11 Women –centered models: critique of models and reformulation of models

Ranjini K. Murthy

Content Outline

1.0 Module objective

2.0 Models of development and women-centered models

3.0 Women centered-models of development

3.1 Welfare model

3.2 Women in Development model

3.3 Women and Development

3.4 Gender and Development Model

4.0 Models of Community development and Models of Women-centered Development

5.0 Critique of models and reformulation of women-centered models

6.0 Conclusions

1.0 Module Objective

At the end of the module the students:

• Ø Are familiar with women-centered models of development,
• Ø Are familiar with models of community development and their convergence/divergence with women centered models of development, and
• Ø Understand critique of the existing women-centers models of development are able to formulate new ones

The second section defines models, models of development and women-centered models. The third to fifth section devote themselves to one objective each, with concluding remarks coming at the end

Five interactive tasks are woven in- these are on models of development (p3), welfare model to women’s development (p3), linking government programmes in India to women-centered models (p9) and linking women centered models to community development models (p11)

2.0 Models of development and women-centered models

Models are a simplification of reality that can be compared to ‘road maps’. Models reflect only certain aspects of reality and change and not others. No one map can include all aspects of reality and, similarly, all models, no matter how complex, are constrained by basic assumptions, structure, and uncertainties (National Research Council, 2007) .

Development models show pathways of securing social, economic and political progress through planned efforts aimed at the control of poverty, hunger, disease, illiteracy, economic under-development, violence, and lack of democracy (Ghai, 2016). Traditional models of development have included modernization theory, growth with equality, dependency theory and world systems theory.

· ‘Modernization’ model assumes that with assistance, traditional countries can be developed in the same manner that developed countries have been. Modernization theory was a dominant paradigm in the social sciences in the 1950s and 1960s, and then went into a deep eclipse. It made a comeback after 1990 but remains a controversial model.

·  ‘Redistribution with growth’ model observed that economic growth and modernization approach had bypassed the poor, and hence redistributive measures like land reforms were necessary for benefits to reach the poorest.

· ‘Basic needs’ model emerged in response to resistance faced from power holders to redistribution and advocated for directly enhancing income and access to basic needs of the poor.

·  Human rights’ model argued for economic & social cultural and civil & political rights of individuals (rights holders), and responsibility of state (duty bearers) in meeting these rights.

The extent to which these development models addressed women’s advancement and emancipation varied. The modernization and redistribution with growth model did not refer to women’s issues (women’s land rights for example were not discussed as part of redistribution with growth); while the basic needs model and human rights model did discuss access of women to basic needs and rights of women as well.

It is in this context that that women-centered models of development emerged of which four main ones are discussed in the next section: welfare, women in development, women and development and gender and development. Women-centered models create spaces for women of color, oppressed castes, low-incomes, and working class to alter their living conditions and position vis a vis men, as well as through policy and legal measures from above. Women centered models do not entail women subordinating men or others (Stall and Stoecker, 1997, Rowlands, 1998).

3.0 Women centered-models of development

Women centered models to development include the Welfare, Women in Development, Women and Development and Gender and Development models (Moser, 1989 and Kabeer, 1994). Each model originated at a different time, but is still reflected in policies now.

3.1 Welfare model

With the establishment of the United Nations during post World War II period, what was called ‘Decades of Development’ commenced. During the first decade of development (1960-70), it was assumed that economic growth resulting out of modernization, would trickle down to the poor and lead to economic and social benefits to all households. Within the household it was assumed that women and men would benefit equally from economic growth. The poor in developing countries were seen as those who failed to benefit out of markets requiring welfare measures. Within this model, women were seen primarily as mothers and wives, with no role to play in contributing to economic growth

Critique:

Renowned feminist economist Mayra Buvinic notes:

“Poor women in the Third World had become the main beneficiaries of welfare programs begun by national and international relief agencies soon after the end of the world War II, these welfare programs were designed to relieve poor women’s needs exclusively in terms of their roles as mothers and wives” (Buvinic, 1983, p 24)

According to Moser (1989) the welfare model ignored the productive role (paid work or work that generates income) and community management role (for example, participating in community meetings for benefit of all like in water users associations) of women, and the emphasis was mainly on addressing needs like family planning programs and maternal and child health. The model was not very threatening, and continues in various forms even today.

