Empowerment or Disempowerment through Formalization? The Case of Women Entrepreneurs in Food Processing in Northern Ethiopia

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to assess the possible contribution of formalizing small-scale women entrepreneurs’ food processing enterprises in northern Ethiopia to their empowerment or disempowerment. The rationale for evaluating this contribution to (dis)empowerment is to provide updated and policy-relevant knowledge on the issue, including assessing if the critiques of the formalization agenda are still valid or whether the situation may have changed. The main finding suggests that formalization offers limited opportunities for empowering small-scale, resource-poor women entrepreneurs in northern Ethiopia. The contribution of formalization to women's (dis)empowerment varies among the various categories of participants in different ways and forms. Some better-off women entrepreneurs benefitted from formalization in some dimensions; however, this is not the case for most of the women entrepreneurs included in the study. Instead, for the poorer women entrepreneurs, formalization rather led to disempowerment. In conclusion, if formalization in Ethiopia harms or disempowers poor women entrepreneurs rather than benefits them, this paper suggests a need for a major change in policies and practices related to the formalization and women empowerment agenda.

Keywords:

• women entrepreneurs
• formalization
• (dis)empowerment
• northern Ethiopia

1. Introduction

Formalizing property rights has long been a key topic in development literature. During the 1950s and 1960s, there was a strong consensus that formalized property rights were fundamental to economic growth and development (Rodrik, 2005). Following this perspective, formalization in low- and medium-income countries (LMICs) has been the subject of interest over several decades (Chen, 2012; De Soto, 1989, 2000; La Porta and Shleifer, 2014; Nelson and De Bruijn, 2005), where at the heart of this interest is the theme of development, suggesting that the formalization in low-income countries can provide economic freedom leading to empowerment (De Soto, 1989). The idea of legal formalization of land and small-scale enterprises in LMICs has received mixed reactions from different development actors, national governments, and academia. Formalization has been a global trend welcomed by the World Bank's ‘Doing Business’ (2013) and the ‘Legal Empowerment of the Poor’ at the United Nations (Singh, 2009) and governments across LMICs (Williams and Nadin, 2012).

However, a counter-narrative has emerged; the agenda in LMICs, particularly in Africa, has been challenged in numerous studies (Benjaminsen, 2002; Benjaminsen et al., 2009; George et al., 2023; German, 2022; Meinzen-Dick and Mwangi, 2008; Musembi, 2007; Otto, 2009) questioning its overarching benefits and faced critiques including its limited view on empowerment (Chen, 2012; De Castro et al., 2014; Sjaastad and Cousins, 2009). Despite formalization being an old concept that has received much criticism, policymakers in developing countries still promote formalization (Gallien and van den Boogaard, 2021), while its feasibility is still questionable, with limited evidence of whether formalizing women's enterprise opens up an opportunity for their empowerment (Chen, 2005; Ramani et al., 2016).

The formalization of informal enterprises in Ethiopia was introduced in 1997 as a key national policy outlined by the Commercial Registration and Business Licensing Proclamation No. 686/2010 (FDRE, 2016). The proclamation mandates that engaging in any business activity requires a legal license, with formal registration as an essential prerequisite (FDRE, 2016).

Since the 1990s, the Ethiopian government has been engaged in promoting gender equality and enhancing the lives of women, a commitment reflected in key policy documents such as the National Policy on Women, the Ethiopian Constitution, and the Women's Development Package (Demessie and Yitbark, 2008; Ogato, 2013). This commitment is also evident in the strategic initiatives of the Small and Medium Enterprise Policy, National Action Plan to Empower Women (NAPEW), and the First and Second Growth and Transformation Plans, covering the periods 2010/11–2014/15 and 2015/16–2019/2020 which showcase the government’s dedication to gender equality and women’s empowerment (MoFED, 2013; UNDP, 2012).

In line with these strategic directions, there has been a particular focus on entrepreneurship, particularly within the small-scale enterprise sector, as a pathway for development and women's empowerment, evident in various strategic initiatives (FDRE, 2019). The formalization of these enterprises and the emphasis on providing women entrepreneurs with benefits like legal security and formal government support are seen as crucial steps towards reducing inequalities and empowering women, a policy rational supported by various sources (Bruhn and McKenzie, 2014; FDRE, 2020; FeMSEDA, 2010; Mamo et al., 2021). Recognizing this as a vital step towards reducing inequalities and empowerment, the Ethiopian government, along with its development partners, has been advocating for women to formalize their enterprises,

However, although entrepreneurship can be a pathway to empowerment, women who have formally registered in Ethiopia face various problems (Mekonnen and Cestino, 2017; Rossini and Thomas, 2008), casting a question on the feasibility of formalizing such enterprises to achieve empowerment (Mekonnen and Cestino, 2017).

In addition, while formalization might be considered a means of empowerment, particularly in the realm of entrepreneurship, there remains a knowledge gap about its impact within Ethiopia's socio-economic and cultural context, where women are experiencing limited empowerment in areas of mobility, decision-making, and domestic responsibilities (Haug et al., 2021; Malapit et al., 2019). This gap is especially notable in understanding how property rights and enterprises influence women’s empowerment, an area that demands exploration from a feminist perspective. In northern Ethiopia, the Tigray region, land certification – a key aspect of formalization – has been demonstrated to impact investment positively (Holden et al., 2009), suggesting its potential benefits for economic empowerment. It raises an important question of whether the outcomes of formalization policies and their impact are consistent or vary with factors such as small-scale women-led enterprises versus agricultural land. Addressing this knowledge gap calls for a study that delves into whether and how formalization in Ethiopia contributes to women's (dis)empowerment in the entrepreneurship landscape, considering the country's various socioeconomic and cultural contexts.

The purpose of this study is to assess the possible contribution of formalizing food processing enterprises of small-scale women entrepreneurs in northern Ethiopia to their empowerment or disempowerment. More specifically, we address the research question: What have been the results of formal registration of small-scale women entrepreneurs’ food processing enterprises in northern Ethiopia as regards contribution to their empowerment or disempowerment? The rationale for researching this potential contribution to empowerment is to provide updated and policy-relevant knowledge on the issue, including studying if the critiques of the formalization agenda are still valid. Our analysis is based upon qualitative data collected during fieldwork in north Ethiopia in 2019–2020, prior to the November 2020 violent conflict. In our analysis, we lean on formalization and empowerment theory. Our main finding suggests that formalization offers limited opportunities for empowering small-scale and resource-poor women entrepreneurs in northern Ethiopia. The study contributes to the literature on formalization and women's empowerment. By challenging the prevailing assumption that formalization always leads to women's empowerment, the paper generates an in-depth debate on the topic, in which these fresh insights highlight the need for important policy changes that call for reflection and action in the development field. Further, it sheds light on how development policies can impact women of different social categories, inducing a theoretical debate on intersectionality.

