27 Women and Development

Sudeshna Mukherjee

epgp books

 

 

1.1. Genesis:

 

Post Second World War, the United States and its allies recognized the need for a programme to spread the benefits of scientific and industrial progress to the two thirds of the world, mostly erstwhile colonies. These nations were defined as underdeveloped countries required external intervention to improve their conditions. Developmental initiatives began its journey. Soon foreign aid, including food aid and military aid became a political tool used by the superpowers like USA and the USSR in a cold war competition to influence the ex-colonial and non-aligned nations of the so called ‘Third World’. With the collapse of the state socialist model in the USSR and Eastern Europe in 1989, the American model of neoliberal capitalism became dominant.

 

1.2. Growth v/s Development:

 

The models of development which emerged supreme following the industrial revolution after the Second World War laid emphasis on industrialization, heavy accent on science and technology, ruthless exploitation of natural (environmental) resources and letting loose of market forces. These models initially captured the attention of non-western economists and development planners, because the models sold the dream of prosperity in bold terms and argued that once there is robust growth of the GNP/GDP, the whole society will develop in all its segments (Srivastava, 1998).

 

The attractiveness of these alien westernized models of development did not last long. The argument was raised basically was, and still is, that concept of development should not be equated with growth alone. Growth is often not based on the principle of distributive justice. In spite of the moderate rates of economic growth in the country, a very large segment of our population still lives in utter poverty (Srivastava, 1998). Impact of development (often measured by growth of GDP and GNP) is not even on entire population.

 

1.3. Women and Development:

 

The development process affects women and men in different ways. The after effects of colonialism, and the peripheral position of poor countries of the south and those with economies in transition in today’s globalizing world, exacerbate the effects of discrimination on women. Everywhere gender (the socially and culturally constructed form of relations between femininity and masculinity) is crosscut by differences in class, race, ethnicity, religion and age. The much criticized binary division between ‘Western’ women and the ‘Other’, between white and black and between colonizer and colonized is both patronizing and simplistic (Mohanty, 1984). Feminist have often seen women as socially constituted as a homogeneous group on the basis of shared oppression. But in order to understand these gender relations we must interpret them within specific societies and on the basis of historical and political practice, not a prior on gender. Women’s organizations, and the various United Nations International women’s conferences in Mexico City, Copenhagen, Nairobi, and Beijing over the last three decades, have put gender issues firmly on the development agenda but economic growth and modernization is not gender neutral. The aim of gender equality recognizes that men and women often have different needs and priorities, face different constraints and have different aspirations. Above all, the absence of gender equality means a huge loss of human potential and has costs for both men and women and also for development.

 

Prior to 1970, when Esther Boserup published her landmark book on women and development, it was thought that the development process affected men and women in the same way. Productivity was equated with the cash economy and so most of women’s work was ignored. When it became apparent that economic development did not automatically eradicate poverty through trickle-down effects, the problems of distribution and equality of benefits to the various segments of the population became of major importance in development theory (Momsen, 2004). Boserup’s work is often taken as signaling the origins of the Women in Development (WID) approach by pointing to women’s invisibility and exclusion from development (Moser, 1993).

 

1.4. Paradigm shift in Development: From Women as passive recipient to women as an active agent of transformation

 

In the early years of International Development programming in the 1950s, women were regarded as passive recipients (rather than participants) whose major economic role was child bearing and rearing. Development projects geared to address women’s practical needs such as maternal and child health and nutrition. In 1960s and 70s, as development policy began to focus on meeting basic needs like food, shelter, and security; international agencies and governments recognized that women were among the poorest of the poor. In 1970, Women’s Role in Economic Development, the ground breaking book by economist Esther Boserup, demonstrated that women made important economic contributions, which were being ignored by governments to the detriment of national development efforts. Boserup also showed that development had different effects on women and men.The evolution of thinking about women’s development parallels the changing pattern of women’s development programs, as shown on the chart below. Women’s Welfare remains the central concern in women’s development. Each general goal incorporates the preceding goals.