3.2 Women in Development model

During the Second Development Decade 1970-80, the discourse on development shifted to various themes like, ‘redistribution with growth’ (by the International Labor Organization), ‘attack on basic needs’ and ‘assault on world poverty’ (the World Bank). The importance of integration of women into development was emphasized from a both intrinsic lens (benefiting women directly), as well as instrumental lens (that inclusion of women was important for something else, like food production). Women were seen as important players in development, and the focus was on integrating them productively into development. This model- known as Women in Development (WID) model- coincided with the pressure from American women’s movement to declare 1975 as the International Women’s Year and to declare 1975-85 as the first International Women’s Decade (not to be confused with development decades). Equality, Development and Peace were the three themes for the International Women’s Decade. While women from developed “First World” countries emphasized equality, women from developing “Third World” countries were concerned with women’s economic development, women from conflict ridden “Second World” (now the term is no longer in use, but earlier used to refer to industrialized communist countries) were concerned with peace.

The equality and anti-poverty strands of Women in Development emerged during the 1970s and 1980s, while the efficiency strand developed during late 1980s and early 1990s when structural adjustment packages1 were initiated by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Each of these strands of WID model is elaborated below.

·         Equality: The equality strand of the Women in Development model emphasizes that women could not emerge as equal to men, as equal opportunities were not provided to them. This strand was popular during 1975-85. The proponents of the equality strand perceived that men’s prejudices and women’s lack of capacities were the main barriers to women’s development. The proponents of the equality strand emphasized the need for equal opportunities through legal and policy reform in all spheres. To name a few, affirmative reservation for women in employment and legislation on equal wages for work of similar value were evolved during this period. Governments constituted committees to promote equal opportunities. However, the gains of the equality strand were limited of equality strand, as the gender-specific barriers which women faced in making use of opportunities in productive sphere like care responsibilities were not addressed. Further, equality strand was found to be threatening by the men in power. The concern was with meeting strategic gender interests of women in a top down manner, and women were not organized effectively to meet these needs and neither was there any emphasis on working with men to change negative gender attitudes. An example of the equality strand in India is the first comprehensive study on status of women leading to the Report “Towards Equality” in 1974 (See Department of Women and Child Development, 2001). The report called for legal and policy changes in favor of gender equality in all spheres. Equally, researchers argued that development was not reaching the poor and that poverty in developing countries was indeed feminized. The existence of many women headed households was highlighted.

·         Anti-poverty: It is in this context that the anti-poverty strand of WID evolved in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The primary reason for poverty was not seen as the direction of mainstream capitalist development or the skewed distribution of resources but the fact that the poor did not have access to credit, skills, extension and employment which would increase their income and productivity. The main reason for feminization of poverty was seen as exclusion of women from income generation activities and not really capitalist-patriarchy which denied women right to means of production (e.g. land) on their names. The anti-poverty strand perceived

1 Structural adjustment programmes entailed provision of loans by the IMF and the World Bank with conditions of reduction in government spending, privatization, reducing restrictions and globalization.

poor women as a distinct category, but tended to recognize only the practical gender needs related to their productive roles. In India, the microcredit based self-employment program Integrated Rural Development Program introduced in the 1978 targeting individuals (with 33% reservation for women), reflects the anti-poverty strand. The anti-poverty program continues to be popular even now amongst government of India, reflected in the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MNREGS).

