Applied Economics

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/raec20

Efficiency, gender diversity and public aid:

evidence from Italian agrifood sector

Giulio Fusco, Pierluigi Toma & Yari Vecchio

To cite this article: Giulio Fusco, Pierluigi Toma & Yari Vecchio (2023) Efficiency, gender
diversity and public aid: evidence from Italian agrifood sector, Applied Economics, 55:36,
4177-4193, DOI: 10.1080/00036846.2022.2128175

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2022.2128175

Published online: 16 Oct 2022.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 159

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=raec20
APPLIED ECONOMICS
2023, VOL. 55, NO. 36, 4177–4193
https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2022.2128175

Efficiency, gender diversity and public aid: evidence from Italian agrifood sector
Giulio Fuscoa, Pierluigi Tomaa and Yari Vecchiob
a
Dipartimento di Scienze dell’Economia, Università del Salento, Lecce, Italy; bDipartimento di Medicina e Veterinaria, Università di Bologna,
Bologna, Italy

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
The aim of this empirical analysis is to assess the economic efficiency of Italian farms across Bootstrap-DEA; agricultural
provinces, to determine whether production efficiency is correlated with gender differences in efficiency; gender; public
farm ownership and the level of European agricultural subsidies received. This study uses aids
a bootstrap-Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) approach to analyse data collected from the Farm
Accountancy Data Network. The data show that male-led farms are dominant throughout Italy and
are generally more efficient than female-led farms. However, northern region farms are relatively
more productive than southern region farms, despite male-led farms being less dominant in the
north than in the south. Further, while male-led farms were more predominant in the south, and
receive the greatest share of European agricultural assistance per province, they are relatively less
efficient. These results imply that refocusing entrepreneurial and financial assistance to northern
region farms, with a relatively higher ratio of female-led farming operations, can promote overall
Italian agricultural efficiency while also decreasing the gender gap in agricultural efficiency that
exists between male-led and female-led Italian farms.

I. Introduction at the provincial level of agricultural output to provide

Are there meaningful differences in the efficiency of evidence that reallocation of such agricultural subsidies
Italian agricultural production that is related to gender and policies might benefit both national agricultural
differences across farm ownership? Does the existing output and reduce the efficiency gaps between male-
allocation of agricultural subsidization programs across and female-led farms.
Italian farms effectively promote the efficiency of the Agriculture has an essential role in supplying
overall agricultural sector? This empirical analysis finds human primary needs, shaping the global economy
that production efficiency of agricultural operations and the relationship between society and nature
across the Italian provinces varies greatly, with male- (Kanter et al. 2018). The conscientious, efficient use
led farms generally achieving relatively higher levels of of productive factors and natural resources can help
efficiency than female-led farms on average. Yet, those mitigate this problem while complying with the
regions of the country where male-led farms represent guidelines of the European community. To assess
a smaller share of the total tend to also exhibit greater the extent of the issue, an indicator for the Italian
efficiency than farms in those regions where male-led agricultural sector must be developed that is capable
farms are more dominant. Further, those regions that of providing a measure of the efficiency in such a way
currently receive greater subsidies tend to be provinces as to 1) quantify the margins of improvement, and 2)
where male-led farms represent a greater proportion of facilitate political decision-makers with the responsi­
the total, yet the farms in these provinces are also less bility of implementing targeted public policies by
efficient on average. Could a reassessment of resource territorial macro-area, or by individual business orga­
subsidization towards those regions with a greater pro­ nization (D’Adamo, Gastaldi, and Morone 2022).
portion of female-led farms result in both increased total In the European context, the Common
productivity for the same available resources, and Agricultural Policy (CAP) of the European Union
decreased efficiency gaps between female and male-led currently considers sustainable development to be
farms? This study seeks to provide meaningful analysis one of its central objectives.

CONTACT Pierluigi Toma [email protected] Dipartimento di Scienze dell’Economia, Università del Salento, Lecce, Centro Ecotekne, via per
Monteroni, 73100, Italy
© 2022 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
4178 G. FUSCO ET AL.

The proper analysis of the Italian agricultural In brief, the significance and novelty of this
sector is important. Italy produces twenty percent article concerns 1) the estimation and comparison
of the total added value of the Agricultural system of the agricultural sector efficiency among the
of the European Union, and is one of the most Italian farmers, 2) empirical testing of the existence
involved members of the European Common of gender sustainability in the Italian agricultural
Agricultural Policy (CAP). In this way, agriculture sector, using Mean Differences analysis. The meth­
is a fundamental part of the economy while simul­ odology used is the Data Envelopment Analysis,
taneously acknowledging its significant environ­ DEA, structure on Italian farmers as decision-
mental implications (ISTAT, 2019). Our analysis making units (DMUs) and in a second step,
of Italian farm efficiency at the provincial level a correlation analysis to assess the existence of
allows us to identify the strengths and weaknesses gender sustainability so as to provide the repercus­
in each territory, giving policy makers the oppor­ sions of public aid on efficiency performance.
tunity to design effective interventions capable of This information is important for the Italian agri­
consolidating existing strengths and improving the cultural sector and is of considerable interest on the
inevitable weaknesses (Dagar et al., 2020, Borghino micro-level when considering the social, economic,
et al. 2021). Although all states have introduced and environmental determinants of efficiency that
a series of subsidies seeking to achieve sustainable are being analysed. The results of this analysis can
production, their ultimate impacts on agricultural assist policy makers when planning both efficiency
efficiency vary widely (Zhang, Ma, and Liu 2021). and gender policies within the agricultural field. The
Furthermore, it is important to consider those rest of the paper is as follows: the literature review of
individual factors, such as specific farmer charac­ agricultural sector and gender performance follows
teristics like predisposed attitudes towards ecology, this introductory section. Following methodological
level of education, gender, organizational struc­ section with the description of DEA method, after
tures, environmental issues, dimension, etc. are presented the results respect to general level of
(Keating et al. 2010; Godoy-Durán et al. 2017; efficiency, gender differences and dependency by
Dagar et al. 2020, 2021). In particular, the role of government aids. Finally, a policy implication dis­
gender in affecting agricultural resource decisions cussion is followed by a conclusion.
has been discussed in recent literature. Yet such
research has focused on the allocation of family
II. Literature review gender performance in the
farm labour without taking into account their con­
agricultural sector
tribution in the resource allocation decision mak­
ing process (Davidova and Thomson, 2014). Plans how Member States can achieve a more sus­
Our analysis presents two key components. tainable agriculture, ensure the environmental pro­
The first component is an efficiency analysis of tection and fight against climate change (Anania
Italian farmers, expressed through the structure et al. 2015; De Castro, Miglietta, and Vecchio
of small-scale family farms (ISTAT, 2019). 2020). Growth in agricultural productivity can be
The second component is a correlation analysis achieved while promoting sustainable economic
that demonstrates the influence of gender on the development. As agricultural productivity
production efficiency of the Italian agricultural improves, production factors like labour and capi­
sector, as well as the effectiveness of public aid tal can be reallocated to other segments of the
in promoting the efficiency performance across economy, using resources such as land and water
Italian farmers. The computation of efficiency in for environmental conservation purposes
the agricultural sector gives us some important (O’Donnell 2010). If, in the next few years, popula­
information about the reorganization of the pro­ tion growth places ever larger demands on the
ductivity factors within the production process. natural resources available, agricultural productiv­
Taking into consideration the territorial and ity increases will have an increasingly significant
gender differences in our analysis makes it pos­ role in safeguarding the environment and improv­
sible to provide policy implications that can fill ing standards of living (De Castro et al. 2012; Deng
these gaps. and Gibson 2019).
 APPLIED ECONOMICS 4179

