The study examined 243 household heads in six extension planning areas across Malawi’s central and northern regions. These included Mhuju in Rumphi district, Bwengu in Mzimba north, Manyamula in Mzimba south, Santhe in Kasungu, Chivara in Dowa and Chiosya in Mchinji. All participants were smallholder farmers who had grown maize for at least three years. The sample was calculated using a 6% margin of error, a 95% confidence level and an estimated population of 1,941 households, with approximately 40 or 41 households selected per area. Districts and planning areas were selected purposively because they overlapped with the FoodMa project’s implementation areas, while villages were randomly selected and households were approached through purposive and convenience sampling.

Researchers combined face-to-face questionnaires with separate focus group discussions for men and women in each planning area. The quantitative instrument, administered through Kobo Collect and analyzed in SPSS, covered demographic characteristics, resource access, participation and household decision-making. Two focus groups per area supplied context about experiences, social expectations and perceived gender barriers. The authors also used Pearson correlations to test whether gender integration in one stage of the maize system was associated with integration in later stages. This convergent design allowed numerical patterns to be compared with local explanations, although its cross-sectional structure could not establish changes over time or identify causal effects.

Men represented 60% of the 243 household heads, and most participants were between 21 and 60 years old. Ninety-eight percent relied on farming for their livelihood, 62% farmed their own land and 58% cultivated no more than one hectare. Joint management by a man and woman was reported by 47% of households, compared with 29% managed by men alone and 24% by women alone. The gendered imbalance extended into organized agriculture. Only 40.3% of surveyed farmers knew that a farmer group or cooperative operated in their area, and 20.4% of those aware of such organizations reported being members. Among the members whose gender was reported, 85% were men and 15% were women. Focus groups linked this imbalance to socioeconomic and cultural conditions that gave men greater ownership of resources and authority in community meetings.

Access to finance and production inputs was also uneven. Only 7% of farmers said they had obtained an agricultural loan during the preceding three years, and 59% of the reported beneficiaries were men, compared with 41% women. Government entities supplied 52% of those loans, followed by commercial banks and savings and loans associations, each accounting for 18%. More farmers had accessed farm inputs: 74% reported doing so within three years, but 64% of users were men and 36% were women. Fertilizer was by far the most commonly acquired input, reported by 99% of beneficiaries, while 34% obtained mechanical equipment, 8% herbicides, 6% pesticides and 3% insecticides. Government entities again provided the majority, at 55%. Focus-group participants said women generally had less access because they possessed fewer financial resources with which to purchase inputs.

Decision-making patterns mirrored the control of those resources. Men alone decided where to access farm inputs in 54% of the 181 households for which those decisions were analyzed, while women alone made the decision in 25%, couples jointly in 16% and relatives or friends in 4%. Men also decided alone how to use inputs in 50% of households, compared with 25% for joint decisions and 22% for women alone. Other choices were more collaborative: couples jointly selected the type of seed in 40% of cases, while both men and women were reported as deciding jointly about loan money in 35%. The pattern nevertheless placed men at the center of household choices about the resources and technologies needed for maize production.

Most respondents perceived gender integration as weakest during production, processing and distribution. In production, 71% said women had less involvement than men in accessing resources such as land, credit and technology; 67% perceived less recognition of women’s contributions, 66% less control over proceeds and 62% less influence in decision-making. Women were also reported to have less access to training, extension services and market information, as well as fewer opportunities to participate in farmers’ organizations. Nevertheless, 46% said the roles and responsibilities of men and women in production were equally defined and respected, suggesting that the experience was not uniformly negative. Respondents also described greater female involvement in access to social-protection programmes and in addressing gender-based violence and harassment in production settings.

Processing and distribution showed similar patterns. Respondents reported less female involvement in recognition of processing roles and access to market information and trade opportunities, both at 71%, control over processing and marketing at 68%, and credit for processing at 66%. In distribution, 73% perceived women as less involved in transportation and logistics, 66% in the definition and respect of responsibilities, 65% in control of distribution channels and markets, and 62% both in distribution decisions and in the consideration of gender perspectives when systems are designed. Men were described in focus groups as the principal decision-makers over when and where maize would be sold and how its price would be determined. Some areas were more balanced, however: 74% reported equal access for men and women to information about market demand and prices, and 52% reported equal attention to safety and security concerns in food-distribution workplaces.

The distribution of work shifted at the household table. Eighty-nine percent of farmers said women had greater involvement in food preparation and cooking, 78% in access to information about food safety and handling, 76% in recognition and valuation of their roles, and 72% in protecting rights to nutritious food. Women were also seen as more involved in decisions about food preferences, food-storage technologies, waste reduction, nutrition programmes and food-related social activities. Focus groups described women as responsible for preparing nsima, a maize-meal dish, often assisted by female children in the home. The stage with the strongest female participation therefore centered on household food preparation and cooking, while the study did not directly quantify hours worked or the monetary value of that work. Correlations between stages were statistically significant but weak, with coefficients ranging from 0.182 to 0.321, indicating that greater integration in one part of the system did not strongly predict integration in another.

The authors caution that the findings should not be generalized uncritically. Only household heads were interviewed, and most were men, potentially over-representing male perspectives in a setting where household headship is often associated with male authority. The use of convenience sampling at household level may also have introduced selection bias and undercoverage. In addition, the study covered central and northern Malawi but excluded the south, and its cross-sectional design could not track change over time. These limitations are important because the results describe reported roles and perceptions rather than a causal test of how gender integration affects yields, income, dietary diversity or food security. Nonetheless, the study identifies a consistent structural divide: men were more visible in access to organizations, finance, inputs, production decisions and market control, while women’s most prominent participation was in household consumption activities. The authors call for deliberate policies that expand equal access to training, credit, cooperative support, participation and benefits at every stage of Malawi’s maize food system.

Subject of Research: Gendered roles, resource access and decision-making across rural Malawi maize food systems

Article Title: Gender roles in maize food systems: a case of smallholder farmers in rural Malawi

Article References: Munkhuwa, V., Chilenga, C., Mandhlopa, Y., Ng’ong’ola-Manani, T., Mwangwela, A. M., & Masamba, K. G. (2026). Gender roles in maize food systems: a case of smallholder farmers in rural Malawi. Frontiers in Sociology, 11, 1938286. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2026.1938286

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.3389/fsoc.2026.1938286

Keywords: Malawi, maize food systems, smallholder farmers, gender roles, agricultural credit, farm inputs, food processing, food distribution, food consumption, food security, Gender, roles