2. Theoretical framework: formalization and women's (dis)empowerment

2.1. Formalization

Formalization, a long-discussed concept in development, is viewed as a narrow legalistic process and a broad, multi-dimensional, multi-actor endeavor, generating debates over its potential benefits and drawbacks. Formalization is perceived both narrowly, as a legalistic process, and broadly, encompassing multi-dimensional and multi-actor aspects. De Soto (1989) explained that the legalistic approach emphasizes obtaining legal titles and aligning with regulatory frameworks. De Soto argues explicitly that this approach can boost economic freedom in LMICs, a point further explored by Chen (2005), who examines how such alignment impacts economic activities in these regions. This approach links formalization with adherence to government rules and integration into state-sanctioned institutions like property registries and tax systems (Kenyon, 2007), where legality or business registration with a formal authority is a core requirement (Benhassine et al., 2018; Thoto et al., 2021). In the context of small-scale enterprises, formalization leads to tangible benefits such as improved access to formal credit and markets, making it an attractive choice for entrepreneurs (Bruhn and McKenzie, 2014; Levenson and Maloney, 1998; Loayza, 1997).

Meanwhile, in a broader view, formalization is a multi-dimensional process comprising policy integration and inter-institutional coordination (Siegel and Veiga 2009). They noted that formalization should consider various interests, including value considerations among actors, a concept further elaborated by Meinzen-Dick and Mwangi (2008) in their analysis of the pitfalls of formalizing property rights. Lowe (2005) contributes to this perspective by focusing on legislation enforcement and its impact on different social strata.

Conversely, the non-beneficial theoretical direction, receiving recent attention in German’s (2022) analysis, challenges this perspective. It suggests that formalization often overlooks the complexity of the process and the diverse needs and interests of the poor and women. The benefits of formality are not uniformly evident across all small-scale enterprises, with research highlighting limited tangible benefits for women-led small-scale, informal enterprises in LMMICs (Bruhn and McKenzie, 2014; Calderón, 2004; De Mel et al., 2013; Díaz et al., 2018). In addition, this perspective underscores that entrepreneurs might resist formalizing unless under regulatory pressure (Nelson and De Bruijn, 2005). The transition to formality doesn't guarantee improved credit access or the use of legal titles as collateral (Domeher and Abdulai, 2012; Field and Torero, 2006; Galiani and Schargrodsky, 2010; Gallien and van den Boogaard, 2021). The underlying formalization fails to recognize the diversity among the poor, viewing them as a homogenous group who are poor because of legal exclusion (Waldorf, 2019).

2.2. Women's empowerment

Since the 1970s, women's empowerment has emerged as a pivotal concept in developmental theories and practices (Batliwala, 1994), yet its interpretation remains varied and sometimes contested. There are different empowerment theories related to empowerment at the individual level or empowerment linked to transforming social structures, notably approached through the liberal and socialist feminism perspectives (Cornwall and Rivas, 2015). From a feminist perspective, women's empowerment is not merely an endpoint but an integral component of the development process. By challenging the mainstream development processes, this perspective recognizes the systemic and structural barriers women face due to embedded patriarchal norms (Moser, 1989; Sen and Grown, 1987). The liberal feminist perspective emphasizes individual equality and opportunities, often advocating for improved resource access like micro-enterprises (Cornwall and Rivas, 2015), while empowerment, from the socialist feminism view, is not just about individual progress but involves relational and collective actions, challenging and reshaping power imbalances at various societal levels (Cornwall and Rivas, 2015; Kabeer, 1999).

This reframing makes women's empowerment central to any genuine and equitable development process, ensuring that development is not solely about economic growth but is also intrinsically tied to social justice and gender equality (Batliwala, 1994; Kabeer, 2005). Despite critiques of both theories, their intertwined perspectives are vital for understanding women's empowerment in LMICs; feminist theory generally emphasizes that empowerment, pursued from multiple angles, is a dynamic process balancing individual and structural changes based on context. According to Kabeer, empowerment involves individual and structural changes depending on the context. We lean Kabeer’s definition of empowerment offers a perspective that involves ‘the expansion in people's ability to make strategic choices in a context where this ability was previously denied to them’ (Kabeer, 1999, p. 437). This conceptual framework provides a basis to understand not only empowerment, but also the absence of empowerment that we recognize as disempowerment.

Empowerment encompasses three dimensions: resources, agency/power, and achievement (Kabeer, 1999), where different empowerment categories rely on various forms of power (Kabeer, 1999; Rowlands, 1997). We use Mayoux's framework to analyze empowerment at three levels: individual, household, and community (Mayoux, 1998). At the individual level, power within (increased will for change for individual women); the ‘power over’ challenging inherent power imbalances in households; and at the community level, it is ‘power with,’ emphasizing women's collective actions. In applying Mayeux's framework to analyze empowerment at different individual, household, and societal levels, we acknowledge the inherent intersections between empowerment categories. Such overlaps signify the dynamic nature of the empowerment process, where the improvement in one area often reinforces the influence of changes in others. This framework helps to assess how formalization impacts these interconnected categories of empowerment across these levels, offering a holistic view in line with the feminist perspective of empowerment as a process of both individual and structural changes.

2.3. Formalization and women (dis)empowerment

There are various perspectives regarding whether formalization can lead to empowerment or disempowerment for women entrepreneurs. The beneficial formalization theory, as articulated by De Soto (1989), posits that formalizing informal sectors can unlock economic potential by providing individuals with legal rights and access to broader markets. Reflecting this, formalizing small-scale women entrepreneurs is seen by De Soto as a crucial step towards empowering, as such formalization can improve women's access to financial resources, legal protections, and formal markets, leading them towards empowerment (De Soto, 2000). Further, formalization has been perceived as providing women with opportunities for relational power, enabling them to comprehend, acknowledge, and challenge the gendered dynamics inherent in familial and societal structures (Al-Dajani and Marlow, 2013; Karki and Xheneti, 2018).