As the agricultural sector is one of the principal have recognized that a gender gap in agricultural
sources of overall economic expansion, growth in economic performance exist (Brush and Chaganti
agriculture productivity and technical efficiency are 1999; Coleman 2002; Watson and Newby 2005).
very significant policy objectives for most develop­ Various factors have been identified which can
ing countries (Zamanian, Shahabinejad, and clarify the probable reasons behind women’s
Yaghoubi 2013). Many studies have analysed agri­ underperformance in their own business endea­
cultural technical efficiency providing useful infor­ vours (Gatewood et al. 2009; Gottschalk and
mation for policymakers on how to increase Niefert 2013; Adinolfi et al. 2020). Overall,
economic activity (output), while using fewer nat­ women can often be seen managing small busi­
ural resources and less negative environmental nesses in areas which are not as profitable as
impact (Robaina-Alves and Moutinho 2014; those of their counterparts (Fasci and Valdez
Toma et al. 2017; Coluccia et al. 2020; Dagar et al. 1998), and many empirical studies have concen­
2020). These studies provide information that is trated their attention on the systematic differences
helpful for policy makers to realize its potential in gender concerning business performance. Since
and expand production under recent CAP reforms. the 1970’s and 80’s, authors have analysed gender
The measurement techniques that are most fre­ differences concerning farming activities in various
quently used to analyse agricultural efficiency are aspects and theoretical approaches, highlighting
production frontier models include DEA (Data the role of women in the agricultural sector and
Envelopment Analysis) and SFA (Stochastic in rural contexts (Sachs 1983; Errington and
Frontier Analysis) models, which make it possible Gasson, 1993; Little 2006).
to operationalize related outcomes. This includes There has been much debate regarding the
relating both environmental and economic outcomes causes of the persistent gender gap, which mainly
to conventional inputs (Callens and Tyteca 1999). In follow two theoretical approaches (Mirchandani
addition, it is important to analyse the individual 1999; Carter and Weeks 2002). First, Liberal
farmer’s characteristics, as they are the decision Feminist Theory states that the relative disadvan­
makers who are behind the most important resource tage of women is caused by the difficulties arising
allocation choices regarding the use of natural from discrimination, such as diminished access to
resources and the adoption of more environmentally both human and financial capital resources neces­
friendly technologies (Webster 1999). sary for efficient business development (Fischer,
Gender gaps and related inequality concerns Reuber, and Dyke 1993). On the contrary,
have been examined at length in various ways, Socialist Feminist Theory places the principal
such as entry into the labour force, pay equity, explanation of gender differences in business suc­
legal protections, political freedoms, educational cess on the socialization process causing women to
attainment, expected mortality, or even attaining evolve differently than men in their perceptions of
access to production inputs and resources for risk, economic growth, and willingness to adopt
entrepreneurial endeavours (Klasen 2018). While non-economic life goals (Jones and Tullous 2002;
much progress has been made in these areas within Robb and Watson 2010). Both perspectives have
the last few decades, gender gaps in many essential shed significant light on observed gender-based
rights remain, including physical and mental well- differences., as many empirical studies have con­
being, economic opportunities, and political power sidered variables from both theories as possible
still continue today in several countries. Indeed, reasons for female disadvantage in managing busi­
women’s empowerment is considered to be an nesses (Fairlie and Robb 2009; Robb and Watson
essential developmental goal, such that gender 2010).
equality can promote other important social and The scientific literature has further focused its
economic outcomes. attention on the choices of business strategies
More specifically, it is also widely recognized developed by women-led farms, focusing particu­
that a reduction in gender inequality contributes larly on the process of diversification (Balezentis
to agricultural advancement and rural progress et al. 2021; Palacios-López and López 2015; Ali
(FAO 2011; World Bank 2012). Many studies et al. 2016). The practice is common in the
4180 G. FUSCO ET AL.

agricultural sector, especially since agriculture- The previous literature has analysed the eco­
related activities have become an integral part of nomic performance of women in the agricultural
primary activities and has increasingly become sector from many different perspectives. Yet, only
a strategy for maximizing the added value of one’s a few studies have measured efficiency in the agri­
own production (Vik and McElwee 2011). Known cultural sector to highlight possible gender differ­
as boundary shift, this aspect has been extensively ences, and none have included the Italian
studied in the scientific literature (Renting et al. agriculture sector (Ali et al. 2016; Danso-
2009; Marsden and Sonnino 2008).Following the Abbeam, Baiyegunhi, and Ojo 2020). Women
classification of Banks, Long, and van der Ploeg find significant barriers when operating businesses
(2002), boundary shift consists of three types, in the agriculture, such as access to essential pro­
including broadening, deepening, and ductive inputs (i.e. land, labour, fertilizer,
regrounding. improved seeds) and financial credit (Mason and
The three strategies represent three different Carlsson 2004; Mishra, Khanal, and Mohanty
levels of farm diversification, and are commonly 2017). In many countries, the difficulty in acces­
called agricultural multifunctionality (Vecchio et al. sing productivity factors and assets leads to nega­
2021). The literature confirms that this paradigm is tive consequences. In 2012, Swaminathan et al.,
more congenial to women’s tenures, as it allows for demonstrate how inter- and intra-household dif­
an efficient organization of farm and family work ferences are found to be key drivers in the
(Adinolfi et al. 2020). Business diversification opera­ dynamics which affect the resource status
tions, such as processing or direct sales, have tradi­ (Swaminathan, Lahoti, and Suchitra 2012).
tionally been taken care of by the female component Moreover, Quisumbing et al. (2014) show that
in family businesses (Bock 2004). Furthermore, women farmers underperform since they do not
Whatmore (2016) posits a need for female entrepre­ have the same access to resources and opportu­
neurs to seek business opportunities other than the nities as their counterparts. Thus, the intent of this
work practices that tend to be entrusted to men. study is to evaluate the existence of gender sus­
Besides representing a business opportunity, such tainability in the Italian context. Specifically, we
choices also reflect the personal need to be able to want to examine whether female-led farms are
combine work flexibility and motherhood (Fairlie more or less efficient than male-led farms, con­
and Robb 2009; Bird and Sapp 2004). The need to trolling for the territorial differences that exist
develop farms and to continue to be responsible for within the Italian context. Most important studies
the family also affects other spheres of company about the gender gap are summarized in Table 1.
activity, such as the possibility of developing com­
pany networking. Among the actions of bonding,
bridging, and linking (Vecchio et al. 2021; De Rosa, III. The empirical analysis
Adinolfi, and Vecchio 2017), bonding has been
Methodology
observed to be highly developed. However, bridging
with other companies and linking across institu­ The DEA methodology consists in a linear mathema­
tional apparatuses, such as professional associations tical program which can be utilized to measure the
or credit institutions, are far less observed (Hanson relative efficiency of decision-making units (DMUs)
and Blake 2009; Stratigaki 2005). This situation spills (Charnes et al., 1978), such as firms, regions, coun­
over into the greater propensity of female entrepre­ tries, and other entities, without a specific functional
neurs to access measures of the second pillar of the expression (Honma and Hu 2014). Developed by
Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), the Rural Farrell (1957), this method gives us specific knowl­
Development Plans (RDPs), as they become an edge concerning the performance of each unit, relat­
opportunity to valorize those experiences of diversi­ ing to the efficiency frontier. In this case, these
fication and to overcome the barriers to credit for efficient units are used as role models or comparators
farms (Leitch, Welter, and Henry 2018; Adinolfi (Hu, Wang, and Yeh 2006). The Figure 1 provides
et al. 2020). a graphical format of Methodology
 APPLIED ECONOMICS 4181

Table 1. Literature review of Gender.

