September 2023 ENGAGING MEN FOR WOMEN’S ECONOMIC EMPOWERMENT: OVERVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE Authors: Rachael Pierotti, Clara Delavallade, and Rajdev Kaur Brar* KEY MESSAGES • Promoting women’s socioeconomic empowerment means increasing women’s control over the resources and decisions that are important for their well-being. Achieving these goals requires engaging men, since men often have influence over the lives of women in their households and communities. • This overview examines evidence on the effectiveness of three different types of approaches that have been tested: Adding an engaging men intervention to complement a program designed to support women’s individual economic activities: Studies of these interventions show mixed results. Some have had success while others highlight the risk that this type of intervention could reduce women’s autonomy. Complementing support for household production or consumption with programming that encourages cooperative management or joint planning: These types of interventions are promising, especially for increasing women’s role in the management of household resources, although they have had limited impact on women’s individual-level economic outcomes. Encouraging men to recognize or enhance their wives’ rights to ownership of important assets: There is very limited research available on this category of intervention, although available evidence is promising. Additional research in other contexts is necessary. • More intensive interventions are not necessarily more successful than light-touch ones, especially when they are tailored to the context. Examples of effective light-touch interventions include small incentives and encouragement to transfer assets to the wife’s name or the provision of information to update beliefs on the social acceptability of women’s labor market participation. • The overall mixed record on the effectiveness of engaging men interventions suggests that further adaptation and testing is needed. The brief identifies priority areas for future innovation and research. * Amy Geist contributed to the preparation of this policy brief. https://www.worldbank.org/en/programs/africa-gender-innovation-lab MOTIVATION from both an acknowledgement of pervasive gender inequality in the control over essential resources and Promoting women’s socioeconomic empowerment a desire to protect women against potential backlash means increasing women’s control over the resources and sparked by improvements in their socioeconomic status. decisions that are important for their well-being. Engaging men in these initiatives is important because men often This brief provides an overview of rigorous research have power and influence over the lives of women in their conducted in low- and middle-income countries that households and communities. Furthermore, increasing examines the effectiveness of programs that engage men’s contribution to unpaid household and care work is men to promote women’s economic empowerment. We essential for enhancing women’s economic opportunities. propose a typology that categorizes programs based on For the past couple of decades, practitioners and the type of economic intervention and the intensity of researchers have investigated ways to engage men in the the engaging men component. The goal of the brief is to prevention of gender-based violence and the promotion provide a structure for discussions among implementers of sexual and reproductive health.1 More recently, there and researchers about these types of programs, is increasing attention to the need for engaging men in summarize lessons learned from rigorous studies, and women’s economic empowerment initiatives. This stems identify knowledge gaps for future research. SCOPE OF THE REVIEW 2 Measure women’s individual-level economic There is a rapidly growing number of programs that seek outcomes to engage men to promote gender equality. Much of this recent work builds on prior research that documented To be included in this review, studies had to report women’s substantial gender inequality within households, with individual-level economic behaviors or outcomes. This detrimental effects on women’s well-being and on their priority set of outcomes included measures of whether and households.2 These programs are also motivated by how much women work, type of work, income, savings, research on intrahousehold dynamics that document and asset ownership. This criterion primarily led to the incomplete transparency and cooperation between exclusion of studies that reported only household-level spouses for the management of resources.3 In addition, economic outcomes and those that focused exclusively many of the interventions were informed by previous on the impact of interventions on women’s decision- research on the prevention of gender-based violence, making authority and/or experience of gender-based which demonstrated that it was possible to encourage more equitable and cooperative intrahousehold violence.9 Given the primary focus on women’s economic dynamics.4 Because those influential bodies of research outcomes, evaluations of adolescent girl programs were have been reviewed elsewhere, they are not included excluded when measures of economic activity were not here.5 Instead, this brief specifically reviews studies that relevant for the program’s target age group. meet three criteria: 1 Evaluate the impact of an intervention that 3 Employ experimental or quasi-experimental engages men to promote women’s economic research design to measure causal impact empowerment Only studies that use a rigorous design to establish Studies are included if they evaluate and report the the causal impact of an engaging men intervention impact of engaging men or couples to improve economic were included. Although we did not exclude quasi- outcomes for women. This can include programs of experimental methods of constructing a counterfactual, any type that involve women’s male partners, other nearly all the studies in this review used a randomized family members, or men in the broader community to control trial design to compare those who were and were increase women’s empowerment. On the other hand, not offered the engaging men activities. Observational studies that do not measure the specific impact of the research and studies that compare outcomes before and engaging men or couples component are not included. after a program, or between recipients and non-recipients Some studies were excluded because the activities to in two distinct populations, helped to inform and refine engage men were bundled together with other types of the design of many of the engaging men interventions.10 interventions.6 We excluded a study of a social protection While those studies contain important lessons for the program in Niger that implemented a community- field, they are not included in this brief. level social norms campaign to encourage support for women’s economic engagement because the research only captured the impact of that activity combined with a life-skills training for program participants.7 Likewise, we excluded studies, such as the evaluation of the Stepping Stones and Creating Futures program in South Africa, that estimated only the combined impact of support for