On the other hand, the non-beneficial formalization theory presents an alternative perspective, underscoring the complexities of the process and its potentially uneven benefits across genders. Formalization is a complex process that may not offer the same benefits to men and women (De Mel et al., 2013). This assumption contends that, despite its intent to secure rights, the formalization process, with Agarwal (1994) highlighting how it often overlooks gender disparities in resource access, exacerbating the prevailing inequalities with critiques emphasizing that De Soto's formalization approach might not sufficiently address these underlying power dynamics in the LMICs (Kaarhus et al., 2005). Additionally, the top-down approach inherent in this formalization process could amplify inequalities and further disempower the poor (Benjaminsen, 2002).

Formalization policies in LMICs, often advocated from the economic perspective, are criticized for not fully capturing women entrepreneurs’ diverse and complex realities in these regions. Recent studies challenge the view that formalization is universally beneficial, highlighting how such policies often overlook women's unique challenges and needs in different societal contexts (Thapa Karki et al., 2020; Xheneti et al., 2019). Such a narrow view can reinforce the prevailing power structures, exacerbating women's disadvantaged statuses (Buss et al., 2019; Fisher, 2007; Kabeer, 2005). By overlooking women's unique societal roles and obstacles, formalization might not guarantee their agency and rights within familial and broader contexts (Newman and Alvarez, 2022; Varley, 2007).

The non-beneficial formalization theory further underscores that such policies disproportionately benefit the powerful actors in a setting where institutions treat certain groups, like women, inequitably (Faundez, 2009; Joireman, 2008; Stephens, 2009). Formal legal rights do not always translate into actual control over property for women, as cultural norms and institutional biases can impede their effective exercise of these rights (Agarwal, 1994). From liberal and socialist feminism, entrepreneurship is perceived as intrinsically gender-biased, operating within specific institutional contexts (Ahl, 2006; Jennings and Brush, 2013; Mirchandani, 1999). Such institutions, whether formal or informal, are often intertwined in patriarchal power dynamics, thereby restricting women's agency and opportunities across various domains (Goetz, 1997). Furthermore, the gendered nature of entrepreneurship, influenced by gender dynamics, shapes these entrepreneurial experiences. This aspect supports the non-beneficial theory, as it highlights the often-overlooked challenges faced by women entrepreneurs, aligning with the arguments presented by Ahl (2006), Jennings and Brush (2013), and Mirchandani (1999).

Given this context, formalization might disempower women, as the empowerment process in entrepreneurship is influenced by various institutional factors ranging from prevailing social norms and regulatory environments to individual life contexts (Karki and Xheneti, 2018). Thus, any assessment of women's empowerment within formal entrepreneurship necessitates considering the institutional landscape, societal expectations of women, relevant development policies, and prevailing social norms. In this study, we look at women entrepreneurs in small-scale food processing. We use Juma's definition of food processing: ‘ food processing can be understood as post-harvest activities that add value to the agricultural product prior to marketing’ (Juma, 2015, pp. 155–156). In the context of our study, this definition may involve packaging, transporting, distribution, and selling to final consumers. Our focus is on small-scale women entrepreneurs in food processing. We define small-scale enterprises as individual or group enterprises characterized by small-scale activities, limited assets, limited markets, and those linked to agriculture (IFAD, 2004).

3. Methods

3.1. Selection of study sites, participants and sample composition

Northern Ethiopia was selected for the study based on prior knowledge of the area and its relevance to the research question. In addition, three specific Woredas, including Axum (central zone), Hiwane (southeastern zone), and Alamata (southern zone) in the Tigray Region, were selected based on a high level of commercialization of locally processed food products, poverty, and the presence of many formally registered small-scale women entrepreneurs involved in food processing. Another reason for choosing these three sites was that formally registered, poor, small-scale women entrepreneurs in these areas are eligible to benefit from the Women's Development Initiative Project (WDIP). From the three study sites, fifty-seven formally registered women entrepreneurs were purposively selected to participate either as individual informants or as participants in focus group discussions (FGDs). They were either WDIP project beneficiaries or self-employed women entrepreneurs and were selected based on age, education level, marital status, family support, and business experience. Participants were selected with the help of experts from stakeholder Woreda office informants, and focus group participants were distributed across the three study sites. See Table 1 for the breakdown.

Table 1: Sample breakdown.

Selection criteria	Northern Ethiopia
	Axum		Hiwane		Alamata		Total
	Project members	Self-employed	Project members	Self-employed	Project members	Self-employed
Individual interviews	3	6	3	4	3	4	23
FGD participants	1 FGD (7pts)	1 FGD (8pts)	1 FGD (6pts)		1 FGD (6pts)	1 FGD (7pts)	34
Total							57
Key informants (4 female and 10 men)	Regional level 4				Woreda level 10		14

Source: Fieldwork 2019/20. FGDs = focus group discussion; Pts = participants

In addition to individual informants and FGDs, fourteen key informants from government organizations (four from regional bureaus and ten from Woredas) were selected based on their knowledge of women's formal enterprise registration and empowerment. These informants were from various offices, such as SMEs, Trade and Industry, Women's Affairs, TVET, Agricultural Marketing Agencies, and the non-government Women's Entrepreneurship Development Program (WEDP). The data collection process began with FGDs to understand how the participants perceived the research topic and to develop an in-depth interview guide.

All interviews took place after obtaining informed consent and ethical approval from Mekelle University. Participants were assured of their anonymity. Key informants were interviewed individually using semi-structured interview guides. Women participants were interviewed in locations where they were undertaking their activities, offices they visited to seek services, and their homes. The data were analyzed by categorizing concepts based on themes generated through induction (Table 4). Data were analyzed using inductively developed themes through categorizing concepts (Creswell, 2007; Maxwell, 2012) as indicated in Table 4 and analyzed using Mayoux’s (1998) framework, which identifies three levels of empowerment: individual, household, and community. The study also utilized narrative analysis by extracting quotes from participants’ direct responses when their answers were insufficient to interpret their experiences. Since we used qualitative methods with purposeful sampling, the findings cannot be generalized to individuals or sites outside the study context.

3.2. The setting

This research was conducted across three distinct areas with varying contextual backgrounds that could potentially influence the experiences of female participants. Axum, located in the central zone, is enriched with historical and religious significance, making it a tourism hub and offering it a potential advantage for commercializing local foods. Conversely, Hiwane, an emerging Kebelle in the southeastern Hintalo-Wajerat Woreda, faces food scarcity challenges. Alamata, despite its challenges from the Tigray-Amhara border dispute, remains a vital economic and trading center in the Raya-Alamata Woreda of the southern zone.