Author(s) and Years Title Aim of the study
Coleman (2002) Constraints faced by women small busines owners: The analysis of 1993 survey data revealed that small companies with low
Evidence from the data growth prospects and low levels of profitability have difficulty in finding
financing, with a majority of such cases arising from companies led by
a woman.
Bird and Sapp (2004) Understanding the Gender Gap in Small Business An analysis of the position between rural and urban communities with
Success: Urban and Rural Comparisons respect to individual characteristics reveals a gender gap exists within
both communities.
Watson and Newby Biological sex, stereotypical sex-roles, and SME owner An analysis of the differences between male and female owners of small to
(2005) characteristics medium-size enterprises (SMEs) reveals that men exhibit a higher risk-
taking propensity.
Gottschalk and Gender Differences in Business Success of German An analysis using performance indicators related to business size, growth,
Niefert (2013) Start-Up Firms and profitability reveal that observed underperformance by female
owned businesses are likely due to women having lower level of formal
education, less professional experience, and are limited to smaller
business start-up teams.
Robb and Watson Comparing the performance of female-and male- An empirical analysis using a longitudinal database (four-years) for both
(2010) controlled SMEs: evidence from the United States Australia and U.S.A reveals that SMEs lead by women do not
and Australia underperform in terms of Returns on Assets (ROA) or survival rates.
Palacios-López and The Gender Gap in Agricultural Productivity: The Role An analysis of how market imperfections influence female-led farm
López (2015) of Market Imperfections productivity more deeply than male-led farm productivity reveals that
agricultural labour productivity is, on average, 44% lower for female-led
farms.
Ali et al. (2016) Investigating the Gender Gap in Agricultural An analysis of agricultural productivity for farms lead by women reveals that
Productivity: Evidence from Uganda this a gender gap in productivity is not imputable to unequal access to
productive inputs, but is imputed to a higher child dependency ratio than
is true for men.
Danso-Abbeam, Gender differentials in technical efficiency of Ghanaian An analysis of a gender gap in technical efficiency among Ghana cocoa
Baiyegunhi, and cocoa farms farms uses a two-stage double bootstrap data envelopment analysis
Ojo (2020) (DEA) to find that women farmers achieve less technical efficiency in
production.
Balezentis et al. Are women neglected in the EU agriculture? Evidence An analysis uses survey data to examine gender inequality across the
(2021) from Lithuanian young farmers Lithuania Agricultural sectors to find that Lithuanian agricultural sector is
equally beneficial for men and women among young farmers.

the DMU and frontier surface determines whether

the DMU is efficient or not. If the distance is zero, the
control unit is efficient; otherwise, it is not.
Each DMUj (j = 1, 2, . . . n) utilizes n input xi;j to
reach yr;j outputs (r = 1, 2, . . . s). The combination
of n observations determines the efficient frontier,
Figure 1. Methodology graphical Format.
where θ is the efficiency score for each DMU.
The DEA method is one of the most appropriate
approaches to measure productivity when both
The DEA method is suitable for attributing any multi-output and multi-input technologies exist.
synthetic indicator for a given phenomenon. The Nonetheless, the traditional criticisms of the DEA
efficiency measurement in agricultural sector, diver­ include the absence of information about uncer­
sified at province level, gives the legislator a tool cap­ tainty of estimates and bias in the measures of
able of assisting in the design and implementation of estimates of efficiency. Another limitation of the
specific policies applicable to a specific territory and/ DEA is that its outcome may be influenced by
or for a particular category of companies operating sample variation. To obtain a robust estimate,
within the Italian context. bootstrapping methods have been formulated to
From an empirical point of view, the main idea of correct any bias in DEA estimators. In addition,
the DEA methodology is to construct the best practice the construction of the confidence intervals make it
frontier using the data of each input and output for possible to evaluate the sampling variability of the
every decision-making unit, ensuring that all outcome using homogenous bootstrap procedures:
observed data are either one frontier point above or both are possible from the genius of Simar and
below the production frontier. The distance between Wilson (Simar and Wilson 1998, 1999).
4182 G. FUSCO ET AL.

Following Simar and Wilson (1998), bootstrap­ might have a higher mean square error than the
ping is used to estimate a true sampling distribu­ original point estimates, the analysis inserts correc­
tion by replicating the data generating process tions to find interval estimations. Following the
(DGP). When the DPG is unknown, a non- percentile method modified by Simar and Wilson
parametric DEA approach has specific advantages, (2000) we confidence intervals are obtained, with
including less severe constraints on the technology the automatic correction for bias without the use of
used. Through the bootstrapping process, a noisy biased estimator.
a pseudo-replicate dataset is formulated to verify In addition, to assess the relationship between
the reliability of the original dataset. Using a Monte agricultural efficiency and gender, we use a mean
Carlo approximation allows the bootstrap method difference test. Through this methodology, it is
to suggest a consistent estimator of the original possible to demonstrate the existence of the abso­
unknown sampling distribution thanks to the lute mean difference between the two groups ana­
simulation of the DGP. lysed. In this case, male agricultural efficiency and
Consider that the DGP P produces a random female agricultural efficiency are both determined.
sample χ ¼ {xk ; yk jk ¼ 1: . . . :, n)}. The data from
χ has a nonparametric method represented by
Data
Many studies use DEA to evaluate the efficiency of
agricultural production processes. In the absence of
a priori assumptions, using a non-parametric
approach results in an easily applicable framework.
Moreover, utilizing multiple inputs and outputs for
obtains X ^ ð yÞ; αX
^ ð yÞ; which is used to estimate its
efficiency assessment facilitates an increase in the
efficiency, � expressed as � objectivity of the results obtained, thus providing
^θk ¼ min θjθk 2 X ^ ðyk Þ . The bootstrap useful information for important agricultural
method is used to obtain a reasonable estimator issues such as land management and agricultural
of the true unknown DGP generated from the data income (Vlontzos and Pardalos 2017). The DEA
χ, we called it ^p: methodology allows us to determine if the organi­
According to Simar and Wilson (1998), in this study zation of productive factors in the agricultural
we apply a homogeneous smoothed bootstrap. An Italian sectors is efficient. In addition, the issue of
algorithm to generate the consistent bootstrap efficiency is helpful on a managerial level, which is
values ^θ�b from a kernel density estimate is carried an important issue for policy assessments.
out. For every farmer k with the input – output Data for the analysis are taken from the Farm
dataðxk ; yk Þk ¼ 1; . . . ; n; ^θk , the efficiency estima­ Accountancy Data Network (FADN), which regis­
tors are calculated through the linear program. ters information from a sample of farms each year,
The smoothed bootstrap sample θ�1 ; . . . ; θ�n for representing Italian commercial agriculture. The
1; . . . ; n generated by letting β�1 ; . . . ; β�n ; allows for FADN is the official source for microeconomic
a simple bootstrap sample to be found by drawing data. It was set up in 1965 by the European
uniformly with replacement. Commission to harmonize accounting standards.
Using these procedures, the sample values take The Italian sample of FADN data consists of 11,000
on the same mean and variance as the original annual farms, representing the different produc­
values. According to Simar and Wilson (2011), tion types and sizes present on the national terri­
the bandwidth factor h is calculated (Simar and tory. It has a national average coverage of 95% of
Wilson 2011). n the Utilized Agricultural Area (UAA), and reflects
The bootstrap estimates ^θ�k;b ¼ 1; . . . ; Bg are 97% of the value of Standard Production and 92%
biased according to Simar and Wilson (2000). of the Labour Units (UL). The data represent the
The bias is subtracted from the original efficiency population of farmers in Italy and are validated by
estimates, obtaining corrected DEA scores. As the the National Institute of Statistics (ISTAT). Table 2
bias correction introduces additional noise and summarized the sample description.
 APPLIED ECONOMICS 4183