women’s economic activities and the engaging men activities.8 SEARCH STRATEGY ENGAGING MEN INTERVENTIONS To identify eligible studies, we began with a targeted The studies included in this review evaluate the impact examination of known studies and engaging men of interventions that vary widely in intensity, modality programs. We expanded our search through multiple of delivery, and content. Some of the lightest-touch channels, considering both grey literature from program interventions test the effects of providing information implementers and academic literature from a variety of or nudges to male partners or other family members disciplines. First, using Google Scholar and Connected to increase support for women’s economic activities. Papers searches, we examined the citation networks of These types of interventions are typically delivered in the initial set of papers, noting papers that they cited and one short programmatic interaction with individual those that cited them. Second, we extended our search men or groups of men. Other light-touch interventions by reading other reviews of engaging men interventions, seek to increase intrahousehold transparency and including those focused on other types of outcomes (see support for women’s economic activities by inviting box). We also searched on key implementer websites men to participate alongside their wives in business or for information on relevant programs that are not yet agriculture-focused training of varying lengths. the subject of academic research. Third, to identify research that might have been missed by the targeted There are both light-touch and intensive versions of review, we conducted a search of several databases of programs that aim to shift intrahousehold dynamics academic research, including JSTOR, Science Direct, and address gender inequality within households, PubMed, and EconLit.11 with the goal of expanding opportunities for women. These interventions are often delivered via participatory KEY RESOURCES workshops to small groups of couples, although the same content is sometimes conveyed through family coaching. To varying degrees, the workshops EMERGE: “Engendering Men: A Collaborative encourage joint household planning, less strict Review of Evidence on Men and Boys in Social gendered divisions of labor, and material support for Change and Gender Equality” women’s economic activities. Some of the interventions include skill-building components related to action planning or communication skills. Likewise, some of the ICRW: “Gender equity and male engagement: It only interventions include activities to encourage reflection works when everyone plays.” on the ways that gender norms limit opportunities for men and women. Researchers have tested the provision Grameen Foundation: “Evidence review on the of information, financial incentives, and participatory role of male engagement in women’s economic workshops as ways of encouraging men to recognize empowerment (WEE) programs.” or enhance their wives’ rights to ownership of important assets. Nutrition International: “Engaging Men and Boys in Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment” PROMUNDO-UNFPA-MenEngage: “Engaging Men and Boys in Gender Equality and Health” SEEP Network: “Where are the men? How male engagement in savings groups can contribute to financial inclusion and women’s empowerment.” What Works to Prevent Violence Against Women: “A rigorous global evidence review of interventions to prevent violence against women and girls.” In the box below, we summarize which questions are helpful to ask when considering the effectiveness of interventions that engage men to promote women’s economic empowerment. VARIATIONS IN THE DESIGN OF ENGAGING MEN INTERVENTIONS Content? Interventions vary greatly in what they offer to participants. The engaging men intervention may be offering information, behavioral nudges, skills training, action planning, and/or encouragement for reflection on gender roles and norms. Target? The intervention may be promoting change among women’s male partners, other family members, or the community at large. Also, men and women may be engaged together or separately. Intensity? Intensity varies in terms of hours of programming offered to men, the period of the intervention, and the cost associated with engaging men. Modality of delivery? Participants may be offered information either individually or in a group, small group workshops, coaching, and/or incentives to promote women’s economic empowerment. Primary goals? All aspects of women’s empowerment are interrelated, but different programs identify different primary goals. Intervention design can emphasize increasing women’s labor market participation or success, increasing women’s asset ownership, increasing household productivity, reducing intimate partner violence, or other goals. Provider? Some interventions require highly skilled facilitators or gender experts to animate. Others are provided by other types of technical specialists who have been given additional training. Among the light- touch interventions, some are provided by non-experts or survey enumerators. Integration with other programs? If the engaging men intervention is an add-on to another program, what is the nature of the primary program? In particular, does the underlying program provide support to women’s individual activities, to other individuals, or to collectives, such as households or communities? How comprehensive is the base package of support? TYPOLOGY OF PROGRAMS To enable comparison across studies, we developed a participating in program activities. The intensity is not conceptual typology to categorize the engaging men necessarily a measure of the cost of the intervention. interventions that were evaluated. Each intervention Light-touch interventions involve fewer than 10 is categorized along two dimensions: (1) the type hours of men’s program participation, although they of economic support the program offers, and (2) the vary substantially from viewing a 6-minute video to intensity of the engaging men component. Within the participating in a 1-day workshop. These interventions first dimension, programs are grouped depending on are programmatically less intensive as they rely on a whether they offer assistance to women’s individual one-off interaction with participants, except for the economic activities, provide support for household Burkina Faso Trickle Up Plus and Vietnam Get Ahead production or consumption, or encourage women’s interventions, which involve respectively 5 and asset ownership. On the second dimension, the 9 monthly interactions with participants but engaging men component is classified as light-touch or for short periods of time (about 45 minutes), intensive based on the amount of time that men spend totaling less than 10 hours of engagement. OUTCOMES OF INTEREST In Figure 1, we have summarized the impact of each program on four categories of outcomes. Each of the categories is represented by a color. Purple is for impact on women’s labor market outcomes, including the extent of women’s labor force participation, as well as their individual income, savings, and asset ownership. Orange shapes indicate impact on intrahousehold dynamics. The most common measures in this category