. Initially, two major generalizations are made about female-headed households. The first is that in almost all countries, they are concentrated among the poorer strata of society and often have lower incomes than male-headed households. Many scholars support this claim, including Buvinic and Gupta (1997), Barros et al. (1977), Kossaidji and Meuller (1983), and Goldberg and Cremen (1990). Their support is based on findings from empirical studies of female-headed households. For instance, Buvinic and Gupta (1997) reviewed 61 studies examining the relationship between female headship and poverty. They found that “only eight of the cases studied found no evidence of greater poverty among female-headed households.” Barros et al. (1977), Kossaidji and Meuller (1983), and Goldberg and Cremen (1990) arrived at similar conclusions. In contrast, recent scholarly studies on female-headed households in Africa, Panama, Peru, Dominican Republic, Jamaica and the Philippines have shown conclusively that the initial perceived association between female-headed households and poverty might not exist. Conclusions reached from empirical studies ranged from ˜the reality [of whether female-headed households are poorer than male-headed ones] [being] more complex (Quisumbing, et al., 1995; IFAD 2004a; and 2004b), to “female-headed households are not poorer than male-headed ones” (Rosenhouse, 1989; Handa, 1994; Rogers, 1995; and Morada et al., 2001).

Quisumbing, et al. (1995) in their study on the relationship between gender and poverty in ten developing countries, and IFADs (2004a and 2004b) studies on the issue of poverty among female-headed households in Africa, concluded that “the reality [of whether female-headed households are poorer than male-headed ones] is more complex than allowed by conventional wisdom.” On the other hand, Rosenhouse (1989) in his research on Peru, Handa (1994) and Rogers (1995) in their investigations on Dominican Republic and Jamaica, respectively, and Morada et al. (2001) in their investigation of female-headed households in Philippines, all concluded that “female-headed households are not poorer than male-headed ones.” Studies by Gangopadhyay and Wadhwa (2003) debunked the notion that female-headed households in India are more vulnerable to poverty than male-headed ones.

The second general opinion associated with female-headed households is that they are more prominent in the rural areas. This notion was touted by Kossoudji and Mueller (1983), Dreeze and Srinivassan (1997), IFAD (1999a), IFAD (1999b), and FAO (2,004).But their contention is not supported as demonstrated by empirical investigations by diverse authors, prominent among whom are Barres et al. (1997) and most of the scholars cited above. According to Hutaserani (1989), increasing interest in the study of households, particularly household structures, arises from the fact that family structure exerts important influence on both household economic behaviors and the future demographic structure.

Most of the studies of female-headed households are focused on investigating the level of poverty of households in this category. In most cases, data on geographical units are lumped together and the results provided as percentages of the households while possible internal spatial variations in the socio-economic characteristics of the households within and between the districts that make up the study area, be it urban, rural or rural/urban interface, are glossed over. This research is conceived to explore the possible existence of spatial variations in the socio-economic characteristics of female-headed households in the city of Ibadan. The research findings could also be useful in planning welfare and other related services for people in this category. The working hypothesis of the research, therefore, is that there are no spatial variations in socio-economic characteristics of female-headed households in the city of Ibadan.

Methodology

In carrying out this study, three residential neighborhoods were chosen to represent low, medium and high residential density areas of the city of Ibadan. The low-density area was represented by Bodija estate; Mokola represented medium-density areas while Bere/Mapo area (referred to as “Mapo” in this report) represented high-density residential areas (see Figure 1). Seventy-two female-headed households were chosen as samples in the three neighborhoods, and their distribution was based on projected population for the neighborhoods: seventeen (24 percent) in Bodija estate, twenty-two (30 percent) in Mokola and thirty-three (46 percent) in Mapo. A set of pre-tested questionnaires was used to obtain information from the household heads (a copy is attached as Appendix I). Where household heads were absent, the oldest members available provided information. Information was collected on the socio-economic characteristics of households. Data collected were analyzed using simple percentages. To investigate further whether the observed spatial variations in socio-economic characteristics of female-headed households in the study area were residential district dependent or not, Chi-square (X2) tests were conducted on the results obtained.

Figure 1: The site of Ibadan city (Source: Akinyemi, 2000)

Results and Discussions

From reviewing existing literature and personal interactions with the residents of the study area, the following factors were considered adequate in comparing female-headed households in the city of Ibadan: “place of origin;” “level of education;” “employment;” “occupation;” “marital status;” “family size;” “occupancy rate;” “type of building;” and, “type of tenure.” Income could not be included in our analysis because information provided was not very reliable and was therefore omitted.