Table 2. Sample description. not give us the opportunity to estimate possible

Variables Farms % Farms Male % Male Female % Female errors. Therefore, heterogeneity may influence the
Nord 4,623 44.4% 3,829 82.8% 794 17.2%
Center 1,574 15.2% 1,197 76% 377 24% analysis and the data in a way that cannot be
South 4,199 40.4% 3,064 73% 1,135 27% evaluated to determine the extent of the problem.
Italy 10,396 8,090 2306
However, using the Bootstrap method can resolve
this problem. We can delineate confidence inter­
Table 3. Variables and data sources. vals of 95% associated with the estimates without
Data needing the assumption of a normal distribution of
Variables Type Unit Description Source
Value Added Output € The measure of the increase in FADN
the errors. The method introduced by Simar and
value occurring in the Wilson (1999) turns out to be particularly impor­
production and distribution
of final goods and services.
tant. The construction of confidence intervals
Land Input ha The total area used FADN allows us to understand if the values obtained are
Consumption Input € The expenses incurred by each FADN
electricity farmer for electricity, water acceptable or not.
water and and fuel Using a Bootstrap method with the DEA meth­
fuel
Depreciation Input € The total amount of FADN odology allows us to obtain a synthetic indicator
depreciation of capital that is able to measure the level of efficiency in the
assets over the
accounting year Italian agricultural sectors at the provincial level. It
Labor Input units Total work units FADN identifies which territories are characterized by
Position - - Dummy variable is equal to 1 if FADN
the farms are located in a low efficiency score and present higher margins
Northern Italy and equal to
0 otherwise
for improvement. In addition, according to pre­
Subsidies - € The total amount of direct FADN vious studies such as Ali et al. (2016)) and Danso-
payment (I pillar) received
by each farmer Abbeam, Baiyegunhi, and Ojo (2020), we have
Gender - Y/N The sex of the conductor FADN compared the efficiency level between male and
female farmers to uncover the existence of an effi­
We used the following variables to measure the ciency gender gap in the agricultural sector.
agricultural efficiency in Italian agricultural sector: Our analysis was developed with several steps
land, electricity consumption, water and fuel con­ that deepen the following research questions. The
sumption, capital depreciation, and labour are used first step of our analysis provides some important
as inputs, and value added is used as the output information about the utilization and the combina­
variable. Data were logged and normalized, divid­ tion of production factors in the Italian
ing values by standard deviation, and outliers were Agricultural Sector. We can affirm that Italian
eliminated before beginning the analysis. Tables 3 Farms present an average level of efficiency score
and 4 present a description of the variables and equal to 0.802. This value reveals that the current
data source and their summary statistics. value of output can be obtained using approxi­
mately 0.194 fewer inputs. Figure 2 below reveals
the geographic distribution of relative efficiency.
IV. Results In this figure we see the provincial efficiency level
of agricultural enterprises across regions. The chro­
Average efficiency level for Italian agricultural matic scale goes from intense red with an average of
sector around 0.7 (or lower) up to intense green with
As we have already explained in the methodology a value of around the 0.85 (or higher). As you can
section, the major flaw of the DEA analysis is that see, the Po Valley is characterized by a very high level
we obtain the value deterministically, which does of efficiency, typical of an area with a very strong

Table 4. Summary statistics.

Value added Land Consump. Ele., wat., and fuel Depreciation Labor
Mean 10,495 2.888 6.522 7.803 0.982
Std. Dev. 1,258 1.140 2.202 2.520 0.427
Min 3,371 0.140 0.095 0.095 0.191
Max 16,266 7.143 13.619 13.655 4.727
4184 G. FUSCO ET AL.

Figure 2. Provincial distribution of DEA Average scores for the Total sample.

Figure 3. Gender distribution in the total sample.

 APPLIED ECONOMICS 4185

agricultural tradition. The south is characterized by possible for farmers to obtain higher levels of effi­
very heterogeneous situations. Calabria, for example, ciency, it enables a higher level of farm specialization,
has a lower level of efficiency than the rest of Italy, which corresponds to high levels of efficiency (Dagar
represented by the strong presence of red. et al. 2020).
Our results, according to previous study Coluccia Figure 3 shows the gender distribution of the
et al. (2020), demonstrate that the Northern and sample.
CenterItaly are characterized by a higher average
level of efficiency relative to Southern Italy. In general,
Average level of efficiency across genders and the
those companies in business environments with
impacts of public assistance
a greater concentration of companies, and that have
a higher company size, tend to obtain a higher level of The second step of the analysis is focusing on the
efficiency. This is likely due to a better combination of average level of efficiency across genders and the
available productive factors (Weltin et al. 2017). The impacts of public aid on farmers' performance. The
different structural characteristics at farm levels, such sample distribution reveals that 22.2% of the businesses
as higher capital endowment in terms of machines are led by women, while the remaining 77.8% are led by
and financial capital, is a critical tool for enhancing men. This situation reflects the wide and persistent
productivity (Saroha et al. 2021; Raimondo et al. disparity that exists within the agricultural sector,
2021). To fill in this gap and improve the efficiency which is still male dominated as far as managerial
level, one possible solution is to provide a better com­ roles are concerned. Figure 4 below illustrates how this
bination of the productivity factors. This may be gender gap varies across the regions of Italy.
possible thanks to the technological changes which The above figure shows the female intensity in
have enhanced farm performance and mitigated some conducting the agricultural companies at
situations of low managerial efficiency (Forleo et al. a provincial level. It is possible to see from our
2021). Technological innovation not only makes it dataset that a higher concentration of female-led

Figure 4. Concentration level of agricultural enterprises lead by men on the totality of the sample at the provincial level.
4186 G. FUSCO ET AL.