are questions about women’s level of participation in important decision-making for their lives. Also included are measures of household relationship quality and composite measures of women’s agency. The green shows impact on psychosocial dimensions of empowerment, including socioemotional skills, self-confidence, and gender attitudes. Finally, pink indicates impact on intimate partner violence. The columns indicate whether outcomes, decreased, experienced no change, or increased. For intimate partner violence, an increase means that violence actually decreased (an improvement for women). If a color is missing for a particular study, impact on those outcomes was not reported. To the extent possible, the indicators in the framework reflect the way that study authors themselves summarized the impact on these broad domains. FIGURE 1: TYPOLOGY OF PROGRAMS AND SUMMARY OF IMPACT Women’s economic outcomes Psychosocial outcomes and attitudes Intrahousehold dynamics Intimate partner violence Impact on women’s empowerment Support for women’s individual activities Increased No Change Decreased Burkina Faso Trickle Up Plus India Carpet Weavers- Discussion India Carpet Weavers- Information to Spouse India HLC- Family Engagement Light-touch India Promotional Video Mexico Microfinance Groups Saudi Arabia Correcting Misperceptions Tunisia Gender Dialogues Uganda WINGS+ Gender intervention intensity: Vietnam GET Ahead DR Congo MEP Intensive Rwanda Indashyikirwa Rwanda IPV prevention program Support for household production/consumption Tanzania HRNS- Couple Seminar Light-touch Uganda HRNS- Couple Seminar Cote d’Ivoire PSAC Bangladesh ANGeL Intensive Tanzania HRNS- Couple Coaching Uganda HRNS- Couple Coaching Encouragement for asset transfer Uganda Land Titling- Conditionality Light-touch Uganda Land Titling- Information Uganda Farm Family Balance- Incentive Intensive Uganda Farm Family Balance- Workshop SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE however, take-up rates were high when women were BY PROGRAM TYPE offered the opportunity to bring their spouse along to a 1-day training on financial planning, savings, and debt Support for women’s individual management. The training was paired with a relatively economic activities large cash grant. In this context of extremely low female labor force participation, when men were included in The majority of studies of engaging men programs fall the training, women were less likely to have an income- into this category. These engaging men activities are generating activity than those whose spouses were not generally designed with the idea that interventions to engaged.16 These results suggest that there is a risk of bolster women’s individual economic activities will capture of resources when inviting men to participate be more effective if those women have supportive in training alongside their wives without any additional environments in their homes and communities. There is programming. wide variation in the types of engaging men interventions included in this category and mixed results regarding The other studies in this category are of engaging men their impact, as summarized in Table 1. interventions that aim to directly shift intrahousehold dynamics and address gender inequality within Four studies tested informational nudges provided to the household. Three of these studies examine the men to encourage women’s employment within contexts addition of an engaging men component on top of core of relatively low women’s labor force participation. Three programs that offer comprehensive economic support studies in India tested light-touch methods of engaging packages to women experiencing extreme poverty and women’s family members to increase employment insecurity. All of the three core programs have strong in nearby job opportunities. Screening a 6-minute positive impacts on women’s economic outcomes. promotional video on job opportunities for family Two of the programs test the addition of relatively light- members had a positive impact on women’s employment touch engaging men interventions. The Burkina Faso in the short term, but the effect had disappeared one TrickleUp Plus intervention evaluated the addition of 5 year later.12 The other two light-touch interventions, monthly in-home family coaching sessions about child which provided information about job opportunities or protection, gender norms, family violence, and women’s facilitated conversation about opportunities, did not role in decision-making. Study results show that the significantly impact women’s employment. In fact, the addition of this family coaching component, on top of studies show suggestive evidence that encouraging a comprehensive package of economic support, led to discussion about employment opportunities between even stronger positive impacts on economic outcomes women and their family members might discourage for participating women and their households than women from working outside the home.13 In contrast, in the economic support alone, although there was no Saudi Arabia, men were given information on the social impact on gender attitudes, women’s decision-making acceptability of women working outside the home, authority over household resources, or rates of physical which was much higher than those same men had intimate partner violence.17 The Uganda WINGS+ study anticipated. This led to an increase in men’s take-up tested a program variant where female participants of an offer for job search assistance for their wives and were asked to bring a household member to a 4-day women’s increased likelihood of taking a temporary job business skills training, and the training was expanded outside their home a few months later.14 to include one additional day on normative barriers to Three of the studies in this category sought to increase women’s entrepreneurship, communication, and joint intrahousehold transparency and support for women’s problem-solving. The addition of the engaging men economic activities by inviting men to participate component did not lead to more economic success for alongside their wives in business-focused training. women or less intimate partner violence, but it did cause Two of these interventions—in Vietnam and Mexico— improvements in the quality of women’s relationships suffer from low take-up rates.15 In the study in Mexico, with their partners.18 Finally, in the Democratic Republic low take-up was attributed to women’s fear of a loss of the Congo, researchers tested the addition of a more of autonomy if they invited their husbands to join their intensive intervention. The Male Engagement Program microfinance group. Neither of these studies document (MEP) included 16-weekly discussion groups for male significant impacts of this type of intervention. In Tunisia, partners of women in the core program, facilitated by trained male community leaders, as well as one two- Two of these five programs had a positive impact on hour couples dialogue session for couples identified women’s economic outcomes and two had a positive as high-risk for disputes. The MEP program had no impact on intrahousehold dynamics. More intensive additional impact on any of the key outcomes.19 versions of these types of engaging men programs do not produce more reliably