·         Efficiency: The seeds of efficiency strand were sown in the 1980 in Copenhagen where the UN Mid-decade Conference on Women was held. The conference was dominated by debates on trade, development and politics. By late 1980s it was clear that the burden of structural adjustment (includes reducing state expenditure) was borne by women. For example, with serious cuts in health care spending by government, the focus on efficient development meant that the existing burden of care shifted even more towards women than before. Further, in the economic sphere, women’s resilience and ability to adjust to crisis was recognised. Women in the formal sector were prepared to work longer and for lesser pay than men. It was also more-easy to fire them. All these qualities attracted private sector and development planners to focus economic interventions on women. Another stream of efficiency is the shift in micro-credit programs from individual focused self-employment credit with low rates of interest, to group based micro credit schemes targeted at women with higher rates of interest. Women were seen as better in repayment of loans. Equally, women were mobilised into water and sanitation committees, as they were seen as better managers of these common resources. On the whole, the efficiency strand was premised on the assumption that development would be more efficient and effective if there is investment in women. Rarely did efficiency oriented programs address strategic gender interests (which change women’s position vis a vis men). At times the impact can be detrimental on women. In mid 1990s and 2000s in fact poor women were seen as sites of investment by Non-Banking Finance Companies (NBFCs) and formed into joint liability groups with little investment in capacity building, gender training or social capital formation. The interest rate being high and their asset & skill base not being strengthened, the women found it difficult to repay the loan, leading in worst case scenario to a few women members committing suicide like in parts of Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu. Now the government has started regulated the micro finance sector. Another example in India of the efficiency strand of the WID model is the cutting out of the male Health Inspector cadre, and placing of burden of health care on women health staff like female Auxiliary Nurse Midwives and Accredited Social Health Activists (ASHA).

Critique

Critique of WID model has come from several quarters. It has been argued that WID model saw humans including women as atomized individuals, isolated from social structures. The WID model operated on the premise of gender roles rather than gendered power relations (Kabeer, 1994). It assumed that irrational prejudices and sex role stereotypes of policy makers and planners were the main problem, which could be overcome with education. Further women were seen as having homogeneous needs (other than the anti-poverty strand) and the diversity of practical gender needs and strategic gender interests amongst women based on race, caste, class etc. were not recognized. For example, while a thresher may be useful for women whose households having agriculture land, it may displace labor of women whose households do not have land. Further, the WID strands while challenging the stereotyping of women as passive players in production, assumed that they were biology-less and without sex specific needs (example, related to menstruation, breast feeding etc.). As observed by Kabeer (1994) what is required is the unraveling of male power relations, analysis of conflicting gender interests amongst women based on their location in other power relations (e.g. race, class), shift in discourse from learnt roles to power relations, and prioritization of not just planning solutions but also political solutions.

The best critique of WID model can be summed thus: WID approaches are like

“Treating cancer with Band-Aid (Beneria and Sen, 1981, p 1987)

3.3 Women and Development

The proponents of the Women and Development model to women’s development hold the view that that the problem was not that women were not integrated into development as assumed by those who held the WID position, but that they were integrated in an unequal way due to global capitalism which exploited women’s cheaper productive labor (than men) for profits, in particular those in developing countries (Rathgaber, 1990). Unlike the proponents of the WID model, the proponents of the WAD model perceived that society was not in equilibrium but in conflict. Class differentiated rewards are used by capitalists to keep the working class fragmented and in conflict. Unlike the WID model, the WAD model emphasized that that the main reason for women’s secondary status they placed primacy on the structure of capitalist patriarchy (Mies, 1982).

The main proponents of Women and Development model were from the South (developing countries) and left learning allies from the North (developed countries). Women from the developed nations were slowly realizing that the concerns of “Third World” women that profits were being made by the capitalists in developed countries using the subsidized productive work of women were also legitimate. The earlier patronizing attitude towards “Third World” women diminished. Efforts were made to link issues of the family with that of politics at the local, national and international levels. The gathering at the Nairobi Third World Conference on Women (held in 1985) represents attempts by women from the first world and third world to forge an alliance. In this meeting, the need for challenging laissez faire model and patriarchy as a system was highlighted. A working class struggle in which women’s issues were integrated was seen as the answer. Maria Mies, a proponent of the WAD model went so far as to call for reverting to subsistence perspective to economy, society and culture in which women played a central role (Mies, 2005).