Figure 5. Provincial distribution of DEA Average scores for the agricultural enterprise lead by men.

companies exist in the south of Italy. The details of Figure 6 represents the average efficiency level for
this analysis reveals much insight into the disparate the companies lead by women. In this case, the
rates of provincial average efficiency between men average efficiency score compared to the total sam­
and women across these regions. Figures 5 and 6 ple, the map is greener respect than the total sam­
below show how male-led businesses have a slightly ple. Like the male-led business sample, the central
higher level of efficiency (the map becomes and northern Italy both have a high level of effi­
greener), especially in the north. It is also interest­ ciency relative to southern Italy.
ing to see Calabria, where women’s businesses are A fundamental aspect of the dataset, which
more efficient in this region than men’s businesses. allows us to understand some of the dynamics
Figure 5 shows the average efficiency level only exhibited by the agricultural sector, as well as the
for male-led companies, as compared to the aver­ evolution of public policies implemented over
age level of efficiency calculated for the whole sam­ recent years, is the percentage of subsidies on turn­
ple. These results generally show a lower variance over. This variable gives us a measure of the level of
and higher levels of efficiency relative to the whole intensity of public support for agricultural enter­
sample. Further, the efficiency gap between North prises. Figure 7 below illustrates the average sub­
and Central Italy, when compared to the South, sidies across the various regions of the country.
remains but at a lower value. In the sample con­ After analysing the provincial distribution of this
sidered (male-led agricultural enterprises), variable, it is useful to compare it with the overall
Calabria is the region that seems to have the lowest level of agricultural efficiency.
value in terms of efficiency. The data visualization shows us a very clear pic­
These results accord with the previous literature ture. The provinces are coloured green when the level
(Ali et al. 2016; Danso-Abbeam, Baiyegunhi, and of the subsidies/turnover variable is very low, while it
Ojo 2020) and show how male-run farms generally is blue when the level is very high (approximately 45%
seem to perform better than female-run farms. when the blue is very intense). Indeed, it is possible to
 APPLIED ECONOMICS 4187

Figure 6. Provincial distribution of DEA Average scores for the agricultural enterprise lead by woman.

note how the area attributable to the Po Valley has These results give the opportunity to assist
a very low level of subsidies/turnover, while the rest of the government to develop the appropriate poli­
Italy presents a very heterogeneous mix. The region cies that can mitigate regional-specific or gen­
with the highest level of subsidies compared to turn­ der-specific problems. These empirical results
over is Calabria, which prior figures has revealed represent the starting point to implement some
exhibits a very low level of efficiency. It is useful to measures capable of improving the efficiency in
emphasize that where there is a lot of aid, the effi­ the Italian agricultural sector, and to reduce the
ciency of businesses is very low. The subsequent different regional and gender gaps in efficiency,
analysis does not concern itself with whether this such as:
result is due to inefficient aid management or not.
● adopting agricultural techniques that improve
food production (Fusco et al. 2020);
V. Policy and managerial implication ● increasing investments in agricultural research
that focuses on reducing losses in food pro­
First, these results indicate that Italian agricultural
duction (Adenle, Wedig, and Azadi 2019);
sector presents a large margin for improvement in
● assisting companies to increase their output
their respective levels of efficiency. This is espe­
capacities at the same level of input (Chivu
cially true for the South of Italy relative to the
et al. 2020; Zakari et al. 2021);
regions across the north and centre of the country.
● Create incentives and adjust tax burdens to
The analysed sample revealed that a major part of
improve the adoption of new agricultural tech­
those companies lead by women are less efficient
nologies (Zhao et al. 2021);
relative to those companies lead by men. Further,
● Increase the tax and benefit system investment
those farms located in the south of Italy have devel­
to incentivize sustainable economic
oped a strong dependency on public aid.
4188 G. FUSCO ET AL.

Figure 7. Average subsidies/revenue at provincial level for each agricultural enterprise.

development, which is an option to increase The European Green Deal has set several goals to
energy efficiency and the average efficiency be achieved in a relatively short time, and the
level (Zakari et al. 2022); agricultural sector is a key player in this effort.
This involves several endeavours, from the Farm
These types of measures can be representing to Fork strategy to the Biodiversity strategy. Such
a starting point to improve the efficiency in the efforts have also influenced the construction of the
agricultural sector and help mitigate the gender new Common Agricultural Policy, which will take
gap. Specifically, it is very important to promote effect from 2023. This new policy has a new focus
those actions that improve the educational back­ on environmental and climate issues, but it also
ground of the farmers and increase their accessi­ focuses on strengthening the economic role of
bility to productive inputs. farms, which still represent the last bastion for the
development of inland and rural areas. All of these
efforts emphasize the efficient use of resources to
VI. Conclusion
produce food in a sustainable manner.
This analysis set out to evaluate the efficiency of the In the light of these new challenges, this study
economic performance of Italian farms, with has tried to take a snapshot of the economic status
a focus on gender differences across regions of of Italian farms to assess the existence of both
agricultural businesses, as well as the level of territorial and gender gaps in production efficiency,
European subsidies. A new path for Europe has and to better understand the reasons for them. This
been cleared through the European Commission’s work is divided into two phases. The first phase
communication on the Green Seal, which asks us to involved an analysis of the efficiency of economic
reflect on the need to assess the sustainability of performance by farms, while in the second phase
farms within an increasingly integrated context. involved an evaluation of how such efficiency
 APPLIED ECONOMICS 4189

varies according to gender and the distribution of which prevents them from bridging the existing
public subsidies across regions. The empirical ana­ gap. However, female-led farms did not always lag
lysis shows that even today – with data updated in behind. Consider, for example, the regions of
2018 - Italy is still divided into three blocks. In fact, Sardinia and Sicily, where female-led farms are
while farmers in the North are very efficient, this actually more efficient than men. These regions
efficiency diminishes the farther south one travels are known for encouraging a greater degree of
down the country. Such evidence implies that the entrepreneurial spirit, which enhances the success
northern farmers have better ability to minimize of businesses by overcoming the institutional and
the use of production factors to attain their produc­ territorial barriers, including gender barriers.
tion goals. One could even think of these farms as Another crucial step in our analysis is assessing the
employing ‘best practices’ to achieve efficiency in role of public subsidies. As we have seen in Figure 6,
the Italian Agricultural Sector (Kalirajan 1990). the incidence on turnover of public subsidies, such as
The explanation for this can be found in the usual direct payments of the CAP and area-based measures
reasons, from the underdeveloped entrepreneurial of the second pillar, is much higher in the southern
fabric within under-performing regions, to the infra­ regions than in the north. This denotes a strong
structural gap that very often prevents the South from dependence on public support and a lack of ability
catching up with the industrialized North. However, to generate a multiplier effect from support, which is
even if the results on efficiency that we analysed do more easily achieved in the north. Once again, the
not show a change, it is important to see how the role territorial gap emerges strongly within this context.
of women affects this situation. The need to support farms, especially in areas
While previous scholars have analysed the role of where a lower efficiency gap has emerged, is correct
women in agricultural production (Whatmore and in line with European expectations. These pre­
1994; Adinolfi et al. 2020; Leigh et al. 2021), our liminary results provide a starting point from which to
work demonstrated how gender differences exist in start to develop new policies capable of increasing the
the performance of agricultural activity, as mea­ value creation process in Southern companies and
sured in terms of inputs and outputs, on sensitizing a range of entrepreneurs to a conscious
a provincial basis. and efficient use of production factors. Specifically,
Our analysis also revealed a third way for over­ agricultural policy design can be improved in the light
coming the male-female dichotomy in agricultural of these results by improving the economic perfor­
production, by going back to the well-known con­ mance of female-led farms. Reconstructing agricul­
cepts of collective family farming (Dyer 2018). In tural assistance measures to be more oriented towards
any case, if over time women in agriculture have female entrepreneurship, particularly in those areas
been considered invisible (Sachs 1983), this work where an efficiency gap has emerged, is not only an
still aims to assess their performance. All the con­ appropriate, but also a sustainable vision that would
siderations made must be placed in the regulatory bridge both the gender and territorial economic effi­
context of the support policies that, to date, are still ciency gaps.
male-oriented (Bock 2004). Indeed, backward steps Our approach, of course, has some fundamental
were taken in the last programming period. While limitations, since in some farm household contexts,
many policies were dedicated to women in the per­ the title holder is a woman but only formally, as the
iod 2007–2013, female gender preference was elimi­ male influence still appears to be predominant
nated in the period 2014–2020 (Adinolfi et al. 2020). (Contzen and Forney 2017). Furthermore, relying
Our empirical analysis has shown that support on secondary data means it was not possible to
for female entrepreneurship is necessary. In fact, address the true role of women at the head of the
economic performance of female-led farms is farms, or the household context. For example, our
poorer than that of male-led farms in over 90% of data does not allow us to understand whether the
Italian provinces (Figure 4 and 5). This does not observed gender gap derives from extra-company
prove that men are better performers, but probably contexts, such as having to make numerous extra-
that women are still burdened with extra-farm company commitments. Therefore, in future
responsibilities, such as family management, research, both the family composition and the
4190 G. FUSCO ET AL.