positive results. Priority The final two programs in this category were intensive should be given to additional research to test potentially interventions designed primarily as intimate partner promising light-touch interventions that engage men violence prevention programs. The programs were and address gender inequality within the household on delivered to households who were participating in top of comprehensive packages of economic support. a village savings and loans program. The theories of change hypothesized that improvements in intrahousehold relationships and reductions in violence would allow women to benefit more from the economic inclusion program. The programs included 21-22 weekly facilitated dialogue sessions for couples, focusing on building relationship skills and transforming attitudes, norms and practices that contribute to intimate partner violence. They had opposite results on rates of intimate partner violence. Also, the more successful of the two programs had suggestive evidence of improvements in women’s earnings and household economic status, while the other program had no impact on those outcomes.20 The impact of these two programs on rates of intimate partner violence should be examined alongside evaluations of other prevention programs that are not included here because they do not measure economic outcomes. When interpreting the impact of these two programs on economic outcomes, it is important to remember that these were not the primary goals of the interventions. Overall, available evidence is mixed on the impact of engaging men in programs that provide support to women’s individual economic activities. The results suggest that interventions designed to increase transparency within the household or men’s access to information about women’s opportunities and/or their businesses are not promising. These studies highlight the risk that this type of intervention could result in a reduction in women’s autonomy. There are encouraging results from the study of an intervention that sought to shift perceived norms among men about the acceptability of women’s work. Additional research is needed to examine whether a similar intervention would have equally positive impacts in a context of higher levels of women’s labor force participation. There are inconclusive results from studies that test interventions that directly address gender inequality in the household through coaching, training, or discussion groups. TABLE 1. IMPACT OF ENGAGING MEN INTERVENTIONS INCORPORATED INTO SUPPORT FOR WOMEN’S INDIVIDUAL ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES Women’s Intimate economic Intrahousehold Psycho-social partner Country Intervention outcomes dynamics outcomes violence Short video promoting (+) in short-term; no India21 women’s employment shown impact in long term + No impact X to women’s families Discussion sessions for working India22 women and family about benefits/ No impact No impact X X challenges women face when working Information about women’s India23 job opportunity given to male No impact X X X household members Conversation between spouses India24 about job opportunity for the wife – X X X Information provided to correct men's Saudi Arabia25 beliefs about social acceptability of + X + X women’s labor force participation Husbands invited to gender-sensitive Vietnam26 No impact No impact No impact No impact entrepreneurship training for women Husbands invited to attend women- Mexico27 No impact X X X only microfinance borrowing group Husbands invited to 1-day Tunisia28 training on financial management – No impact No impact X for entrepreneurship 5 monthly in-home family coaching Burkina Faso29 sessions (3-4 hours in total) + No impact No impact No impact Household member invited to women's 4-day business skills Uganda30 training, plus 1-day training on No impact + No impact No impact gender norms and communication Democratic 16 weekly discussion groups on Republic of No impact No impact No impact No impact gender issues for male partners Congo31 21 weekly facilitated dialogue Rwanda32 sessions for couples to shift + + + + gender norms and prevent IPV 22 weekly facilitated dialogue Rwanda33 sessions for couples to shift No impact No impact + – gender norms and prevent IPV Negative Impact Positive Impact X = Outcome was not measured Support for household light-touch intervention consisted of a half-day workshop consumption/production for couples who were guided through activities to examine the division of roles, responsibilities, decision- Studies in several countries, mostly in Sub-Saharan making authority, and access to resources within their Africa, have tested workshops for couples designed households. The more intensive intervention built on to increase joint planning and economic cooperation. the half-day workshop and included an additional one- These are offered as a complement to programs that day workshop on inclusive intrahousehold planning aim to improve the economic status of the whole and the creation of a joint plan, a private household household, such as assistance provided through visit from a gender officer who offered family coaching, agricultural extension or producer associations. All of a leadership training for women, and small group these programs provide support to rural agricultural reflection workshops. In both countries, the light-touch households. In addition, some ongoing studies test couples seminars led to women’s greater involvement the addition of similar engaging men programs as a in decisions regarding farm management. The addition complement to social protection assistance, although of intensive coaching led only to a marginally significant those are not included in this review because results improvement in women’s shared access to household are not yet available. Rather than seeking to increase income from coffee in Uganda. In Tanzania, this support for women’s individual economic activities, improvement was significant and was accompanied by the add-on interventions in this category generally greater reported transparency regarding coffee income. encourage cooperative management of household In both countries, the interventions failed to increase resources so that men and women may contribute women’s personal income or assets.35 and benefit equally. Furthermore, these programs are distinct from the interventions in the previous category because instead of adding men to interventions that primarily target women, they are more about engaging men to include women in spaces and conversations previously dominated by men. The impacts found in these studies are summarized in Table 2. The Cote d’Ivoire PSAC program offered support to smallholder rubber producers. To address gender inequality in the household, the program tested the inclusion of women and men together in a 3-day agricultural training (which was otherwise attended only by men), plus the development of joint household action plans. The intervention resulted in women playing a greater role in the management of rubber production, greater agricultural labor supply from both men and women in the household, greater use of other agricultural inputs, and overall higher levels of production. The results suggest that the intervention improved communication and