Table I below presents the socio-economic characteristics of female-headed households in the city of Ibadan, based on the selected parameters. From the Table, it is observed that, for the whole city of Ibadan, the proportion of female-headed households is nearly equally divided between the ‘indigenes’ (51 percent) and ˜non-indigenes’ (49 percent). When compared on the basis of the residential neighborhoods under study, great variations are observed. For instance, while nearly 81 percent of female household heads in Mapo are indigenes of Ibadan, indigenes account for only 25 percent and 26.7 percent of female-headed households in Bodija and Mokola respectively.

On education, nearly 60 percent of all female household heads surveyed had less than secondary education, 13 percent had secondary education, 21 percent had post-secondary education, but less than university degree, four percent had university degrees and three percent had post graduate degrees. When compared on neighborhood basis, great variations emerged in the distribution based on levels of education. While 20.8 percent of respondents in Bodija estate had less than secondary education, this accounted for 63.4 percent in Mokola and 75 percent in Mapo. 76.7 percent of respondents in Bodija had post secondary education, 17.7 percent of which had at least a university degree. Mokola recorded 22.7 percent with post secondary education, 4.5 percent of which had university degrees, and none with a post-graduate degree. Corresponding figures for Mapo was 12.2 percent post secondary education graduates, half of which were at the university level.

Table 1: Socio-economic characteristics of female-headed households by selected activities (%)

Source: Fieldwork by Author, 2000.

Majority of female household heads in the study area (71.0 percent) were self-employed. Twenty percent were wage earners, four percent were unemployed, and five percent were unpaid family workers. Majority of respondents in the categories of ˜unpaid family worker’ and ˜unemployed’ were widows who derive their sustenance mainly from rents collected from buildings inherited from their spouses and remittance from working children. Analyzing the employment status of the respondents on residential neighborhood basis reveals great variations. For instance, unlike the general distribution for the study area as a whole, 75.0 percent of the respondents in Bodija, zero percent in Mokola and about five percent in Mapo, were wage earners, while 95.1 percent of the female-household heads in Mapo, 73.4 percent in Mokola and 20.9 percent in Bodija were self employed. Also, while none of the respondents in Mapo was either an unpaid family worker or unemployed, 13.3 percent and about four percent of respondents in Mokola and Bodija were respectively categorized as unpaid family worker, and only Mokola recorded unemployed female household head (13.3 percent).

In the case of distribution of female household heads by occupation, it is observed from the Table that on the whole, as high as 55.0 percent of the respondents in the study area were petty traders. Next in importance were office workers (14 percent) and traders (13 percent). Other vocations in descending order of prominence were: artisans, mostly hairdressers and fashion designers (eight percent), housewives (five percent), pensioners (four percent) and baby sitters (one percent). When compared on residential neighborhood basis, significant differences were observed in the distribution by occupation. For instance, the most prominent occupation in Bodija was office work, in which nearly 42 percent were engaged, followed by petty trading (33.2 percent). In Mokola and Mapo, petty trading was the most prominent occupation.It accounted for 40.2 percent of employment in Mokola, and more than three quarters (76.8 percent) in Mapo. Office workers, who accounted for as high as 41.9 percent in Bodija only claimed 6.6 percent in Mokola and three percent in Mapo.

54 percent of the overall respondents were married, 38 percent widowed and the remaining (8 percent) were equally distributed between being divorced and being single. Remarkably, none of the respondents was separated from their spouses. When residential districts are compared, one finds great variations in distribution by marital status. In Bodija, 70.9 percent of female household heads were widowed and the rest married. This contrasted greatly with Mokola where 63.4 percent were married, 30.4 percent widowed and 13.3 percent were single. Mapo was somewhat similar to Mokola in that nearly 61 percent of respondents were married, and 30.4 percent were widowed. Cases of divorced female household heads were only recorded in Mapo where they constituted nearly nine percent of the respondents. High incidence of married female household heads in the study area could owe much to the cultural practice of multiple wives (polygyny) permissible in the city. The practice of many husbands working outside the city and therefore being away most days of the month could also be a contributing factor.

Majority of respondents (68 percent) occupied “face to face” type of buildings, 13 percent occupied detached bungalow, 11 percent occupied block of flats, while the remaining (eight percent) occupied traditional compounds. A comparison of residential neighborhoods reveals that “face to face” buildings were still the most prominent, accounting for 41.6 percent in Bodija, 73.4 percent in Mokola and 75.5 percent in Mapo. Detached bungalows accounted for 25 percent in Bodija, 23.3 percent in Mokola and zero percent in Mapo. Residents in blocks of flats range from as low as 3.3 percent in Mokola through 4.9 percent in Mapo to as high as 33.4 percent in Bodija. Only Mapo recorded residents in traditional compounds, and about 19.6 percent of female household heads in this neighborhood reside in such houses.