role that individual members play within the busi­ Ali, D., D. Bowen, K. Deininger, and M. Duponchel. 2016.
ness should also be considered to obtain more “Investigating the Gender Gap in Agricultural Productivity:
accurate information on corporate governance. Evidence from Uganda.” World Development 87: 152–170.
Anania, G., A. Balmann, A. Buckwell, J. C. Bureau, P. De Castro,
It should also be emphasized that the DEA ana­ A. Di Mambro and J. Swinnen. (2015). “The Political Economy
lysis takes into consideration the relative efficiency of the 2014-2020 Common Agricultural Policy: An Imperfect
within the sample, rather than absolute efficiency. Storm.”CEPS Paperback, 17 August 2015.
A precise analysis of the efficiency level of the Balezentis, T., M. Morkunas, A. Volkov, E. Ribasauskiene, and
Italian agricultural sector would require precise D. Streimikiene. 2021. “Are Women Neglected in the EU
information on all Italian agricultural enterprises. Agriculture? Evidence from Lithuanian Young Farmers.”
Land Use Policy 101: 105129.
We attempted to overcome many of these limita­ Banks, J., A. Long, and J. D. van der Ploeg. 2002. Living
tions by using the Bootstrap methodology, and by Countryside: Rural Development Processes in Eu- Rope -
relying on the most complete dataset available. The the State of the Art. Doetinchem: Elsevier.
FADN dataset represents the population of farmers Bird, S. R., and S. G. Sapp. 2004. “Understanding the Gender
in Italy and is validated by ISTAT. Gap in Small Business Success: Urban and Rural
Another limitation of our study is the relatively Comparisons.” Gender & Society 18 (1): 5–28.
Bock, B. B. 2004. “Fitting in and Multitasking: Dutch Farm
short time horizon of the empirical analysis. Women’s Strategies in Rural Entrepreneur- Ship.”
However, this represents a conscious choice, as Sociologia Ruralis 44 (3): 245–260.
employing a longer time frame would have drastically Borghino, N., M. Corson, L. Nitschelm, A. Wilfart, J. Fleuet,
reduced the number of data points in the sample. M. Moraine . . ., and O. Godinot. 2021. “Contribution of
Some future developments of this study may be the LCA to Decision Making: A Scenario Analysis in Territorial
inclusion of non-farm factors in the analysis and Agricultural Production Systems.” Journal of
Environmental Management 287: 112288.
diversification and/or stratification by OTE, or by Brush, C. G., and R. Chaganti. 1999. “Businesses Without
type of crop. While finding a more comprehensive Glamour? An Analysis of Resources on Performance by
data source for the entire country would resolve this Size and Age in Small Service and Retail Firms.” Journal
issue, one has yet to be discovered. of Business Venturing 14 (3): 233–257.
Callens, I., and D. Tyteca. 1999. “Towards Indicators of
Sustainable Development for Firms: A Productive
Efficiency Perspective.” Ecological Economics 28 (1): 41–53.
Acknowledgement
Carter, S., and J. Weeks. 2002. “Gender and Business
Pierluigi Toma received Research support from the Italian Ownership: International Perspectives on Entrepreneurial
Ministry of University, Project PON Attraction and Theory and Practice.” International Journal of
International Mobility, n. AIM1823220The research of Giulio Entrepreneurship and Innovation 3 (2): 81–82.
Fusco was supported by the Apulia Region RIPARTI Initiative, Charnes, A., W. W. Cooper, and E. Rhodes. 1978. “Measuring
project n. 8ff9148a. the Efficiency of Decision Making Units.” European Journal
of Operational Research 2 (6): 429–444.
Chivu, L., J. V. Andrei, M. Zaharia, and R. M. Gogonea. 2020.
“A Regional Agricultural Efficiency Convergence
Disclosure statement Assessment in Romania–appraising Differences and
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s). Understanding Potentials.” Land Use Policy 99: 104838.
Coleman, S. 2002. “Constraints Faced by Women Small
Business Owners: Evidence from the Data.” Journal of
References Developmental Entrepreneurship 7 (2): 151–174.
Coluccia, B., D. Valente, G. Fusco, F. De Leo, and D. Porrini.
Adenle, A. A., K. Wedig, and H. Azadi. 2019. “Sustainable 2020. “Assessing Agricultural Eco-Efficiency in Italian
Agriculture and Food Security in Africa: The Role of Regions.” Ecological Indicators 116: 106483.
Innovative Technologies and International Contzen, S., and J. Forney. 2017. “Family Farming and Gen-
Organizations.” Technology in Society 58: 101143. Dered Division of Labour on the Move: A Typology of
Adinolfi, F., F. Capitanio, D. E. Marcello, and Y. Vecchio. Farming-Family Configuration.” Agriculture and Human
2020. “Gender Differences in Farm Entrepreneurship: Values 34 (1): 27–40. doi:10.1007/s10460-016-9687-2.
Comparing Farming Performance of Women and Men in D’Adamo, I., M. Gastaldi, and P. Morone. 2022. “Economic
Italy.” New Medit: Mediterranean Journal of Economics, Sustainable Development Goals: Assessments and
Agriculture and Environment= Revue Mèditerranèenne Perspectives in Europe.” Journal of Cleaner Production 354:
Dʹeconomie Agriculture Et Environment 19 (1 69–82). 131730.
 APPLIED ECONOMICS 4191