Regarding participants and undertakings, the women participating in the study were involved in the processing and marketing of a range of food products, from traditional items like ‘hilbet’ and ‘mitin-Shiro’ to semi-processed foods derived from crops such as fenugreek, lentils, chickpeas, beans, fava beans, and barley. These participants sourced these crops in various ways, including buying directly from local markets and suppliers. While some of these women were self-employed and set up their enterprises independently, others formed to receive support from a government-initiated Women Development Initiative Project (WDIP) established in 2003 to empower resource-poor women through group-based small-scale enterprises (WorldBank, 2007). Notably, between 2013 and 2015, the WDIP participants in Axum and Hiwane received extended support from the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) supported project to scale up their food processing activities and promote their products (IDRC, 2015).

Based on the regulatory framework in Ethiopia's food processing sector, the food processing enterprise has been classified under the manufacturing sector, with licenses for such businesses being issued since 2012. Several documents are required: a legal registration certificate, a competence certificate, a bank statement evidencing commercial activity, and a taxpayer identification number to get a license (WorldBank, 2016). The compliance costs for obtaining these licenses in Ethiopia can be notably extreme, tenfold the base application fee for over half of the license, arising mainly from the extensive documentation and bureaucratic procedures (ibid.). The costs for these licenses vary based on the enterprise's initial capital registration, ranging from ETB 50 for ETB 15,000 to ETB 300 for ETB 200,000 (BoIT, 2018). While the original commercial registration and licensing Proclamation No. 686/2010 was updated in August 2016 to facilitate smoother business operations, Article 22 of the Amended Proclamation No. 980/2016 remained unchanged, stating all business operations must possess a valid license (FDRE, 2016, p. 9212).

4. Results: formalization and (dis)empowerment of small-scale women food processing entrepreneurs

4.1. Participants’ background information

The women entrepreneurs in the study came from varied backgrounds in terms of age, education, marital status, family support, and enterprise experience. Most participants fell into the economically active age group of 23-55. Most were household heads with a low level of formal education, and 20 had never attended school. All married women started their businesses after marriage, and 15 were married. Many participants had dependent families; some women had early marriages and became mothers at a young age. Most started and formalized their enterprises in the same period, with over 14 years of formal work experience (See Table 2).

Table 2: Characteristics of participating women entrepreneurs.

Characteristics	Project members	Self-employed
Age
Group I: 33–55	22	26
• Group II: 56–69	6	3
Education
• Junior ++	5	8
• Read & write/Elementary (1–6)	12	12
• Illiterate	11	9
Marital status
• Married	7	8
• Female-Headed Household (FHH)	21	21
Dependent family members
• 0	1	6
• 1–4	20	18
• 5–6	7	5
Family support
• Yes	6	13
• No	22	16
Formalization experience
• FEI: Since 2003 (19 years)	28	-
• FEII: Since 2008 (14 years)	-	22
• FEIII: less than 10 years		7
Formalization decisions
• FDI: Formalization by project	28	-
• FDII: Formalization by own choice	-	29
Business location
• Home	11	20
• Marketplace	17	9
Women owning an enterprise transitioning to medium scale one group (eleven members) and three individuals		14

Source: Fieldwork 2019/20

To understand how formalization and its impact in terms of (dis)empowerment relate to different women, we used the background data to create the following categories of women, in addition to the main difference between project members and self-employed:

1. Educated, married with dependent family (both project members and self-employed)

2. Uneducated, married with a dependent family (both project members and self-employed)

3. Uneducated, FHH with dependent family (both project members and self-employed)

4. Better off-resourceful, married with family support, and

5. Better off – Women owning an enterprise transitioning to medium scale (only self-employed)

4.2. Reasons behind entering formalization processes and benefits of formalization

Self-employed participants decided to formally register their enterprise to achieve benefits such as access to formal credit facilities, markets, governmental services, and infrastructure and to participate in bidding to supply food products. Another purpose for formalizing was to gain legal status and legitimacy as demonstrated in Table 3. Self-employed participants in informal activities indicated they were considered illegitimate entrepreneurs by the government sectors, resulting in difficulties accessing the formal market. For this reason, they went into formalizing their enterprise to be spared the random visits of municipal and tax officials and to get legal status to meet customers’ requirements, e.g. request legal invoices and receipts from formal customers (such as hotels, grocery stores, and hospitals). On the other hand, project members formalized their enterprise because the project (WDIP) demanded formalization in line with Ethiopian policy (Proclamation No. 980/2016), which states that legal enterprise registration and licensing are mandatory prerequisites for doing business in Ethiopia (FDRE, 2016).

Table 3: Reasons for entering the formalization process.

No	Reasons	Project members	Self-employed
1	To receive project benefits	28	-
2	To have legal status (legitimacy)	–	7
3	To receive benefits of formalization from the government (all)
	3.1 Formal credit facilities	–	9
	3.2 Government services and infrastructure	–	8
	3.3 Formal markets and government bidding	–	5
	Total	28	29

Source: Fieldwork 2019/20.

Regarding the benefit of formalization, our findings suggest that formalization presents some benefits and introduces challenges that women entrepreneurs encounter. For a minority of participants, their formalized enterprise brings some benefits: these women reported enhanced access to financial services, increased business credibility, and better legal protection, associating these benefits directly with their formalized status. On the other hand, most of the study participants found the process non-beneficial. Many cited the challenges of bureaucratic registration procedures, tax obligations, and the costs associated with formalization. Furthermore, while few acknowledged some benefits, there were concerns about limited resources and services, especially among those with limited resources. Formally registered businesses did not help women participants access basic infrastructure and resources, including credit services, considering their business level and loan repayment capabilities. Self-employed (married with a dependent family), noted: My business license was deemed inadequate for credit. I needed property as collateral or a guarantor with the property. They doubted my business's repayment capability. A project user with a dependent family added:

Securing loans from financial institutions is challenging due to high interest rates and unsuitable loan sizes. Even with programs like the Women Entrepreneurship Development Program (WEDP), which targets women, the minimum loan is 300,000.00 ETB,,,,,,this favors wealthier women or those with strong guarantees, leaving underprivileged women unsupported.