cooperative The Bangladesh ANGeL study evaluated the most management within the household, and this had intensive intervention in this category. The study positive impact on measures of household economic examined whether there were additional impacts well-being. There is no evidence, however, that the on women’s empowerment of adding 8 gender intervention changed gender dynamics within the sensitization training sessions for couples in addition household or improved women’s individual economic to 36 sessions for those couples on agriculture and empowerment.34 nutrition. The study found strong impacts The Tanzania and Uganda interventions for households of the agriculture and nutrition training on participating in coffee producer organizations included women’s empowerment both with and both light-touch and more intensive interventions. The without the gender sensitization training. The additional gender-focused workshops had no marginal impact Collectively, these studies suggest that complementing on any of the main outcomes.36 The study authors agricultural extension with workshops that encourage hypothesize, but cannot test, that the positive impact reflection on the division of roles and responsibilities of all the treatment arms stems from the inclusion of within the household and/or encourage more men and women together in training activities. Their cooperative planning and management can increase hypothesis is supported by accompanying qualitative women’s participation in decision-making and farm research, which indicated that joint training facilitated management. So far, the results do not suggest that greater joint decision-making. This hypothesis is this type of intervention is likely to strongly increase likewise supported by a study in Uganda of information women’s personal control over income. Additional communications technology (ICT) tools for agricultural research is needed to compare the impact on joint extension, which found that including women as decision-making of engaging men and women information recipients in agricultural extension increased together in add-on gender sensitization workshops women’s role in decision-making for agricultural versus simply engaging couples jointly in agricultural production.37 extension and other types of program outreach. TABLE 2. IMPACT OF ENGAGING MEN INTERVENTIONS INCORPORATED INTO SUPPORT FOR HOUSEHOLD PRODUCTION AND/OR CONSUMPTION Women’s economic Intrahousehold Psycho-social Intimate partner Country Intervention outcomes dynamics outcomes violence Participation of couples in 3-day Côte d’Ivoire38 agricultural training plus development + No impact No impact X of joint household action plans Half-day gender awareness Tanzania39 raising couples’ seminars No impact + X X Half-day couples’ seminars + 1-day workshop on joint planning + Tanzania 40 household visit + women’s leadership No impact + X X training + small group workshop Half-day gender awareness Uganda41 raising couples’ seminars No impact + X X Half-day couples’ seminars + 1-day workshop on joint planning + Uganda 42 No impact No impact X X household visit + women’s leadership training + small group workshop 8 gender sensitization training Bangladesh43 No impact No impact No impact No impact sessions for couples Negative Impact Positive Impact X = Outcome was not measured Promotion of women’s asset ownership name of the wife, although this effect was insufficient to lead to additional improvements in women’s economic Engaging men interventions in this category test various outcomes.45 ways of encouraging men to recognize or enhance their wives’ rights to ownership of important assets. So far, A land formalization program in Uganda tested the available evidence on this type of intervention comes impact of three programmatic variants to increase the from two studies in Uganda, although more studies are inclusion of women’s names on land titles: ensuring the ongoing (see Table 3). presence of both spouses at the time of the title offer, financial incentives, and a short video clip providing The Uganda Farm Family Balance project sought information on the benefits of joint land titling. In to increase women’s control over important assets the short term, all three program adaptations led to by encouraging households to register a sugarcane substantial increases in the take-up of joint titles and outgrower contract in the wife’s name, essentially giving thereby an increase in women’s asset ownership.46 the wife control over the inputs and earnings from that Longer-term follow-up surveys will determine whether sugarcane contract. The project conducted household these effects translate into additional advances in visits and offered small gifts as incentives to register women’s economic empowerment. a contract in the name of the wife. In addition to the invitation and small nudges, they tested the impact Overall, these studies suggest that encouragement of a 3-day participatory couples workshop focused through the provision of nudges, information, financial on equitable management of household resources. incentives, or participatory workshops can improve Encouraging households to register a contract in the women’s documented asset ownership. The direct name of the wife led to improvements in women’s impact of these interventions on ownership of targeted economic outcomes and participation in decision- assets is very large. Future research will examine making.44 The participatory workshop improved whether those changes in asset ownership lead to psychosocial outcomes, notably self-esteem and additional positive impacts on women’s economic self-confidence in interpersonal interactions. When status or agency. Equally, it is important that these conducted before the offer for a sugarcane contract, types of interventions be tested in other contexts, the workshop also increased the proportion of including contexts with varying pre-existing normative households who opted to register the contract in the support for women’s control over assets. TABLE 3. IMPACT OF ENGAGING MEN TO PROMOTE WOMEN’S ASSET OWNERSHIP Women’s economic Intrahousehold Psycho-social Intimate partner Country Intervention outcomes dynamics outcomes violence Household visits to encourage registration Uganda47 of agricultural contract in wife’s name + + No impact X Household visits to encourage registration of contract in wife’s name Uganda48 + 3-day couples' workshop about + + + X household resource management Three programmatic variants to increase the Uganda49 inclusion of women’s names on land titles + X X X Negative Impact Positive Impact X = Outcome was not measured CONCLUSIONS in women’s economic outcomes. These successful interventions include small incentives and encouragement This brief sets out to review rigorous evidence on the to transfer an important asset to the wife’s name in Uganda impacts of programs engaging men and couples on or providing information on the higher-than-expected women’s economic empowerment. Because of the level of support for women’s labor market participation emphasis on economic empowerment, to be included, in Saudi Arabia. Importantly, there is substantial variation studies had to contain some measure of women’s labor in the design of the successful light-touch interventions, market