In Nairobi’s informal settlements, women are raising their voices in public spaces – but behind closed doors, many still lack power over their own time, income, and decisions. This blog explores the complex reality of empowerment through the lens of a recent study conducted by APHRC under the HealthyFoodAfrica project.
According to the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia, women’s empowerment is the process by which women become aware of gender-based unequal power relationships and acquire a greater voice in which to speak out against the inequality found in the home, workplace, and community.
Mwanaidi wakes up very early everyday in Viwandani, one of Nairobi’s informal settlements. She prepares breakfast for her family, takes the children to school, and fetches water. In her community, she actively participates in barazas; she is confident, she speaks up, helps make decisions, and feels her voice matters. But at home, things are different. Decisions about household spending are made without her, her husband dictates how assets are managed, and time for herself is almost non-existent.
Mwanaidi’s story is not unique. It reflects the paradox uncovered when the African Population and Health Research Center (APHRC) under the HealthyFoodAfrica project where the project was improving diets and empowering women and youth through urban farming in Korogocho and Viwandani informal settlements between 2022 and 2024. Using the Women’s Empowerment Index (WEI) developed by Oxfam (Lombardini Simone et al., 2017), 106 women actively involved in community groups were interviewed to measure empowerment across three dimensions: personal, relational, and environmental. The findings reveal a story of progress, but also a gap a reminder that empowerment is not a straight line but a layered reality.
While all three dimensions were assessed, this blog focuses specifically on two aspects – the relational and environmental aspects of empowerment—areas where the most pronounced disparities emerged. In the relational domain, indicators included women’s involvement in household decision-making on matters such as expenditure, investment, and general management; their control over household assets; their contribution to household income; and how they managed and allocated their personal time. It also considered their participation in community groups, the extent to which they influenced decision-making within those groups, and whether they had experienced gender-based violence.
On the other hand, the environmental domain focused on women’s freedom of movement within their communities and their ability to challenge social expectations; specifically, whether they actively confronted traditional gender stereotypes and broader harmful social norms. Together, these indicators offered a nuanced view of how women navigate both their immediate relationships and the social environments around them.
Quantitative findings painted an encouraging picture. Nearly all had a say in how these groups were run. More than three-quarters reported moving freely within their neighborhoods. A strong majority actively rejected harmful gender norms, seven in ten challenged traditional stereotypes, and nearly all expressed progressive views on women’s roles. Public empowerment? Strong. Visible. Bold.
But step inside the home, and the picture shifts. Six in ten women had experienced some form of recent gender-based violence, with over a quarter reporting domestic violence in the past year. Only two in five contributed at least half of their household income, and nearly one in four were excluded from the majority of household decision-making. Over half of the women felt they had little or no control over how they used their time. When it came to decisions about household assets, nearly a third lacked meaningful input.
The findings reveal a striking imbalance between women’s public and private empowerment. In the environmental domain, which includes freedom of movement and progressive gender attitudes, women met empowerment criteria in 86% of the measured indicators. They moved freely within their communities and actively challenged restrictive social norms.
In contrast, the relational domain, which assessed factors like household decision-making, control over income and time, participation in groups, and exposure to gender-based violence, scored significantly lower—just 67%. This 19-point gap highlights more than a numerical difference; it reveals a deeper reality: while women are increasingly confident and vocal in public life, many still struggle for influence and autonomy at home.
These findings echo a broader truth: development is never gender-neutral. Power is shaped by sex and gender, where sex is biological, but gender is socially constructed defining roles, expectations, and opportunities. It is also shaped by gender relations; the everyday interactions between men and women, often governed by patriarchal norms that privilege men’s voices and restrict women’s autonomy.
Historically, the development field has grappled with how to address this imbalance:
- Women in Development (WID) in the 1970s sought to “add women” into development projects but rarely questioned power dynamics.
- Women and Development (WAD) in the 1980s recognized women’s economic contributions but often limited them to productivity roles.
- Gender and Development (GAD) from the 1990s onwards shifted the focus to transforming gender relations themselves, recognizing that true empowerment requires dismantling the structural inequalities that perpetuate male dominance.
The findings fit squarely within this evolution: women’s public visibility has grown, but without relational transformation at home, empowerment remains incomplete. As the HFA data shows, programs in urban informal settlements must look beyond physical access and infrastructure. If women can move freely but still feel powerless in their homes or within themselves, then something vital is missing. Policymakers should integrate both psychological well-being and relational agency into urban health, housing, and gender-focused policies.
We need to ask: Are women participating or truly leading? Are they involved,or do they influence outcomes? Can they move freely and also decide how their day unfolds?
Until the answer is “yes” across both spheres public and private empowerment remains incomplete.
Author: Daniel Osuka