Critique:

The WAD model has been critiqued from several points of view. The WAD model emphasizes the exploitation of women for accumulation of profit on a global scale but overlooked women’s important role in satisfaction of needs in particular in the arena of for care of sick, elderly, and the reproduction of cheap labor for market. The biology-less assumption that underpins WID has persisted in the WAD model to women’s development. Further, though there was reference to capitalist-patriarchy, there was a tendency to read gender relations and class relations in isolation and not look at how they interlock in different contexts differently. In fact the term gender relation (or power relation between women and men) was not used but instead the term “women” was used. While gender relations are diverse and capitalism derives benefit from gender relations, the institutional sites of household and work places are organized differently and in some contexts capitalist patriarchy has been emancipatory (e.g. bringing out women domestic workers into other occupations) and in some oppressive for women (Elson and Pearson 1981).

Kabeer (1994) also notes that the WAD model does not explain how biological differences lead to social differences. That is it does not explain which social institutions lead to construction of gender, race, class, caste and other social relations. The construction of a uniform global patriarchy and capitalism was problematic. She also notes that reverting to subsistence production, as suggested by Mies may not be the way to move forward. Instead it is important for women to negotiate with social institutions. These institutions were under contradictory pressure from capitalism, patriarchy, racism, casteism etc. and create spaces which can be used for negotiating women’s diverse interests (Kabeer 1994, Sen and Grown, 1985). The quotation below from Gita Sen and Caren Grown is a precursor to the Gender and Development model

“Only by sharpening the links between equality, development and peace can we show that the ‘basic rights’ of the poor and the transformation of the institutions that subordinate women are inextricably linked. They can be achieved together through the self-empowerment of women” (Sen and Grown, 1985, p 75).

3.4 Gender and Development Model

The gender and development (GAD) model emerged in the late 1980s and early 1990s when participatory and rights based models to development became popular. In contrast to WID and WAD, the GAD Model perceives that women do not have uniform interests. Women have multiple identities of caste, class, race, ethnicity, marital status, differential ability etc. in addition to gender identity. The gender and development model recognises the relation between women and men as a power relation, and sees that such power stems from social construction of gender shaped by social institutions of household community, market, state and supra-state (IMF etc.). The gender and development model does not see women as passive victims but agents who are negotiating spaces within their multiple identities and institutions (Kabeer, 1994, Murthy and Rao, 1997).

Like WAD, the Gender and Development model perceives that the dominant development model manipulates women in peripheral countries. Further, it recognises that women’s subordination exists even in developed countries. The GAD model mainly advocates for women’s empowerment (Moser, 1989). The discourse on women’s empowerment brought to the forefront issues of oppressive gender relations, ecological destruction, and the ethics of multinational control over the developing countries and so on. At the Nairobi Third World Conference on Women, 1985 some Third World feminists formed a group called DAWN (Development Alternatives with Women for a New Era) which interpreted development issues from a Third World women’s perspective. They pointed out that the concept of development followed in the post-colonial world has been guided by a western patriarchal and capitalist idea of economic development which believed that change was linear. They rejected the aggressiveness of the dominant system and advocated the values of nurturance and openness, discarded hierarchy and recognized the diversity of feminisms in third world countries. Further the empowerment strand recognised not only power relations of gender, but also relations of caste, class, race etc. as having a bearing on women’s subordinate position. The empowerment strand, according to Moser, sought to address strategic gender interests and practical gender needs through building new political, economic and social models. In India, the empowerment strand of the GAD model is best reflected in the Mahila Samakhya program titled Education for Women’s Equality under which mainly poor women (but not exclusively) are organised into groups with an open agenda of discussing what issue is important for their village. Their capacity is built to challenge all hierarchies, including caste, class, race and gender. Further, the women’s groups at times take on challenges of resource grab by multi-national corporations and domination by corporates.

Critique:

In practice the term empowerment has been co-opted in many different ways by neo-liberal policy makers. The term women’s empowerment is used by NBFCs to refer to formation of joint liability women’s groups and strengthening financial literacy and access. Some donors like World Bank see investing in gender equality as smart economics that leads to economic growth (World Bank, 2006). That is gender analysis- analysis of what women and men do and gendered constraints- is used to promote business and efficient growth; akin to the efficiency approach. This dilutes the power dimension within the concept of gender and social relations

4.0 Models of Community development and Models of Women-centered Development

4.1 Models of Community development

Rothman puts forward three models of community development, namely locality development, social planning, and social action (Rothman, 1974). According to him, the three models are not to be used separately; at times one needs to combine 2-3 models at the same time. See Figure 2 for a representation of the three models.