outcomes. However, in most cases, the scope of suggesting the need to appropriately tailor the these studies is broader than just labor market outcomes, intervention to the context. Relatedly, there is variation in allowing us to also summarize impacts on intrahousehold the degree to which the interventions explicitly attempt dynamics, women’s psychosocial outcomes, and intimate to shift expectations about the roles and responsibilities partner violence. Reviews of engaging men interventions of men and women. Successful interventions do not that focus on other outcomes are listed in the box on systematically take that type of ‘gender transformative’ page 4. There are several important take-aways from this approach, which generally requires skilled facilitation. overview. Finally, about half of the engaging men interventions led First, this is a nascent field of research and there is to improvements in women’s economic outcomes and/ much more work to be done to identify promising or intrahousehold dynamics, such as women’s decision- ways of engaging men to promote women’s economic making authority. With this type of mixed record, it is clear empowerment. Thus far, the bulk of the research has that these interventions do not offer guaranteed success, focused on the effectiveness of adding engaging men but they are worthy of additional adaptation and research. components to programs that offer support to women’s As suggested by the negative impacts documented individual economic activities. There have been fewer by some studies, those adaptations of engaging men evaluations of engaging men interventions in the context interventions must be careful not to undermine women’s of other types of economic support, such as asset agency or decision-making autonomy. transfer, household production and consumption, or social protection programs. In addition, there is little This evidence overview has identified several priority areas research isolating the effects of engaging men other than for future research. First, given that they can be effective, male spouses. More research is needed on programs that and for reasons related to cost and scalability, it is a engage fathers, brothers, and male peers of adolescent priority to test the addition of light-touch engaging men girls to support their human capital accumulation and interventions to programs that provide economic support life course trajectories that lead toward economic to individual women or their households. Light-touch interventions are unlikely to dramatically alter gender empowerment. Also, adding community-level engaging roles and responsibilities, so they must be designed to men interventions to encourage support for women’s encourage behaviors that do not directly contravene economic activities should be tested as a potentially more existing norms yet still strengthen women’s economic cost-effective option than household-level approaches. empowerment. Second, the research on engaging In a newer line of inquiry, greater attention must be men in programs that support household production or devoted to reallocating and reducing the burden of consumption suggests that engaging couples together in domestic and care work in ways that expand women’s the core programming may effectively promote women’s economic opportunities. Studies of gender transformative empowerment within the household. This finding is programs have demonstrated that it is possible to echoed in other research that tests the inclusion of both increase the amount of time that men spend on domestic men and women in agricultural extension.51 Research work, although the interventions did not result in a is needed to compare these simple programmatic reduction in women’s time devoted to those tasks.50 More adaptations versus the inclusion of add-on engaging research is needed in these areas and several ongoing men interventions. Last, studies from Uganda indicate studies conducted by the Africa Gender Innovation Lab that with some encouragement, men are willing to act to will contribute to filling these evidence gaps. increase their wives’ asset ownership. Additional research must test both whether and how these interventions Second, more intensive interventions are not necessarily work in other contexts, as well as whether the immediate more successful than light-touch ones. Some of the less impact leads to further improvements in both women’s costly interventions led to measurable improvements economic status and agency. ENDNOTES 1 See, e.g.: Kerr-Wilson, A.; Gibbs, A.; McAslan Fraser E.; and reducing domestic violence: Results of a cluster-randomized Ramsoomar, L.; Parke, A.; Khuwaja, HMA.; and Rachel Jewkes controlled trial in a West African country.” Psychology of Violence, 2020. “A rigorous global evidence review of interventions to prevent 8(4), 448. violence against women and girls.” What Works to prevent violence 10 Farnworth, Cathy Rozel, Clare M. Stirling, Amon Chinyophiro, among women and girls global Programme, Pretoria, South Africa.; Andrew Namakhoma, Rebecca Morahan. 2018. “Exploring the Barker, G., C. Ricardo, M. Nascimento, A. Olukoya, and C. Santos. potential of household methodologies to strengthen gender 2010. “Questioning gender norms with men to improve health equality and improve smallholder livelihoods: Research in Malawi in outcomes: Evidence of impact.” Global Public Health, 5(5):539- maize-based systems.” Journal of Arid Environments 149:53-61. 553. 11 The keywords used in the search strategy were tailored to the 2 World Bank. 2012. “World Development Report: Gender Equality disciplines represented in each database and included variants and Development.” Washington, DC: World Bank. of three key terms/phrases: women’s economic empowerment, engaging men and couples, and randomized control trials. 3 Field, Erica, Rohini Pande, Natalia Rigol, Simone Schaner, Searches were conducted between May and August 2022, and Charity Troyer Moore. 2021. “On Her Own Account: How and results were limited to journal articles and working papers Strengthening Women’s Financial Control Impacts Labor Supply and published since 1990. Additionally, because the phrase “engaging Gender Norms.” American Economic Review, 111(7):2342-2375; men” is less common in the academic literature in economics, we Riley, Emma. 2020. “Resisting Social Pressure in the Household conducted a second search of EconLit using “intrahousehold” Using Mobile Money: Experimental Evidence on Microenterprise and “randomized” as keywords. We read titles and abstracts of Investment in Uganda.” Working paper; Lecoutere, Els and the results of each search, marking those that seemed potentially Laurence Jassogne. 2019. “Fairness and Efficiency in Smallholder relevant for a full review. Because this is a rapidly growing area Farming: The Relation with Intrahousehold Decision-Making.” The of research, additional relevant research may have been published Journal of Development Studies, 55(1):57-82; Fiala, Nathan, and since this search in late 2022. Xi He. 2016. “Unitary or Noncooperative Intrahousehold Model? 12 McKelway, M. 2021. “The Empowerment Effects of Women’s Evidence from Couples in Uganda.” World Bank Economic Review, Employment: Experimental Evidence.” Working Paper. 