A married, educated woman with a dependent family said in one of the FGDs:

The advantages of formalization that the government promotes don't reflect our experiences. We have been trying to get help in accessing electric power for our grain mill, but our request is frequently ignored and has been fruitless,,,,,,it is disappointing when officials seem reluctant to see us when we visit their office in a group to seek support.

Overall, while formalization is advantageous for some, it was considered non-beneficial or even disadvantageous by most of our study participants.

4.3. Processes of (dis)empowerment

We used Mayoux's (1998) empowerment framework to assess the empowerment processes in this study. In addition, we relied on the women participants’ own assessment regarding the degree to which they perceived a relationship between formalization and empowerment. Our findings indicate that the contribution of formalization to women's empowerment at different levels varies according to women's socio-economic background. The results in each category and level are illustrated in Table 4.

Table 4: Contribution of formalization to women entrepreneurs’ (dis)empowerment.

Categories of women	Individual		Relational
	Individual agency (power within and power to):		Household-level agency (power over):		Collective agency (power with):
Self-employed	Positive aspects (or changes) due to	Negative aspects (no change) due to	Positive aspects (or changes) due to	Negative aspects (no change) due to	Positive aspects (or changes) due to	Negative aspects (no change) due to
(a) Uneducated, FHH, with a dependent family	Ability to earn income Become self-employed. Access to formal credit Self-confidence Formal recognition by the government	Limited access to information, income, formal credit, government services, and infrastructure Limited business knowledge, skills Domestic burden	Decision-making and power/ control over resources/ income/credit, property, and household expenditures	domestic burden and familial responsibility limited ability to maintain work-life balance	Building social interaction in the public, solidarity, and networking with other women entrepreneurs (for self-employed working as a group)	Lack of voice in the society Limited action to challenge structural and gender norms at a community level
(b) Uneducated, married, with a dependent family	Ability to earn income Become self-employed Formal recognition by the government Access to formal credit Business knowledge Work outside the home and social ties	Limited: income, information, market, business knowledge, awareness of rights and claims, decision-making about self and children, independent mobility, Lack of education	Joint HH decision-making Decision-making and power over the use of resources/ income/credit, property, and household expenditures.	Limited: power and role in HH major decisions related to control over resources, income/ credit, negotiating on decisions; limited ability to defend self and challenge domestic/intimate partner violence, and lack of support from a spouse.
(c) Educated, married, with a dependent family	Ability to earn income. Formal recognition by the government Access to formal credit Business knowledge Better access to information Work outside the home and social ties	Limited: income, awareness of rights and claims, decision-making about self and daughters, independent mobility
(d) Better-off, resourceful, married with family support	Good public image due to legal status Formal recognition by the government Access to income, credit, and markets Work outside the home and social ties Prestage	Limited mobility, awareness about rights and claims, ability to challenge violence and subordination, and decision-making and choices over self and daughters			Being a role model for others Helping and creating jobs and employment for others
(e) Better-off women owning an enterprise transitioning to a medium-scale enterprise	Formal recognition by the government Access to information Confidence/prestige and reward Access to technology, innovation, local and international markets Access to formal credit, government services, and infrastructure, public bidding Good public image due to legal status	Limited awareness about rights and claims, ability to challenge violence and subordination, and decision-making and choices over self and daughters conflict with spouse/partner	Decisions in favor of self Independent decisions on HH issues (expenditure, family matters) Control over income, loans, and HH property, Ability to defend self and challenge GBV Challenge discrimination in access to resources Involved in major HH decisions	Limited ability to challenge domestic/ intimate partner violence. Limited role related to decisions over self and family issues	Influence in public, including markets Employment creation for poor women. Role models for other entrepreneurs Ability to exploit opportunities in food markets	Limited action to challenge structural and gender subordination at a community level
Project members
(a) Uneducated, FHH, with a dependent family	Ability to earn income Better access to information Business knowledge Good public image due to legal status Self-confidence Mobility	Limited access to information, income, formal credit, government services, and infrastructure Limited business knowledge, skills Domestic burden	Power and control over income, loans, HH property	Limited ability to challenge discrimination in access to resources and markets	Strong network and solidarity, mutual support, sharing own problems with member groups and reaching solutions within the group Decision-making over the group's work	Lack of voice in the society Limited action to defend members against abuse and violence in the HH and community. Limited action to challenge gender subordination at a community level Limited group action to challenge discrimination in women's access to resources (including credit, infrustructure), market, GBV at a community level
(b) Uneducated, married, with a dependent family	Ability to earn income. Better access to information Business knowledge Working outside the home Ability to interact with other women and share problems	Limited: income, information, market, business knowledge, awareness of rights and claims, decision-making favoring self and children, independent mobility, Illiteracy	Ability to defend self and challenge GBV	Limited: power and role in HH major decisions related to control over resources, income/ credit, negotiating on decisions; limited ability to defend self and challenge domestic/intimate partner violence, and Limited freedom from domination
(c) Educated, married, with dependent family	Access to information Happiness Ability to earn income Business knowledge Working outside the home Ability to interact with others	Limited: income, information, market, business knowledge, awareness of rights and claims, limited say in favoring self and children, independent mobility, confronting and challenging spouse conflict and domestic burden	Joint decisions on major HH expenditure, control over income, and credit

Source: fieldwork 2019/2020. HH = Household; FHH = Female headed household; GBV = Gender based violence

4.3.1. Individual-level empowerment (power within and power to)

Our findings indicate that formalizing women's enterprises presents different impacts in the empowering process at an individual level with varying results among different categories of women. On the one hand, as illustrated in Table 4, formalization contributed to individual empowerment to some extent in the form of formal recognition by the government, increased confidence due to legal status, gaining business knowledge and skills, access to income, marketplaces, and formal credit; working outside the home; and the ability to interact with other women. A married, uneducated woman with a dependent family expressed: ‘Now we are free, have peace of mind, no more worries about informality, and feel confident being recognized as legal entrepreneurs.’ Meanwhile, an educated, married, self-employed individual remarked: ‘Since we began working together to formalize our enterprises, we have accessed resources, services, and markets previously unavailable to us.’ Another married individual with a dependent family added: ‘Since joining the group, I have felt happy and confident. It lets me work outside and connect with like-minded women. I share them about domestic violence issues I never shared with my family.’