Half (50 percent) of the respondents for the whole study area lived in rented apartments.25 percent lived in family houses, 22.2 percent were owner-occupiers, and only 2.8 percent were in rent-free apartments. Comparing these by residential districts revealed great variations. For instance, in Bodija and Mokola, more than 76 percent of the respondents lived in rented apartments, and the rest were owner-occupiers. In Mapo, on the other hand, more than a half (54.5 percent) lived in family houses, 21.2 percent were owner-occupiers, and 18.2 percent were in rented apartments, while 6.1 percent were in rent-free apartments.

The overall average family size for the study area was 5.4. This varied from 3.87 in Mokola, through 5.75 in Bodija, to 5.85 in Mapo. On occupancy rate, which is the number of persons per habitable room, average for the study area was 2.34. This varied from 1.67 in Bodija through 1.94 in Mokola to 2.72 in Mapo.

From the analysis above, there appears to be spatial variations in the socio-economic status of female household heads in the study area. There is also apparent gradation in the socio economic status of the respondents from Mapo through Mokola to Bodija. For instance, while a female household head in Mapo is more likely to be an indigene of the city (81.8 percent), have less than a secondary education (72.7 percent), be self employed (93.9 percent), and be engaged in petty trading (78.8 percent), her counterpart in Bodija is more likely to be a non-indigene (23.5 percent), be more educated (76.7 percent had post-secondary qualifications), be a wage earner (76.5 percent) and be an office worker or a trader (53 percent).

To investigate further whether the observed spatial variations in socio-economic characteristics of female-headed households in the study area were residentially district dependent or not, Chi-square (X2) tests were conducted on the results obtained from the households in Table 1 (See Appendix II). Since the values of the computed X2 for every activity investigated was greater than the Table values, the study shows that socio-economic level of female-headed households in the city of Ibadan generally varies with the residential districts of respondents, increasing from the city center in Mapo through Mokola to Bodija.

The paper has provided empirical evidence that spatial variations exist in the characteristics of female-headed households in the city of Ibadan and that generalizations over any geographical region could be erroneous. The paper is significant to studies of female-headed households since it brings to light, the importance of ensuring that planning and implementation of welfare and other social programs for these households, are preceded by thorough investigations of the spatial variations in their characteristics. Such studies will ensure that the right social services are provided for the right beneficiaries in the right locations.

Appendix

Please fill the following questionnaire. We guarantee that all information supplied will be treated strictly as confidential and will be used for academic research only.

1. Location of the building
(a) Mapo ( ); (b) Mokola ( ); (c) Bodija ( )

2. Your place of origin
(a) Ibadan ( ); (b) Outside Ibadan ( )

3. Highest level of education attained
(a) Less than primary ( ); (b) More than primary but less than secondary ( ); (c) Complete secondary ( ); (d) Post secondary but less than a university degree ( ); (e) University degree ( ); (f) Post graduate ( )

4. Employment
(a) Wage earner ( ); (b) Self employed ( ); (c) Unpaid family worker ( ); (d) Unemployed ( )

5. Occupation
(a) Artisan( ); (b) Petty trader ( ); (c) Trader ( ); (d) Baby sitter ( ); (e) Office worker ( ); (f) Pensioner ( ); (g) House wife ( )

6. Marital status
(a) Single ( ); (b)Married ( ); (c) Separated ( ); (d) Divorced ( ); (e)Widowed ( )

7. Type of building
(a) Detached bungalow ( ); (b) Face-to-face ( ); (c) Block of flats ( ); (d) Traditional compound ( )

8. Type of tenure
(a) Owner occupier ( ); (b) Rented ( ); (c) Rent-free ( ); (d) Family house ( );

9. Household size _____________

10. Number of habitable rooms occupied by your household

Appendix II.

In carrying out the chi-square (X2) test, the following hypotheses were proposed:

1. H0: There are no spatial variations in the distribution of female-headed households by place of origin in the city.

H1: Spatial variations in the distribution of female-headed households by place of origin in the city is residential district dependent.

2. H0: There are no spatial variations in the distribution of female-headed households by level of education in the city.

H1: Spatial variations in the distribution of female-headed households by level of education in the city is residential district dependent.