30, Supplement, S77-S85; Ashraf, Nava. 2009. “Spousal Control 13 Lowe, M., & McKelway, M. 2022. “Coupling Labor Supply and Intrahousehold Decision-Making: An Experimental Study in the Decisions: An Experiment in India.” Working paper; Dean, J. T., Philippines.” American Economic Review, 99(4):1245-1277. & Jayachandran, S. 2019. “Changing family attitudes to promote 4 Kerr-Wilson, A.; Gibbs, A.; McAslan Fraser E.; Ramsoomar, L.; female employment.” AEA Papers and Proceedings, 109, 138– Parke, A.; Khuwaja, HMA.; and Rachel Jewkes 2020. “A rigorous 142. global evidence review of interventions to prevent violence against 14 Bursztyn, Leonardo, Alessandra L. González, and David women and girls.” What Works to prevent violence among women Yanagizawa-Drott. 2020. “Misperceived Social Norms: Women and girls global Programme, Pretoria, South Africa. Working Outside the Home in Saudi Arabia.” American Economic 5 See, e.g.: Glinski, A., C. Schwenke, L. O’Brien-Milne, and K. Farley. Review 110(10):2997-3029. 2018. “Gender equity and male engagement: It only works when 15 Huis, M., Lensink, R., Vu, N., & Hansen, N. 2019. “Impacts of the everyone plays.” Washington, DC, ICRW. Gender and Entrepreneurship Together Ahead (GET Ahead) training 6 See, e.g.: Ranganathan, Meghna, Marjorie Pichon, Melissa on empowerment of female microfinance borrowers in Northern Hidrobo, Heleene Tambet, Wastina Sintayehu, Seifu Tadesse, and Vietnam.” World Development, 120, 46–61; Allen, T., Armendáriz, Ana Maria Buller. 2022. “Government of Ethiopia’s public works B., Karlan, D., & Mullainathan, S. 2010. “Inviting husbands in and complementary programmes: A mixed-methods study on women-only solidarity groups: Evidence from Southern Mexico.” pathways to reduce intimate partner violence.” Social Science & Innovations for Poverty Action. Medicine, 294, 114708. 16 Gazeaud, Jules; Khan, Nausheen; Mvukiyehe, Eric; Sterck, Olivier. 7 Bossuroy, Thomas, Markus Goldstein, Bassirou Karimou, Dean 2022. “With or Without Him? Experimental Evidence on Gender- Karlan, Harounan Kazianga, William Parienté, Patrick Premand, Sensitive Cash Grants and Trainings in Tunisia.” Policy Research Catherine C. Thomas, Christopher Udry, Julia Vaillant, and Kelsey Working Papers 10132. World Bank, Washington, DC. A. Wright. 2022. “Tackling psychosocial and capital constraints to 17 Karimli, L., Bose, B., & Kagotho, N. 2020. “Integrated Graduation alleviate poverty.” Nature 605: 291-297. Program and its Effect on Women and Household Economic Well- 8 Gibbs, Andrew, Laura Washington, Nada Abdelatif, Esnat Chirwa, being: Findings from a Randomised Controlled Trial in Burkina Samantha Willan, Nwabisa Shai, Yandisa Sikweyiya, Smanga Faso.” The Journal of Development Studies, 56(7), 1277–1294; Mkhwanazi, Nolwazi Ntini, and Rachel Jewkes. 2020. “Stepping Karimli, L., Lecoutere, E., Wells, C. R., & Ismayilova, L. 2021. “More Stones and Creating Futures Intervention to Prevent Intimate assets, more decision-making power? Mediation model in a cluster- Partner Violence Among Young People: Cluster Randomized randomized controlled trial evaluating the effect of the graduation Controlled Trial.” Journal of Adolescent Health 66:323-335. program on women’s empowerment in Burkina Faso.” World 9 Haushofer, Johannes, and Jeremy Shapiro. 2016. “The Short-Term Development, 137, 105159; Ismayilova, L., Karimli, L., Gaveras, Impact of Unconditional Cash Transfers to the Poor: Experimental E., Tô-Camier, A., Sanson, J., Chaffin, J., & Nanema, R. 2018. “An Evidence from Kenya.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, integrated approach to increasing women’s empowerment status 131(4):1973-2042; Ismayilova, L., Karimli, L., Gaveras, E., Tô- and reducing domestic violence: Results of a cluster-randomized Camier, A., Sanson, J., Chaffin, J., & Nanema, R. 2018. “An controlled trial in a West African country.” Psychology of Violence, integrated approach to increasing women’s empowerment status 8(4), 448. 18 Green, E. P., Blattman, C., Jamison, J., & Annan, J. 2015. “Graduation Programs Targeting Women: Evidence from the “Women’s entrepreneurship and intimate partner violence: a Democratic Republic of Congo.” Working paper. cluster randomized trial of microenterprise assistance and partner 32 Dunkle, K., Stern, E., Chatterji, S., & Heise, L. 2020. “Effective participation in post-conflict Uganda.” Social Science & Medicine, prevention of intimate partner violence through couples training: 133, 177–188. a randomised controlled trial of Indashyikirwa in Rwanda.” BMJ 19 Angelucci, Manuela, Rachel Heath, and Eva Noble. 2022. Global Health, 5(12), e002439. “Graduation Programs Targeting Women: Evidence from the 33 Cullen, C., Alik-Lagrange, A., Ngatia, M., Vaillant, J. 2022. “The Democratic Republic of Congo.” Working paper. Unintended Impacts of an Intimate Partner Violence Prevention 20 Dunkle, K., Stern, E., Chatterji, S., & Heise, L. 2020. “Effective Program: Experimental Evidence from Rwanda.” Unpublished prevention of intimate partner violence through couples training: manuscript. a randomised controlled trial of Indashyikirwa in Rwanda.” BMJ 34 Donald, A., Goldstein, M., & Rouanet, L. 2022. Two Heads Are Global Health, 5(12), e002439; Cullen, C., Alik-Lagrange, A., Better Than One : Agricultural Production and Investment in Côte Ngatia, M., Vaillant, J. 2022. “The Unintended Impacts of an Intimate d’Ivoire. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No.10047. Partner Violence Prevention Program: Experimental Evidence from 35 Lecoutere, E., & Chu, L. 2021. Changing intrahousehold decision Rwanda.” Unpublished manuscript. making to empower women in their households: a mixed methods 21 McKelway, M. 2021. “The Empowerment Effects of Women’s analysis of a field experiment in rural south-west Tanzania. Employment: Experimental Evidence.” Working Paper. Universiteit Antwerpen, Institute of Development Policy (IOB); 22 Dean, J. T., & Jayachandran, S. 2019. “Changing family attitudes Lecoutere, E., & Wuyts, E. 2021. “Confronting the wall of patriarchy: to promote female employment.” AEA Papers and Proceedings, Does participatory intrahousehold decision making empower 109,138–142. women in agricultural households?” The Journal of Development 23 Lowe, M., & McKelway, M. 2022. “Coupling Labor Supply Studies, 57(6), 882–905. Decisions: An Experiment in India.” Working paper. 36 Quisumbing, A., Ahmed, A., Hoddinott, J., Pereira, A., & Roy, 24 Ibid. S. 2021. “Designing for empowerment impact in agricultural 25 Bursztyn, Leonardo, Alessandra L. González, and David development projects: Experimental evidence from the Agriculture, Yanagizawa-Drott. 2020. “Misperceived Social Norms: Women Nutrition, and Gender Linkages (ANGeL) project in Bangladesh.” Working Outside the Home in Saudi Arabia.” American Economic World Development, 146, 105622. Review 110(10):2997-3029. 37 Lecoutere, Els, David J. Spielman, Bjorn Van Campenhout. 2019. 26 Huis, M., Lensink, R., Vu, N., & Hansen, N. 2019. “Impacts of the “Women’s Empowerment, Agricultural Extension, and Digitalization Gender and Entrepreneurship Together Ahead (GET Ahead) training Disentangling Information and Role-Model Effects in Rural Uganda.” on empowerment of female microfinance borrowers in Northern IFPRI Discussion Paper 01889. Vietnam.” World Development, 120, 46–61. 