Dagar, V., E. Bansal, M. Murshed, V. Mishra, R. Alvarado, Fischer, E. M., A. R. Reuber, and L. S. Dyke. 1993.
A. Kumar, and M. K. Anser. 2020. “Stochastic Frontier “A Theoretical Overview and Extension of Research on
Analysis to Measure Technical Efficiency: Evidence from Sex, Gender, and Entrepreneurship.” Journal of Business
Skilled and Unskilled Agricultural Labour in India.” Venturing 8 (2): 151–168.
International Journal of Agricultural and Statistical Forleo, M. B., V. Giaccio, L. Mastronardi, and L. Romagnoli.
Sciences 16 (2): 647–657. 2021. “Analysing the Efficiency of Diversified Farms:
Dagar, V., M. Bhattacharjee, F. Ahmad, A. Charan, and P. Jit. Evidences from Italian FADN Data.” Journal of Rural
2020. “A Comparative Stochastic Frontier Analysis for Studies 82: 262–270.
Technical Efficiency of Irrigation in Haryana.” Fusco, G., M. Melgiovanni, D. Porrini, and T. M. Ricciardo. 2020.
International Journal of Agricultural and Statistical “How to Improve the Diffusion of Climate-Smart Agriculture:
Sciences 16 (1): 199–209. What the Literature Tells Us.” Sustainability 12 (12): 5168.
Dagar, V., M. K. Khan, R. Alvarado, M. Usman, A. Zakari, Gasson, R., and A. J. Errington. 1993. The Farm Family
A. Rehman . . ., and B. Tillaguango. 2021. “Variations in Business. Wallingford: Cab International.
Technical Efficiency of Farmers with Distinct Land Size Gasson, R., and A. J. Errington. 1993. The Farm Family
Across Agro-Climatic Zones: Evidence from India.” Business. Cab International.
Journal of Cleaner Production 315: 128109. Gatewood, E. J., C. G. Brush, N. M. Carter, P. G. Greene, and
Dagar, V., A. K. Tiwari, S. Mishra, V. Mahajan, S. Singh, P. Jit M. M. Hart. 2009. “Diana: A Symbol of Women
. . ., and A. Rehman. 2020. “Covid 19-Risk Management Entrepreneurs’ Hunt for Knowledge, Money, and the
and Technical Efficiency of Farmers Post Migration of Rewards of Entrepreneurship.” Small Business Economics
Agricultural Labour in India.” International Journal of 32 (2): 129–144.
Agricultural Sciences 16 (1): 965–977. Godoy-Durán, Á., E. Galdeano-Gómez, J. C. Pérez-Mesa, and
Danso-Abbeam, G., L. J. Baiyegunhi, and T. O. Ojo. 2020. L. Piedra-Muñoz. 2017. “Assessing Eco-Efficiency and the
“Gender Differentials in Technical Efficiency of Ghanaian Determinants of Horticultural Family-Farming in
Cocoa Farms.” Heliyon 6 (5): e04012. Southeast Spain.” Journal of Environmental Management
De Castro, P., F. Adinolfi, F. Capitanio, S. Di Falco, and A. Di 204: 594–604.
Mambro, edited by. 2012. The Politics of Land and Food Gottschalk, S., and M. Niefert. 2013. “Gender Differences in
Scarcity. London: Routledge. Business Success of German Start-Up Firms.” International
De Castro, P., P. P. Miglietta, and Y. Vecchio. 2020. “The Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business 18 (1):
Common Agricultural Policy 2021-2027: A New History 15–46.
for European Agriculture.” Italian Review of Agricultural Hanson, S., and M. Blake. 2009. “Gender and Entrepreneur-
Economics 75 (3): 5–12. Ial Networks.” Regional Studies 43 (1): 135–149.
Deng, X., and J. Gibson. 2019. “Improving Eco-Efficiency for Honma, S., and J. L. Hu. 2014. “Industry-Level Total-Factor
the Sustainable Agricultural Production: A Case Study in Energy Efficiency in Developed Countries: A
Shandong, China.” Technological Forecasting and Social Japan-Centered Analysis.” Applied Energy 119: 67–78.
Change 144: 394–400. Hu, J. L., S. C. Wang, and F. Y. Yeh. 2006. “Total-Factor Water
De Rosa, M., F. Adinolfi, and Y. Vecchio. 2017. “Building Up Efficiency of Regions in China.” Resources Policy 31 (4):
Collective Action to Qualify Gis.” Land Use Policy 66: 217–230.
340–345. ISTAT. 2019. https://www.istat.it/it/files//2019/12/Struttura-
Dyer, W. G. 2018. “Are Family Firms Really Better? unit%C3%A0-economiche-settore-agricolo.pdf
Reexamining “Examining the ‘Family Effect’ on Firm Jones, K., and R. Tullous. 2002. “Behaviors of Pre-venture
Performance”.” Family Business Review 3 (2): 240–248. Entrepreneurs and Perceptions of Their Financial Needs.”
doi:10.1177/0894486518776516. Journal of Small Business Management 40 (3): 233–248.
Fairlie, R. W., and A. M. Robb. 2009. “Gender Differences in Kalirajan, K. P. 1990. “On Measuring Economic Efficiency.”
Business Performance: Evidence from the Characteristics of Journal of Applied Econometrics 5 (1): 75–85.
Business Owners Survey.” Small Business Economics 33 (4): Kanter, D. R., M. Musumba, S. L. Wood, C. Palm, J. Antle,
375–395. P. Balvanera . . ., and S. Andelman. 2018. “Evaluating
FAO. 2011. The State of Food and Agriculture. Women Agricultural Trade-Offs in the Age of Sustainable
in Agriculture: Closing the Gap for Development. Rome: Development.” Agricultural Systems 163: 73–88.
FAO. Keating, B. A., P. S. Carberry, P. S. Bindraban, S. Asseng,
Farrell, M. J. 1957. “The Measurement of Productive H. Meinke, and J. Dixon. 2010. “Eco-efficient Agriculture:
Efficiency.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series Concepts, Challenges, and Opportunities.” Crop Science 50:
a (General) 120 (3): 253–281. 109.
Fasci, M. A., and J. Valdez. 1998. “A Performance Contrast of Klasen, S. 2018. “The Impact of Gender Inequality on
Male-And Female-Owned Small Accounting Practices.” Economic Performance in Developing Countries.” Annual
Journal of Small Business Management 36 (3): 1. Review of Resource Economics 10: 279–298.
4192 G. FUSCO ET AL.