3. H0: There are no spatial variations in the distribution of female-headed households by employment in the city.

H1: Spatial variations in the distribution of female-headed households by employment in the city is residential district dependent.

4. H0: There are no spatial variations in the distribution of female-headed households by occupation in the city.

H1: Spatial variations in the distribution of female-headed households by occupation in the city is residential district dependent.

5. H0: There are no spatial variations in the distribution of female-headed households by marital status in the city.

H1: Spatial variations in the distribution of female-headed households by marital status in the city is residential district dependent.

6 H0: There are no spatial variations in the distribution of female-headed households by type of building inhabited in the city.

H1: Spatial variations in the distribution of female-headed households by type of building inhabited in the city is residential district dependent.

7. H0: There are no spatial variations in the distribution of female-headed households by type of tenure in the city.

H1: Spatial variations in the distribution of female-headed households by type of tenure in the city is residential district dependent.

Decision Rule:

In each of the seven cases, accept H0 if computed X2 is less than the table value or reject H0 if computed X2 is greater than the table value.

The results of the required computations at 5 percent level of confidence are presented in Table 2 below.(IN PAGE 13)

Table 2: Summary of the results of the Chi-(X2) square tests

Source: Computations from Table 1 by the Author.

Since the computed value of X2 is greater than the table value in all the cases investigated, Reject H0.

References

Barros, R., Fox, L. and Mendonca, R. (1997). “Female-headed Households, Poverty, and the Welfare of Children in Urban Brazil,” Economic Development and Cultural Change 45(2):231-257.

Buvinic, M. and G. Rao Gupta (1997). “Female-headed households and female maintained families: Are they worth targeting to reduce poverty in developing countries?” Economic Development and Cultural Change 45, 259-280.

Communication and Educational Technology Services, University of Minnesota Extension Service. Downloaded from http//www.extevsion.umn.edu/index.html on 05-11-2004.

Dreze, J. and P. V. Srinivasan (1997). “Widowhood and poverty in rural India: some inferences from the household survey data,” Journal of Development Economics 54, 217-234.

FAO (2004). “FAO focus: women and food security.” Downloaded from http://fao.org/FOCUS/E/Women/Sustin-a.htm on 05/11/2004.

Fuwa, N. (1999). “The poverty and heterogeneity among female-headed householdsrevisited: The case of Panama.” Downloaded from http://www.h.chiba-u.ac.jp/mkt/FHPANA14.pdf on 05th Nov. 2004.

Gangopadhyay, S, and Wadhwa, W. (2003). “Are Indian Female-Headed Households More Vulnerable To Poverty?” Downloaded from http://globetrotterberkeley.edu/Macarthur/inequality/papers//GangopadhyayFem.pdf on 05/11/2004.

Goldberg, G. S. and Cremen, E (1990). The feminization of poverty: only in America? New York: Praeger

Hutaserani, S. (1989). “Determinants of household structure in Thailand.” Downloaded from http://www.info.tdri..or.th/e.hlist.htm. on 05/11/2004.

IFAD, 2004a. Gender and household food security: Botswana-female-headed households. Downloaded from http;//www.ifad.org/contacts.htm on 05/11/2004.

IFAD. 2004b. Gender and household food security: the issue of poverty among female-Headed households in Africa. Downloaded from http;//www.ifad.org/contacts.htm on 05/11/2004)

Illo, J. F. 1989 “Who Heads the Household? Women in Households in the Philippines.” In Amaryllis T. Torres (ed.), The Filipino Women in Focus, Bangkok: UNESCO.

Kossaidji, S. and Mueller, E. (1983). “The economic status of female-headed households in rural Botswana.” Economic Development and Cultural Change 31(3):831-859

Morada, H. B; Llaneta, M. A; Pangan, T.N.; and Pomentil, C. L. (2001). “Female headed household in the Philippines.” Downloaded from http://www.manila.online.net/bles/download/fhhp.pdf on 05-11-2004.

Quisumbing, A. R; Haddad, L; and Pena, C. (1995). “Gender and poverty: new evidence from 10 developing countries. IFRRI, Food Consumption and Nutrition Division,” Discussion Paper No. 9.

Rogers, B. L. (1995). “Alternative definitions of female-headship in the Dominican Republic.” World Development 23(10): 2033-2039.

Citation Format:

Lekan Sanni. “Comparative Study Of Female-Headed Households in the City Of Ibadan” JENDA: A Journal of Culture and African Women Studies: Issue 8, 2006.

Copyright © 2006 Africa Resource Center, Inc.