38 Donald, A., Goldstein, M., & Rouanet, L. 2022. Two Heads Are 27 Allen, T., Armendáriz, B., Karlan, D., & Mullainathan, S. 2010. Better Than One : Agricultural Production and Investment in Côte “Inviting husbands in women-only solidarity groups: Evidence from d’Ivoire. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No.10047. Southern Mexico.” Innovations for Poverty Action. 39 Lecoutere, E., & Chu, L. 2021. Changing intrahousehold decision 28 Gazeaud, Jules; Khan, Nausheen; Mvukiyehe, Eric; Sterck, Olivier. making to empower women in their households: a mixed methods 2022. “With or Without Him? Experimental Evidence on Gender- analysis of a field experiment in rural south-west Tanzania. Sensitive Cash Grants and Trainings in Tunisia.” Policy Research Universiteit Antwerpen, Institute of Development Policy (IOB). Working Papers 10132. World Bank, Washington, DC. 40 Ibid. 29 Karimli, L., Bose, B., & Kagotho, N. 2020. “Integrated Graduation 41 Lecoutere, E., & Wuyts, E. 2021. “Confronting the wall of patriarchy: Program and its Effect on Women and Household Economic Well- Does participatory intrahousehold decision making empower being: Findings from a Randomised Controlled Trial in Burkina women in agricultural households?” The Journal of Development Faso.” The Journal of Development Studies, 56(7), 1277–1294; Studies, 57(6), 882–905. Karimli, L., Lecoutere, E., Wells, C. R., & Ismayilova, L. 2021. “More 42 Ibid. assets, more decision-making power? Mediation model in a cluster- 43 Quisumbing, A., Ahmed, A., Hoddinott, J., Pereira, A., & Roy, randomized controlled trial evaluating the effect of the graduation S. 2021. “Designing for empowerment impact in agricultural program on women’s empowerment in Burkina Faso.” World development projects: Experimental evidence from the Agriculture, Development, 137, 105159; Ismayilova, L., Karimli, L., Gaveras, Nutrition, and Gender Linkages (ANGeL) project in Bangladesh.” E., Tô-Camier, A., Sanson, J., Chaffin, J., & Nanema, R. 2018. “An World Development, 146, 105622. integrated approach to increasing women’s empowerment status 44 Ambler, Kate, Kelly M. Jones, and Michael O’Sullivan. 2022. and reducing domestic violence: Results of a cluster-randomized “Empowering Women to Engage in Commercial Agriculture.” controlled trial in a West African country.” Psychology of Violence, AEA Papers and Proceedings, 112: 546-50; Ambler, Kate, Kelly 8(4), 448. M. Jones, and Michael O’Sullivan. 2021b. “Increasing Women’s 30 Green, E. P., Blattman, C., Jamison, J., & Annan, J. 2015. Empowerment: Implications for Family Welfare.” IZA Discussion “Women’s entrepreneurship and intimate partner violence: a Paper 14861. cluster randomized trial of microenterprise assistance and partner 45 Ambler, Kate, Kelly M. Jones, and Michael O’Sullivan. 2021a. participation in post-conflict Uganda.” Social Science & Medicine, “Facilitating Women’s Access to an Economic Empowerment 133, 177–188. Initiative: Evidence from Uganda.” World Development, 31 Angelucci, Manuela, Rachel Heath, and Eva Noble. 2022. 138(105224):1-13. 46 Cherchi, L., Goldstein, M., Habyarimana, J., Montalvao, J., O’Sullivan, M., & Udry, C. 2022. “A Seat at the Table: The Role of Information, Conditions, and Voice in Redistributing Intra- GENDER INNOVATION LAB Household Property Rights.” EDI Working Paper Series WP/2022. 47 Ambler, Kate, Kelly M. Jones, and Michael O’Sullivan. 2021a. “Facilitating Women’s Access to an Economic Empowerment Initiative: Evidence from Uganda.” World Development, The Gender Innovation Lab (GIL) 138(105224):1-13; Ambler, Kate, Kelly M. Jones, and Michael O’Sullivan. 2021b. “Increasing conducts impact evaluations of Women’s Empowerment: Implications for Family Welfare.” IZA Discussion Paper 14861; development interventions in Sub- Ambler, Kate, Kelly M. Jones, and Michael O’Sullivan. 2022. “Empowering Women to Engage Saharan Africa, seeking to generate in Commercial Agriculture.” AEA Papers and Proceedings, 112: 546-50. evidence on how to close gender 48 Ibid. gaps in earnings, productivity, 49 Cherchi, L., Goldstein, M., Habyarimana, J., Montalvao, J., O’Sullivan, M., & Udry, C. 2022. assets, and agency. The GIL team “A Seat at the Table: The Role of Information, Conditions, and Voice in Redistributing Intra- is currently working on over 80 Household Property Rights.” EDI Working Paper Series WP/2022. impact evaluations in more than 30 50 Vaillant, Julia, Estelle Koussoubé, Danielle Roth, Rachael S. Pierotti, Mazeda Hossain, and countries with the aim of building an Kathryn L. Falb. 2020. “Engaging men to transform inequitable gender attitudes and prevent evidence base with lessons for the intimate partner violence: a cluster randomised controlled trial in North and South Kivu, region. Democratic Republic of Congo.” BMJ Global Health, 2020; 5:e002223; Doyle, Kate, Ruti Levtov, Gary Barker, Gautam Bastian, Jeffrey B. Bingenheimer, Shamsi Kazimbay, Anicet Nzabonimpa, Julie Pulerwitz, Felix Sayinzoga, Vandana Sharma, and Dominick Shattuck. 2018. The impact objective of GIL is “Gender-Transformative Bandebereho Couples’ Intervention to Promote Male Engagement increasing take-up of effective in Reproductive and Maternal Health and Violence Prevention in Rwanda: Findings from a policies by governments, Randomized Controlled Trial.” PLoS ONE 13(4): e0192756. development organizations, and 51 Lecoutere, Els, David J. Spielman, Bjorn Van Campenhout. 2019. “Women’s Empowerment, the private sector to address Agricultural Extension, and Digitalization Disentangling Information and Role-Model Effects in the underlying causes of gender Rural Uganda.” IFPRI Discussion Paper 01889; Abate, Gashaw T., Tanguy Bernard, Simrin inequality in Africa, particularly in Makhija, and David J. Spielman. 2023. “Accelerating technical change through ICT: Evidence terms of women’s economic and from a video-mediated extension experiment in Ethiopia.” World Development 161, 106089. social empowerment. The Lab aims to do this by producing and delivering a new body of evidence and developing a compelling narrative, geared towards policymakers, on what works and what does not work in promoting gender equality. FOR MORE INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT Africa Gender Innovation Lab afrgenderlab@worldbank.org Clara Delavallade cdelavallade@worldbank.org Rachael Pierotti This work has been funded in part by the Umbrella Facility for Gender Equality (UFGE), which is a multi-donor trust fund rpierotti@worldbank.org administered by the World Bank to advance gender equality and women’s empowerment through experimentation and knowledge creation to help governments and the private sector focus policy and programs on scalable solutions with sustainable outcomes. The UFGE is supported with generous contributions from Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, 1818 H St NW Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Latvia, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and the Wellspring Philanthropic Fund. Washington, DC 20433 USA www.worldbank.org/africa/gil Photo credits: Cover: Jason Florio / World Bank; Pages 2 and 4: Olivier Girard / World Bank; Page 3: Mohammad Al- Arief / World Bank; Page 8: Arne Hoel / World Bank; Page 10: Simone D. McCourtie / World Bank