The nature of this contribution varies across categories of women. Married women, for instance, particularly appreciate the autonomy in movement and enhanced social interactions that arise from external work engagements. Female-headed households experience better mobility and awareness of rights and procedures. In addition, better-off self-employed women with growing enterprises experience recognition, respect from stakeholders, technological innovation exposure, and market expansion opportunities. On the other hand, findings indicate that the journey through formalization has obstacles. Several factors constrain the empowerment process, such as restricted access to basic resources like information, business skills, formal credit, broader markets, and limited public services and infrastructure.

The finding also shows that, even among those who acquired benefits from formalization, there exist gaps in experiencing the empowerment process. Most married women experienced limited decision-making autonomy important to their and daughters’ lives. Constraints emerge as limited independent mobility, insufficient rights awareness, limited ability to challenge the prevailing change barriers, challenge violence, and persistent domestic responsibilities. It is common for married women to seek permission from their spouses or in-laws to visit relatives or go out in public, with some exceptions like attending religious ceremonies, which frees them from such control. Women in female-headed households have better mobility experience and awareness of their rights than married women, despite married women experiencing independent mobility when their spouses are absent due to migration or military commitments.

The findings further indicate that married women have limited knowledge about their property rights and how to claim them despite their better economic status. An educated, married woman from a better-off family explained:

I was not aware of my property rights in a divorce. Although I hesitated to divorce due to our children, my husband's infidelity pushed me. When I sought separation, he had registered properties under his and his family's names, blocking my claims and proof of investment.

4.3.2. Household-level empowerment (power over)

In household empowerment, our main findings reveal that many participants possess limited power in several dimensions, evident in decisions concerning access to and control over resources like income, loans, and other household assets. Furthermore, their ability to defend or protect themselves and other female family members from domestic violence remains minimal. In our findings, women's roles in household decision-making are linked to their social status, with married women, especially those with dependent families. Married women, especially those with dependents, mainly handle food expenditures, while their male counterparts are often responsible for making decisions on more major expenses, such as the acquisition or sale of land, houses, and domestic animals.

Notably, even when women feel a sense of personal empowerment, their influence over household decisions can still be limited within their partnerships. Factors like domestic violence, dominant behaviors by partners, and religious influences have limited the power of educated and better-off women entrepreneurs in familial settings. An educated, self-employed woman from a post-divorce female household shared, ‘Since I started working outside, my husband started to abuse me. I eventually divorced him for my well-being,,,,so I think confronting and saying no is important. A participant with a dependent family added, ‘Though my husband only receives a modest military pension and I involve him in decisions, he is unhappy with my external work due to his inferiority complex tied to his dignity.’ Further, an educated, married participant with dependents shared her experience:

Since I started a business, I achieved financial independence, allowing me to use my money without my husband's approval. Yet, my success caused tension with him, affecting our kids. I decided to divorce him despite our spiritual leader's warning against my actions.

4.3.3. Societal level empowerment (power with)

Our findings suggest formalization yields benefits like group solidarity that can help women work more effectively as a team and as individuals and influence society. The FGDs revealed that formalization drives collective action gains, which are crucial in utilizing its advantages, thereby reducing inequalities among women and influencing community decisions to be more responsive to their group's specific needs and circumstances. Uneducated FHH, who is a project member, stated, ‘Being part of the group is advantageous. Since many of us are illiterate, working with literate women is beneficial as they assist with paperwork and other tasks that require reading and writing. A participant from FHH with dependent families from project groups added:

Not all group members are active in community engagements. Only a few members advocate for our issues, though our voice often goes unheard,,,,,I think this is a great benefit we get from the group's collective action, benefiting the group and individual members.

In the same way, the better-off self-employed women entrepreneurs have been beneficiaries of this process. For these women, formalization has brought a way for enhanced public influence, experience-sharing, and their progress into community role models, exploiting the market opportunities through a reliable network with food actors, adopting new technologies and innovations, and undertaking mass processing and selling. On the other hand, there are areas where formalization does not contribute to empowering women at a community level. While it offers opportunities, it has not empowered all women or sufficiently addressed deep-seated structural inequalities at the societal level. Despite its intention, formalization often falls short of addressing power imbalances or challenging societal norms. Complicating this further are societal perceptions, especially from male counterparts, which often position women's groups as obstacles to marital harmony. Such perceptions pose significant barriers, especially when even leadership roles within these groups demand spousal consent. Findings from the FDGs noted that many men, especially married ones, feel uneasy seeing women work together. A married member of a women's entrepreneur group shared:

Being married with children, I appreciate the social bonds and opportunities from group work, which I lacked before. However, while group action brings benefits, my freedom remains restricted,,, I must always inform my husband of everything,,,,; empowerment for me is if it goes beyond income,,,,,,it is about choice and freedom in our daily lives.

Results from FGDs across all sites reveal a persistent challenge. Women entrepreneurs striving to make their voices heard and secure support from the government and other stakeholders face resistance, especially from men. Moreover, our findings suggest a discrepancy between the intentions of government and development actors organizing poor women and formalizing their undertakings under the usual slogan of empowerment and ‘ውዳበ ሓይሊ እዩ,’ (unity is strength) and the reality in the ground. These women, project members, in particular, often channeled to political activities, indicating the use of their collective efforts for political gains rather than for intended empowerment. An educated, married woman with dependents reflects the experience as:

Despite the government's promotion of formalization, our experiences fall short of its promises. Years go by with unanswered requests to authorities, and we often feel invisible, even when approaching them collectively.

A group leader of project members noted:

When there is a demonstration, we are always ordered to line up first without our choice. None of the rallies we've participated in have resolved our issues or let our voices be heard. Moreover, we don't see wealthy women at these demonstrations,,,,,,,but we, the poor, should participate; if we do not accept, our livelihoods will be in danger.

4.4. Public institutions’ perspectives on formalization and (dis)empowerment

Public institutions perceive formalization positively, emphasizing its instrumental value aligned with sectoral priorities. For many vital informants, benefits from formalization – access to government resources and services are seen as necessary to empower women. This opinion was confirmed by a representative from the Trade and Industry, who highlighted formalization's potential in fostering enterprise growth. Meanwhile, representatives from Tax and Revenue emphasize formalization as a civic duty, noting that legally registered businesses contribute to infrastructure development through tax, leading to their empowerment. On the education front, Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET) representatives see formalization as an avenue for enhancing business development-related skills. In addition, key informants from the Women's Entrepreneurship Development Program (WEDP) recognized formality's significance as part of the program's priority interests. Formalization is a necessary process that facilitates access to formal credit facilities for growth-oriented women entrepreneurs. Financial institutions further this narrative. According to their view, credit to women entrepreneurs is empowering, and those with formal enterprises perform better and are better trusted by institutions. A participant from (DECSI) described:

Our institution favors women with registered businesses when providing credit access, requiring legal documentation like business licenses. We encourage women to formalize their businesses to secure loans.