Source: Rothman, J 1974 Three models of community organization practice. Pp. 20-36 in Fred Cox, John L.Erlich, Jack Rothman and John E. Tropman, eds., Strategies of Community Organization. Itasca, Illinois: F.E. Peacock Publishers, Inc. The three models are briefly explained below

Locality development: This model is based on the belief that in order to foster change, a wide variety of community members should be involved in planning, implementation, and evaluation. Key themes include the use of democratic procedures, voluntary cooperation, self-help, the development of local leadership etc. This is a bottom up model, but may not necessarily be pro-poor.

Social Planning Model: This model is a deliberately planned and technical process of problem-solving with regard to substantive social problems like mental health, housing and sanitation. The degree of participation of different members of the community is limited. Building community capacity or fostering radical or fundamental social change is not a major goal of this model of community development.

Social Action Model: Practitioners practicing this model assume that a disadvantaged segment of the population needs to be organized in order to make demands on the larger community for increased resources or improved treatment. Key themes in this model are social justice, democracy, and the redistribution of power, resources, and decision making. This model is again bottom up like the locality model but with only the marginalized being organized

4.2 Relation between models of community development and models of women’s development

The relationship between models of women’s development and community development is complex.

Focus on linking Welfare, Equality, Anti-poverty, Efficiency and Empowerment models/strands of women’s development with models of community organization.

The welfare model and anti-poverty and efficiency strands of WID model may be compatible with locality development and social planning models of community development. Equality strand of WID model may in tune with the social planning model of community development. Empowerment/ GAD model may be compatible with social action model of community development.

5.0 Critique of models and reformulation of women-centered models

5.1 Hierarchies of models not relevant

A central critique of women centered models of development is that they place other models on a hierarchical scale with ‘welfare’ being at the bottom and ‘empowerment’ at the top (Kabeer, 1994). This placement may not reflect the needs of poor women. Poor young women, for example, need a combination of child care services (welfare model), reservation of one-third of government managed markets for women in informal markets (equality strand, WID model), access to financial services (anti-poverty strand of WID model), access to in house training on operation of mechanized tailoring machines so as to work in garment industry (efficiency approach) and membership in producer companies, trade unions, federations and local governments to negotiate and bargain for their interests in different spheres (empowerment strand, GAD model).

5.2 Equity strand as an alternative:

According to Kabeer (1994) a combination of welfare model, all the strands of the WID model and empowerment strand of GAD model is crucial for achieving equity in outcomes for women. She refers to this approach as equity strand of the GAD model. Equity strand highlights the need for challenging broader gender and social relations and institutions of society – household, community, markets and state to move towards equity in outcomes. One could add supra-state institutions. Empowerment is necessary for equity, but may not be enough.

5.3 Strengthen Sustainable Development Goal-5 targets and indicators

The Sustainable Development Goals evolved by UN in consultations with national government have translated the concept of women’s empowerment (Goal 5) into specific ‘outcome’ targets and indicators focusing. However, the concept of women’s empowerment entails unleashing of individual and collective processes to change hierarchical beliefs of women and men, changes social norms which privilege men, upper castes, majority communities etc. and change institutions in favor of marginalized women. Further the present SDG 5 targets and indicators, treat women as homogenous, unlike the equity strand which recognizes the diversity amongst women- and the need to achieve equity between women at the bottom and men at the top.

5.4 Need to challenge overall development paradigm

Most women centers models of development operate within a neo-liberal model of development, other than the WAD model. Privatization, liberalization and globalization policies that underpin neo-liberal economic models harm marginalized women. For example, privatization of education for the bottom rungs in India has meant that girls have lesser access to education than boys, with parents being unable to support education of both children. Globalization has led to collapse of prices of some of the fruits like pears and apples, with fruits coming from outside (Baisya, 2008). Vegetables and fruits cultivation and marketing is more in the hands of women, when compared to grain cultivation. Opening up of the markets weakens marginalized women, unless they are organized and empowered to engage with these institutions.

