In the table above, FHHs have a higher mean household per capita income, with MHHs having 70.78% mean household per capita incomes to that of the former, defying their common categorisation as the 'poorest of the poor' and feminisation of poverty (Kabeer, 2015) in the A2 farming areas.
A higher percentage of FHHs reported accessing agricultural inputs on credit with 43.8% and 39.4% to 21.9% and 33.3% to male headed households in A2 and A1 areas respectively This has positive implications for gendered poverty and inequality as agricultural productivity is dependent on access to skills and training, credit and loans (Kabeer, 2015; Bashir et.al 2010).
The above table shows more FHHs accumulating productive assets in relation to MHHs in both A2 and A1 farming areas with 28.1% compared to 12.5% in the former owning tractors.
Women in male-headed households (W in MHH) were more likely to have minimum participation than those in FHHs.
Table 5 shows that about 81.3% of the FHHs owned plots of less than 1 ha.
The preceptor role at FHHS
had become limited to a small group of nurses who were permanent staff working full time hours.
Also, income transfer programs need to take into account the potentially unique needs of FHHs, given that these households contain one, rather than two parents, which is the norm among MHHs.
For instance, given existing poverty trends, with FHHs suffering greater poverty rates in urban areas, and given the likelihood that urbanization in Egypt will continue policies need to anticipate how increasing urbanization is likely to increase women's vulnerability and design poverty programs accordingly.
The analysis of consumption behaviour of MHHs and FHHs by expenditure quintiles is presented in Section V.
In both the tables, the results of the two sample t-test with equal variance are also presented to test for the significance of difference between the budget shares of MHHs and FHHs at the national level as well as by the urban and rural areas, respectively.