Leigh, A. C., T. W. Reynolds, P. Biscaye, V. Patwardhan, and Saroha, K., V. Dagar, P. Jit, R. Alvarado, V. Mishra, N. Pahwa,
C. Schmidt. 2021. “Economic Benefits of Empowering and A. Zakaria. 2021. “COVID-19: Trend Analysis for
Women in Agriculture: Assumptions and Evidence.” The Market Arrival of Green Gram in India.” International
Journal of Development Studies 57 (2): 193–208. doi:10. Journal of Agricultural Sciences 16: 1017–1031.
1080/00220388.2020.1769071. Simar, L., and P. W. Wilson. 1998. “Sensitivity Analysis of
Leitch, C., F. Welter, and C. Henry. 2018. “Women En- Efficiency Scores: How to Bootstrap in Nonparametric
Trepreneurs’ Financing Revisited: Taking Stock and Frontier Models.” Management Science 44 (1): 49–61.
Looking Forward.” Venture Capital 20 (2): 103–114. Simar, L., and P. W. Wilson. 1999. “Estimating and
Little, J. 2006. “Gender and Sexuality in Rural Communities.” Bootstrapping Malmquist Indices.” European Journal of
Handbook of Rural Studies 365–378. Operational Research 115 (3): 459–471.
Marsden, T., and R. Sonnino. 2008. “Rural Development and Simar, L., and P. W. Wilson. 2000. “A General Methodology
the Regional State: Denying Multifunctional Agriculture in for Bootstrapping in Non-Parametric Frontier Models.”
the UK.” Journal of Rural Studies 24 (4): 422–431. Journal of Applied Statistics 27 (6): 779–802.
Mason, K., and H. Carlsson. 2004, Marchde marzo . “The Simar, L., and P. W. Wilson. 2000. “Statistical Inference in
Impact of Gender Equality in Land Rights on Nonparametric Frontier Models: The State of the Art.”
Development.” In Documento Presentado En la Conferencia Journal of Productivity Analysis 13 (1): 49–78. doi:10.
Sobre el Tema “Human Rights and Development: Towards 1023/A:1007864806704.
Mutual Reinforcement” auspiciada por la Escuela de Derecho Simar, L., and P. W. Wilson. 2011. “Performance of the
de la Universidad de Nueva York. 1º de marzo, Nueva York. Bootstrap for DEA Estimators and Iterating the Principle
Mirchandani, K. 1999. “Feminist Insight on Gendered Work: New .” In Handbook on Data Envelopment Analysis, 241–271.
Directions in Research on Women and Entrepreneurship.” Boston, MA: Springer.
Gender, Work & Organization 6 (4): 224–235. Stratigaki, M. 2005. “Gender Mainstreaming Vs Pos- Itive Action:
Mishra, A. K., A. R. Khanal, and S. Mohanty. 2017. “Gender An Ongoing Conflict in EU Gender Equality Policy.” European
Differentials in Farming Efficiency and Profits: The Case of Journal of Women’s Studies 12 (2): 165–186.
Rice Production in the Philippines.” Land Use Policy 63: Swaminathan, H., R. Lahoti, and J. Y. Suchitra. 2012. Women’s
461–469. Property, Mobility, and Decisionmaking: Evidence from
O’Donnell, C. J. 2010. “Measuring and Decomposing Rural. Karnataka, India: The International Food Policy
Agricultural Productivity and Profitability Change.” The Research Institute (IFPRI).
Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics Thomson, K. J., and S. Davidova 2014. ”Economic Aspects of
54 (4): 527–560. Family Farming in the European Context.” .
Palacios-López, A., and R. López. 2015. “The Gender Gap in Toma, P., P.P. Miglietta, G. Zurlini, D. Valente, and
Agricultural Productivity: The Role of Market Imperfections.” I. Petrosillo. 2017. “A Non-Parametric Bootstrap-Data
The Journal of Development Studies 51 (9): 1175–1192. Envelopment Analysis Approach for Environmental Policy
Quisumbing, A. R., R. Meinzen-Dick, T. L. Raney, Planning and Management of Agricultural Efficiency in EU
A. Croppenstedt, J. A. Behrman, and A. Peterman. 2014. Countries.” Ecological Indicators 83: 132–143.
“Closing the Knowledge Gap on Gender in Agriculture.” In Vecchio, Y., M. Francescone, F. Adinolfi, and M. De
Gender in Agriculture, 3–27. Dordrecht: Springer. Rosa. 2021. ““Ambidexterity”: Trump Card for Farm’s
Raimondo, M., F. Caracciolo, C. Nazzaro, and G. Marotta. Innovativeness and Competitiveness.” British
2021. “Organic Farming Increases the Technical Efficiency Food Journal 124 (13): 1–13. doi:10.1108/BFJ-03-2021-
of Olive Farms in Italy.” Agriculture 11 (3): 209. 0264.
Renting, H., W. A. H. Rossing, J. C. J. Groot, J. D. Van der Vik, J., and G. McElwee. 2011. “Diversification and the Entre-
Ploeg, C. Laurent, D. Perraud . . ., and M. K. Van Ittersum. Preneurial Motivations of Farmers in Norway.” Journal of
2009. “Exploring Multifunctional Agriculture. A Review of Small Business Management 49 (3): 390–410. doi:10.1111/j.
Conceptual Approaches and Prospects for an Integrative 1540-627X.2011.00327.x.
Transitional Framework.” Journal of Environmental Vlontzos, G., and P. M. Pardalos. 2017. “Assess and
Management 90: S112–S123. Prognosticate Green House Gas Emissions from
Robaina-Alves, M., and V. Moutinho. 2014. “Decomposition Agricultural Production of EU Countries, by
of Energy-Related GHG Emissions in Agriculture Over Implementing, DEA Window Analysis and Artificial
1995–2008 for European Countries.” Applied Energy 114: Neural Networks.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy
949–957. Reviews 76: 155–162.
Robb, A., and J. Watson. 2010. “Comparing the Performance Watson, J., and R. Newby. 2005. “Biological Sex, Stereotypical
of Female-And Male-Controlled SMEs: Evidence from the Sex-roles, and SME Owner Characteristics.” International
United States and Australia.” Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research 11 (2):
Research 30 (8): 1. 129–143. doi:10.1108/13552550510590545.
Sachs, C. E. 1983. The Invisible Farmers: Women in Webster, P. 1999. “The Challenge of Sustainability at the Farm
Agricultural Production. Washington, DC: Rowman and Level: Presidential Address.” Journal of Agricultural
Allanheld. Economics 50 (3): 371–387.
 APPLIED ECONOMICS 4193

Weltin, M., I. Zasada, C. Franke, A. Piorr, M. Raggi, and Sector on Level of Inefficiency for Energy Consumption:
D. Viaggi. 2017. “Analysing Behavioural Differences of Fisher Ideal Index Decomposition Analysis.” Heliyon
Farm Households: An Example of Income Diversification 7 (5): e06952.
Strategies Based on European Farm Survey Data.” Land Use Zamanian, G. R., V. Shahabinejad, and M. Yaghoubi.
Policy 62: 172–184. 2013. “Application of DEA and SFA on the
Whatmore, S. 1994. “Theoretical Achievements and Challenges in Measurement of Agricultural Technical Efficiency in
European Rural Gender Studies.” Rural Society 4: 39–49. MENA Countries INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF
Whatmore, S. 2016. Farming Women: Gender, Work and APPLIED OPERATIONAL RESEARCH 3 43–51 .”
Family Enterprise. New York: Springer. Zhang, R., W. Ma, and J. Liu. 2021. “Impact of Government
World Bank. 2012. “World Development Report 2012: Gender Subsidy on Agricultural Production and Pollution: A
Equality in Development.” World Bank, Washington, DC Game-Theoretic Approach.” Journal of Cleaner
Zakari, A., I. Khan, D. Tan, R. Alvarado, and V. Dagar. 2022. Production 285: 124806.
“Energy Efficiency and Sustainable Development Goals Zhao, L., Y. Zhang, M. Sadiq, V. M. Hieu, and T. Q. Ngo.
(SDGs).” Energy 239: 122365. 2021. “Testing Green Fiscal Policies for Green Investment,
Zakari, A., J. Toplak, M. Ibtissem, V. Dagar, and Innovation and Green Productivity Amid the COVID-19
M. K. Khan. 2021. “Impact of Nigeria’s Industrial Era.” Economic Change and Restructuring 1–22.