On the other hand, key informants from Women's Affairs offices across the three study sites hold a different perspective on the role of formalization in women's empowerment. They argue that formalization does not necessarily bring change in women's lives. Many formally registered women entrepreneurs remain excluded from credit access and governmental support. Furthermore, these informants stress an underlying issue: a lack of inter-sectoral coordination in supporting women. Women's Affairs offices, they observe, often hold less clout than other sectoral offices, hampering their efforts to mainstream women's interests. In addition, women's offices in all study sites often have low status and weak voice compared to other sectoral offices, limiting their effort and influence in mainstreaming women's issues in every stakeholder sector. A representative from the Office of Women's Affairs stated:

Sector officials often highlight successful women entrepreneurs in the media, implying their political commitment contributes to their success. Similarly, underprivileged women entrepreneurs in groups are utilized for political aims within women's development networks.

5. Discussion: empowerment or disempowerment through formalization?

5.1. Motivation to go formal and promise of formalization.

Regarding the decision to go formal and the gains of formalization, our main findings suggest two distinct experiences among women study participants. On the one hand, the pursuit of formalization was driven by the desire to gain legal status, better access to markets, and protection from regulatory challenges, reflecting the beneficial formalization theory grounded in a legalistic perspective (De Soto, 1989; Levenson and Maloney, 1998; Loayza, 1997; Nelson and De Bruijn, 2005). However, the result illustrates the broader view on formalization, leading to question the acknowledged promise of the process. The main findings show that while formalization offered some advantages, it was non-beneficial for most of the participants due to bureaucratic, tax, and financial challenges, resonating with the idea inherent in the broader perspective (Bruhn and McKenzie, 2014; De Mel et al., 2013; Fox and Sohnesen, 2012; McKenzie and Sakho, 2010), emphasizing that the benefits of formalization may not be consistently realized, especially in LMICs’ smaller enterprises (Calderón, 2004; Díaz et al., 2018; Field and Torero, 2006; Rossini and Thomas, 1990; Woodruff, 2001). Our findings echo the perspective raised by the non-beneficial theories, challenging its foundational assumptions. Confirming German’s (2022) updated review, our findings highlight that formalization often fails to adequately consider women's diverse values, needs and interests, particularly people with low incomes. This point is crucial and resonates with our argument, which challenges the notion that formalization leads to improved access to credit or the use of legal titles as collateral, as supported by various studies (Domeher and Abdulai, 2012; Galiani and Schargrodsky, 2010; Gallien and van den Boogaard, 2021). Moreover, our results support Waldorf’s (2019) observations regarding the pro-formalization stance. Although formalization is frequently routed as a beneficial solution, our study uncovers that it may not only fail to address but can exacerbate certain disadvantages. Notably, these disadvantages, often entrenched in issues of legal exclusion, do not necessarily diminish post-formalization.

5.2. Formalization and empowerment at an individual level

The main findings, on the one hand, emphasize that formalization may empower women by offering some benefits in terms of formal recognition by the government, an improvement in legal status, access to a broader market, and increased confidence as assumed by the beneficial formalization theory (De Soto, 1989; Levenson and Maloney, 1998; Loayza, 1997; Nelson and De Bruijn, 2005). While different categories of women experience empowerment differently, married women find autonomy in movement and increased social interactions due to exposure to working outside the home, and female-headed households gain mobility and rights awareness. Better-off women experience empowerment through opportunities like greater respect from stakeholders, improved technological innovations, and access to broader markets.

On the other hand, our findings suggest the limitations of formalization in empowering women, aligning with the non-beneficial formalization views (Bruhn and McKenzie, 2014; De Mel et al., 2013; McKenzie and Sakho, 2010). Though designed to empower, the process exacerbates existing inequalities, especially when neglecting the specific challenges women entrepreneurs face (Agarwal, 1994; Benjaminsen, 2002; Kaarhus et al., 2005). Constraints, including restricted independent mobility, decision-making, and the requirement for male relatives’ permission, underscore the inherent drawbacks of the process. Furthermore, challenges like unfair competition in the food sector reiterate that while formalization can offer imaginary empowerment, cultural norms and patriarchal dynamics often hinder its practical application.

5.3. Formalization and empowerment at the household level

Our findings confirm that formalization may have little impact on transforming gender roles and power dynamics in the household, particularly regarding decision-making processes. While some women might experience some empowerment at the individual level, their roles and influence within families may not always see an equivalent improvement. Major household decisions, especially concerning major household expenditures, remain mainly influenced by male members. Such disparities confirm the views of the non-beneficial formalization theory, suggesting societal norms and institutional biases can overshadow the benefits of formalization, preventing women from fully exercising their rights (Agarwal, 1994; De Mel et al., 2013; Thapa Karki et al., 2020; Xheneti et al., 2019).

In addition, our findings suggest empowerment intertwined with societal norms, power dynamics, and lived experiences, indicating that the journey to household-level empowerment is complex, often influenced by challenges such as domestic violence, dominant partners, and cultural or religious norms. The findings further indicate the differences in experiences across different social categories of women. While married women often find their roles delineated by tradition, restricting their say in major household decisions, women in female-headed households experience formalization with mixed outcomes. On the one hand, they might recognize the potential of formalization in gaining autonomy over household decisions while facing gendered norms and societal biases.

5.4. Formalization and empowerment at the societal level

Moving to the societal level, our main findings suggest that formalization does not result in structural changes and challenging societal discrimination against women. The beneficial aspects of formalization are evident through fostering group solidarity, collective action, and influence in the public arena. However, this was not the case for most women entrepreneurs in this study. While formalization can foster the above benefits, its impact is influenced by individual contexts. These gains are remarkably prominent for better-off women entrepreneurs who experience the way to their empowerment, leveraging the benefits they gained at the individual level.

