The gender gap is deeply entrenched in the agricultural systems and manifests in several forms and these are only but, the tip of the iceberg. Agricultural systems like any other system are guided by institutions; North (1990) defines institutions as the rules of the game in a society or, the humanly devised constraints that shape human interaction and further argues that institutions structure incentives in human exchange whether political, social or economic. Certainly, the gender gap shows how the agricultural system seems more inclined to reward one side of the gender divide. Acemoglu et al (2005) in examining institutions as a fundamental cause of long run growth observe that institutions are endogenous and as such are determined by society or, by a segment of it. Acemoglu et al (2005) further adds that economic institutions shape the incentives of key economic actors and specifically influence investment in human and physical capital, technology, and the organization of production.

A lot of effort has been committed to not only understanding the gender gap in agriculture but also addressing it. Nonetheless, the institutions within the agricultural system, being dynamic in nature have learned to adapt in order to perpetuate the gender gap. What seems evident is that efforts to address the gender gap are oftentimes directed at the problem from the level of established agricultural actors- this is the older generation part of society and the interactions at this level only represent one stage of the problem. Reaching to the bottom of the problem will require targeting younger generations- or even a cross-generational approach. In any case, addressing the gender gap problem cannot be looked at as some PG-rated system focusing on segments of society- a massive overhaul of the system will need to touch at the very core of social, political and economic institutions which shape not just human interactions but also production and resource distribution.

Society in part, left to its own devices cannot be expected to address the gender gap problem. The section of society benefiting from persistence of this gap certainly finds no incentives in closing the gap. Why? One might ask. The commitment problem seems to provide a solid response to this one-word question. Those achieving greater benefits cannot commit to not using their power to change the distribution of resources in their favor. Partial interventions to address the problem are met with well-established institutions within which the default outcome of resource distribution and production in part entails a gender-gap.

The women in subsistence agriculture, which is said to form the backbone of a clear majority of Sub-Saharan nations have come to accept the gender gap as part of their fate- if not, the norms passed on from the older generation. The implications of the gender gap can be heart wrenching when examined over the life-cycle of the woman. With the lower incomes that are increasingly insecure, the women save less and less over time and as such are left with little or nothing to show for their years of toil when they reach the ‘golden’ years! Worse still, women are known to spend more of their earnings on the education and health of their children during their years of productivity. This erodes on whatever they could have saved for their later years. The subsistence agricultural sub-sector in Africa has not been incorporated into the national pension schemes and therefore the senior citizens from this sector can only hope “tomorrow will take care of itself”. For the women in the sector, their worries stretch from uncertainty about their future to a place of residence in old age. Patriarchy argues that she can no longer belong to her old home if she is married, yet she may not be welcome in her husband’s home once he passes on! Her only hope is that her husband will live long, or her son will take care of her in old age.

The gender gap also implies that more older women are left in the care of society. This though, is defined as a role for the women within the society and thus increasing the burden of care that the women have to bear. Her resources- both time and income are thus stretched thin to cover all that has been left under her care. The women in the subsistence sector are therefore caught in the vicious cycle of not just income poverty but also time poverty- it is a ‘catch-22’ for her!

Women in the subsistence sector earn less than the men within the same sector. There is however a need for better production methods within the sector which require more resources. With their earnings much lower, their responsibilities greater, the women are usually unable to afford better farming methods that guarantee higher production. They are left behind when technologies are introduced especially where they cannot afford these technologies. Where the technologies are provided free-of-charge initially, they have to discontinue use once a cost arises in the application of these technologies. They are thus trapped in a sub-optimal production equilibrium and reduced to production for basic subsistence. This though is not the ultimate bottom-low for the women but rather, they oftentimes transition from basic subsistence to vulnerability in the event of any shocks or stress to the production system.

The gender gap therefore does not necessarily grant society a desirable outcome; it holds back a segment of society and since a chain is said to be only as strong as its weakest link; if society is a chain and women are part of that chain, the weak position of the women will certainly translate into a weaker society!