Blog

The structure and dynamics of Ugandan households presented a unique context for our study. Unlike the traditional nuclear household structure, which typically consists of a couple and their children, Ugandan households are communal and dynamic, encompassing a broad and evolving network of relatives and community members. These households frequently change in size and structure due to various economic and cultural factors, and sometimes even without clear reasons. This fluidity has implications for the measurement of women’s economic empowerment (WEE), as observed while conducting our WEE-DiFine-funded study, “Adapting and Validating WEE Indicators in an Experimental Study of Savings.” The effects of these dynamics had a profound impact on our research, influencing everything from the wording of our questionnaire to the final WEE outcomes. We believe that our insights into the fluidity of household sizes and its impact on WEE measurement will be of particular value to other researchers navigating similar contexts.

Measuring Household Size     

As we embarked on our pilot phase of endline data collection, one of our regular quality check protocols involved comparing the baseline reported household size with the endline reported size. We presumed that minor changes in household size would occur, such as a member joining or leaving in some households, and only in rare cases, given that the endline survey was conducted just 12 months after the baseline survey. Larger changes would likely indicate potential data quality issues. 

The results of the initial checks performed on the first 613 surveys revealed an almost 60% mismatch[1] of household size between baseline and endline, and a discrepancy of more than 2 members amongst 20% of these households (Figure 1). This trend persisted throughout the survey, with approximately 50% mismatch on the full sample.

Our immediate response was to conduct a quick survey audit to verify the validity of the responses.[2] The audit revealed insightful reasons behind the differences, surfacing interesting implications on women’s daily lives, which influence nearly all aspects of their economic empowerment.

Many household size mismatches were due to variations in the number of children reported between the baseline and endline. In Uganda, children often move between relatives’ or neighbors’ homes for communal upbringing.[3] Additionally, economic hardships frequently lead to children being adopted or cared for by others, particularly in rural areas. Finally, boarding schools, which are common in Uganda, cause seasonal or temporary relocations of children. These changes directly impact women’s daily lives. As primary caregivers, they must constantly adapt to new situations, making it hard to plan ahead or commit to long-term opportunities.[4]     

Other mismatches came from frequent relocations of a broader array of household members. These relocations significantly influence household dynamics and the individuals who have a say in the household. Poor housing conditions or weather-related problems can lead to children or the elderly being sent to live with other relatives. Moves for specialized medical care, as well as inheritance and property disputes, are also common. Our women respondents mentioned moving, usually with children, to be closer to a strong support network during difficult times or significant life changes. Finally, in polygynous households, children and spouses frequently move between the households of a father’s wives. These relocations significantly influence household dynamics and the individuals who have a say in the household. Women are forced to take on new roles and responsibilities, significantly impacting their decision-making power, financial stability, economic autonomy, and overall empowerment.

Revealing the Neglected Complexity of Household Dynamics in WEE Research 

The ‘Who Else’ and ‘What Else’ Factors

The insights gained from our audits perfectly aligned with and confirmed our findings from the qualitative interviews we previously conducted to validate our empowerment constructs and design survey questions. During these sessions, our women participants emphasized that due to a constantly changing household structure, focusing solely on husbands’ roles in women’s agency and decision-making would overlook the vital contributions of other household members, extended family, neighbors, friends, the broader community, and the diverse circumstances they bring.

For instance, during our cognitive interviews testing women’s agency questions from academic publications on Uganda (see Table 1), participants noted that focusing solely on husbands’ roles in WEE is too narrow and misrepresents the complex realities women live in.

The women further elaborated that restrictions on their agency and decisions are imposed by many other family members that directly beget from the fluidity of household structure. 

Instead of limiting WEE questions to spouses’ role or impact, our participants suggested offering choices that include siblings, parents, children, in-laws, and even friends or neighbors. The women also emphasized the necessity of having multiple choice options, as they are often required to navigate restrictions on their agency and autonomy imposed by multiple individuals simultaneously!

And in fact, our endline survey data shows that it is crucial to capture not only the wide spectrum of ‘who’ permits or restricts, but also ‘who else’—the combination of people involved in influencing the agency of women. To illustrate, one WEE question suggested by our participants, which we included in our endline survey, asks about individuals who forcibly take and use their money (Table 2).

Had we only asked about spouses using money against women’s will, we would have seen just a 5-6% occurrence. This might have led us to believe that the issue is not widespread and has limited relevance to WEE measurement. However, when we allowed our respondents to consider all individuals who take money from them forcefully, the frequency more than doubled to 12%. This highlights a significant problem where various people, sometimes in combination, exploit these women, undermining their financial autonomy.

Additionally, our participants noted that the ever-changing household dynamics introduce additional factors into the equation. It’s not just about ‘who’ or ‘who else’ interferes with their control, but also ‘what’ and ‘what else’. Extra childcare, housework, and a range of constantly changing obligations lead to fatigue and health issues, further diminishing their agency and decision-making power.

For constructs regarding women’s ‘control over time,’ our participants urged us to include a comprehensive list of potential sources, both individuals and circumstances. They emphasized that the restrictions on their time control are imposed not only by different people, but also by the circumstances those people create.

The endline survey in fact reveals a complex and multifaceted landscape of empowerment restrictions that Ugandan women face. Fewer than 5% of women are restricted by only one person or family member – the vast majority experience time control restrictions from multiple people and factors simultaneously (Table 3).

Once again, if we had tailored the question solely to ask if spouses control how these women spend their time, we would have observed a low occurrence of the issue and mistakenly concluded that this construct has limited relevance to WEE measurement. However, by allowing women to list all the people and factors that limit their time agency, we uncovered the full extent and complexity of the challenges they face.

Measuring WEE is no easy feat—it’s a complex task that hinges on our precise understanding of the communities and people we study. To get it right, we must immerse ourselves in these communities, truly grasp their daily lives and unique challenges, and incorporate these insights into our study designs. Like the dynamics of household structure discussed above, each unique factor within the communities might be crucial to getting the full and correct picture. By moving beyond our assumptions and genuinely listening to the individuals we study, we can craft questions that resonate with them, revealing powerful insights that might otherwise remain hidden.

[1] Discrepancy of at least one member in the reported household size between the baseline and endline surveys.
[2] The data quality audits involved telephonic checks to verify household member counts and gathered nuanced insights into the discrepancies through in-depth interviews.
[3] Our observations indicate that the communal nature of Ugandan households is deeply rooted in cultural traditions that emphasize strong social bonds and collective responsibility. This support network also serves as a practical strategy to cope with economic challenges.
[4] For instance, one woman initially reported four children, but by the endline, she had eight, as her sister, who went to work abroad, left her four additional children, forcing her to work longer hours at night to provide for them and take care of the children during the day. Another case involved a woman who, after ending her marriage and having a child, returned to live with her many siblings, significantly altering her priorities and life direction, as her autonomy diminished, and decisions were now made by her relatives instead of her. In another instance, a grandmother’s daily life was impacted when her grandchildren were taken by their mother, who found permanent work in Kampala.