On the other side, our findings confirm that formalization does not empower all women at the societal; the benefit from formalization does not lead women to challenge the underlying inequalities and gender-based discrimination in society, which confirms the critiques within the non-beneficial formalization theory, suggesting the formalization often overlooks and fails to address the underlying inequalities and power dynamics in society (Agarwal, 1994; Benjaminsen, 2002; Kaarhus et al., 2005). The benefit from formalization has been seen as equipping individual women to challenge deep-rooted gender norms within households and the broader society (Al-Dajani and Marlow, 2013; De Soto, 2000; Karki and Xheneti, 2018). However, this evidence reveals a gap between the legalist theoretical assumptions and the realities on the ground. Further, formalization may not have an empowering role in LMICs, as emphasized by the policy in a context where the approach overlooks the gendered nature of entrepreneurship (Ahl, 2006; Jennings and Brush, 2013; Mirchandani, 1999).

The dichotomy between the diverse formalization assumptions regarding the contribution of formalization to women's empowerment is also evident in public institutions’ perceptions. Our key informants’ findings highlight that public institutions view formalization's value in alignment with sectoral goals, which reflects the legalist or beneficial formalization perspective (De Soto, 1989; Levenson and Maloney, 1998; Loayza, 1997; Nelson and De Bruijn, 2005). This view is evident by sentiments from the Trade and Industry, Tax and Revenue, TVET, financial institutions, and WEDP, underscoring the instrumental benefits of formalization, from access to services and resources, business growth to civic responsibilities, perceiving that these benefits can lead to empowerment. However, a different viewpoint from Women's Affairs offices resonates with the broader or non-beneficial formalization theory, emphasizing that formalization, while promising, might not always lead to empowering women instead, it exacerbates existing inequalities due to overlooked gender dynamics and institutional biases (Agarwal, 1994; Buss et al., 2019; De Mel et al., 2013; Thapa Karki et al., 2020; Xheneti et al., 2019). Most public institutions’ perspectives reflect Ethiopia's formalization agenda and highlight its policy gaps regarding women's empowerment.

In discussing the impact of formalization on women's empowerment, the main findings reflect the overlapping nature among the categories of empowerment and how their intersection leads to varied impact formalization that women experience at all levels – individual, household, and societal – contingent upon their different social categories (Kabeer, 1999; Mayoux, 1998). Given the intersecting nature of the categories, it becomes evident that women's empowerment is a dynamic process, where the benefits and disadvantages of formalization are filtered through the intricate web of individual and relational experiences, leading to empowerment paths that are as varied as the women themselves (Cornwall and Rivas, 2015; Kabeer, 1999; Rowlands, 1997). Finally, our study challenges the notion of formalization as a straightforward pathway to empowerment. Instead, it reveals a nuanced landscape where formalization can facilitate and inhibit empowerment, highly influenced by the context and individual experiences of women entrepreneurs in northern Ethiopia. Our findings demonstrate that formalization does not lead to empowerment for most women entrepreneurs in the study context; instead, it can disempower the resource-poor ones by aggravating their disadvantaged position, reflecting that formalization is not a one-dimensional concept with uniform outcome but dynamic process with diverse impacts.

6. Conclusion

This study assessed the possible contribution of formalizing small-scale women entrepreneurs’ food processing enterprises in northern Ethiopia to their empowerment or disempowerment. The main finding suggests that formalization offers limited opportunities for empowering small-scale, resource-poor women entrepreneurs in north Ethiopia. However, the contribution of formalization to women's (dis)empowerment varies among the different categories of participants. Some better-off women entrepreneurs benefitted from formalization in some dimensions, while this is not the case for most women entrepreneurs included in the study. Instead, for the poorer women entrepreneurs, formalization instead led to disempowerment. Drawing from a feminist perspective, this study brings a nuanced perspective on the connection between formalization and women's empowerment. It introduces new insights from northern Ethiopia and underlines practical implications, suggesting that if formalization in Ethiopia harms or disempowers poor women entrepreneurs rather than benefits them, there is a need for a major change in policies and practices related to the formalization and women empowerment agenda.

Author contribution

Conceptualization, GAD, RH; methodology, GAD, RH; fieldwork: GAD; formal analysis, GAD, RH; writing – original draft preparation, GAD, RH; writing – review and editing, GAD, RH; project administration, GAD. Both authors have reviewed and agreed to the final version of the paper for publication.

Ethical statement

This research achieved ethical approval from the Mekelle University Research Ethics Review Committee on 17th June 2019 to collect primary data. All the participants were informed about the purpose of the study, and the interviews were conducted after receiving informed consent in accordance with approved research protocols. Participants had the freedom to opt-out at any point whenever they wanted and were ensured full anonymity.

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge the Royal Norwegian Embassy in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, for supporting institutional collaboration between Mekelle University in Ethiopia and the Norwegian University of Life Sciences. In addition, we would also like to thank all the participants in the study for their willingness to share their stories, experiences, and views with us.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Data availability statement

The data supporting the findings of this study can be accessed by reaching out to the corresponding author. The data are not yet publicly available due to the protection of privacy linked to personal data.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Norwegian Embassy in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: MU-HU-NMBU Institutional Collaboration, Phase IV.

Notes on contributors

Girmanesh Abreha Desta

Girmanesh Desta is a PhD student in the Department of International Environment and Development Studies (Noragric) at the Norwegian University of Life Sciences (NMBU). With a research focus on gender and food systems, Desta employs a unique approach that combines qualitative methods and feminist perspective to address issues of diversity and equality within these systems. This work aims to contribute to sustainable development and policy changes, advocating for equality, equity and inclusiveness. Through this research, Desta seeks to make a meaningful impact on how gender dynamics and diversities are understood and addressed in the context of global and regional food systems.

Ruth Haug

Ruth Haug is a professor of International Development Studies at the Norwegian University of Life Sciences (NMBU) with PhD from the University of Maryland. Her career spans notable contribution to food security and rural development on a global scale. At NMBU she served as Deputy Vice Chancellor (2008-2013) and led the Department of International Environment and Development Studies for seven years. Her expertise encompasses food systems, climate change, agricultural extension, and gender issues in development. Haug has extensive research and consultancy experience in Africa and Asia, collaborating with NORAD, the World Bank and the Norwegian Ministry of Agriculture. A committed educator, she has supervised numerous graduate students and boasts a robust publication record. She has held positions on several international boards, including the CGIAR Fund Council and the IFPRI Board of Trustees, contributing greatly to international policy on food and agriculture.