6.0 Conclusion

This module sought to define the concept of development model and women-centered development models, and different women-centered models of development that have evolved over time: Welfare, WID, WAD and GAD. Drawing upon Kabeer, it argues that the equity strand of the GAD model which drawn upon its precursors has several strength. It calls for bargaining with gender and social relations played out within institutions for promoting gender equity. The social action and social planning models of community development are necessary for furthering gender equity.

References

1.    Baisya, R. K, 2008 Changing Face of Processed Food Industry in India Ane Books, New Delhi

2.    https://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTGENDER/Resources/GAPNov2.pdf

3.    Beneria and Sen, 1981, ‘Accumulation, Reproduction and Women’s Role in Economic Development: Boserup revisited’, Signs Vol 7, pp 279-298

4.    Buvinic, M, 1983, Women’s Issues in the Third World: A Policy Analysis, In Women and Poverty in the Third World ed. M Buvinic, M Lycene and W P. McGreevey, pp 14-33, Baltimore, John Hopkins University Press.

5.    Department of Women and Child Development, 2001, National Policy on Empowerment of Women, 2001, Government of India, New Delhi.

6.    Elson D and R Pearson, 1981, The Subordination of Women and the Internationalization of factory production’. In of Marriage and Market. Women’s Subordination in International perspective, ed. K Young, C. Wolkowitz and C. McCullagh, pp 144-166, London CSE Books

7.    Ghai, 2016, Six Models of Development, http://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/political-science/six-models-of-development/40382/ Last accessed 15th June, 2017

8.    Government of India, 2015, India’s Report on the Implementation of Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action http://www2.unwomen.org/~/media/headquarters/attachments/sections/csw/59/national_reviews/india_review_beijing20.pdf?v=1&d=20141113T235024 Last accessed June 15th, 2017

9.    Kabeer, N, 1994, Reversed Realities: Gender Hierarchies in development thought, Verso, London (chapters, 1, 2, 3 and 10)

10. Mies, M, 1982, Lace Makers of Narsapur: Indian Housewives Produce for the World Market. London: Zed Books (1982)

11. Mies, M, 2005, The Subsistence Perspective, Transcription of a video by O. Ressler, recorded in Cologne, Germany, 26 min., http://republicart.net/disc/aeas/mies01_en.pdf

12. Moser, C, 1989, Gender Planning in Third World: Meeting Practical Gender Needs and Strategic Gender Interests, World Development, p 1799-1825

13. Murthy, R.K and Rao, N, 1997, Addressing poverty: Indian NGOs and their Capacity building in the 1990s, Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, New Delhi

14. National Research Council. 2007 Models in Environmental Regulatory Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.https://www.nap.edu/catalog/11972/models-in-environmental-regulatory-decision-making Last accessed 15th June, 2017

15. Rathgeber, E M. 1990. “WID, WAD, GAD: Trends in Research and Practice.” The Journal of Developing Areas. 24(4) 289-502

16. Rothman, Jack, 1974 Three models of community organization practice. Pp. 20-36 in Fred Cox, John L.

17. Erlich, Jack Rothman and John E. Tropman, eds., Strategies of Community Organization. Itasca, Illinois: F.E. Peacock Publishers, Inc., (original article 1968)

18. Rowlands J. (1998). A word of times: What does it mean? Empowerment in the discourse and practice of development. In Afshar H. (Ed.), Women and Empowerment: Illustrations from the Third World (pp. 11– 34). London: Palgrave Macmillian.
19. Sen G and  C  Grown,  Development,  Crisis  and  Alternative  Visions:  Third  Worl Women’s Perspectives. Bangalore, DAWN Secretariat. 1985.
20. Stall and Stoecker, 1997, Community organizing or organizing community? Gender and the crafts of empowerment, A COMM-ORG Working Paper, revised November 1997, https://comm-org.wisc.edu/papers96/gender2.html Last accessed 15th June, 2017

21. World Bank, 2006, Gender Equality as Smart Economics: A World Bank Group Gender Action Plan (Fiscal years 2007–10), September, 2006, The World Bank, Washington