 

Table-1 Evolution of Women’s Development

1.5. Various Approaches to Women’s Development:

 

1.5.1. Women in Development (WID) Approach:

 

The Women in Development (WID) movement, which grew out of Boserup’s work, aimed for more efficient, effective development through incorporating women- specific projects into existing development processes. The strategies that were developed included:

 

Adding women’s projects or project components. Increasing women’s income and productivity.

 

Improving women’s ability to look after the household

 

However the WID approach did not address gender discrimination – the root cause preventing women’s full participation in their societies.

 

1.5.2. Criticisms:

1. WID approach had in some cases , the unwanted consequence of depicting women as a unit whose claims are conditional on its productive value,

2.   It made mistake of associating increased female status with the value of cash income in women’s lives (Razavi, 1995).

3. Although the WID advocated for greater gender equality, it did not tackle the unequal gender relations and roles at the basis of women’s exclusion and gender subordination.

4.  It did not address the gender stereotyped expectations of men (Bradshaw, Sarah, 1998).

5.  Moreover, the underlying assumption behind the call for the integration of the Third World women with their national economy was that the women were not already participating in development thus by downplaying women’s roles in household production and informal economic and political activities (Koczberski, Sarah, 1998).

6. The WID was also criticized for its views on the fact that women’s status will improve by moving into “productive employment”, implying that the move to the “modern sector” need to be made from the “traditional” sector to achieve self-advancement,

7. This further implies that “traditional” work roles often occupied by women in the developing world were inhibiting to self-development (Koczberski,, 1998).

 

1.6. Women and Development (WAD) Approach:

 

In the late 1970s the Women and Development (WAD) perspective developed in reaction to omissions in WID. WAD proponents argued that:

  •        Women were already integrated into development processes but on unequal terms.
  • They pointed out that development projects increased the demands on women without increasing access to resources or decision making power and,
  • In effect, worked against women’s interests.

WAD argued that class structures were more oppressive than gender and that poor, marginalized women had more in common with men of their class than with women of another class.

 

1.6.1. Criticisms:

 

1.   Under WAD, according to critics the women-only development projects would struggle, or ultimately fail, due to their scale, and the marginalized status of these women.

2.   Furthermore, the WAD perspective suffers from a tendency to view women as a class, and pay little attention to the differences among women (such as feminist concept of intersectionality), including race and ethnicity, and prescribe development endeavors that may only serve to address the needs of a particular group.

3.    WID, WAD fails to fully consider the relationships between patriarchy, modes of production, and the marginalization of women. It also presumes that the position of women around the world will improve when international conditions become more equitable.

4.      Additionally, WAD has been criticized for its singular preoccupation with the productive side of women’s work, while it ignores the reproductive aspect of women’s work and lives. Value is placed on income-generating activities, and none is ascribed to social and cultural reproduction (Rathgeber, 1990).

 

1.7. Gender and Development (GAD) Approach

 

In the 1980s, the Gender and Development (GAD) movement brought a revolutionary new way of thinking. With WID, the dominant rationale for women’s development programs was increased efficiency, mostly what women can do to accelerate development. But GAD emphasized on what development can do for women.

 

  • GAD refocused emphasis on gender from women. The new focus on gender grew out of observations that women’s development projects had not been successful in improving women’s conditions.
  • This approach pointed out that women have been systematically subordinated and assigned secondary or inferior roles to men and their needs have been considered in isolation from the larger contexts.
  • They sought to make women an integral part of every development strategy. It was thought that development projects would become more efficient bydecreasing women’s reproductive workload (lightening household responsibilities through better access to water, fuel) and increasing their productive efficiency (income-generation, mainly in traditional women’s activities, access to training, credit).
  • With GAD, the rationale for conducting women’s development programs began to shift from efficiency to equity and empowerment.
  • Development affects men and women differently, and women and men will have a different impact on projects. Both must be involved in identifying problems and solutions if the interests and wellbeing of the community as a whole are to be furthered.
  • Development started addressing Strategic Gender Needs rather than mere Practical Needs.

 

1.7.1. Practical Gender needs (PGN)

 

Under the concept of practical gender needs women are identified in their socially accepted roles in society. PGNs do not challenge, although they arise out of, gender divisions of labor and women’s subordinate position in society. PGNs are a response to immediate perceived necessity, identified within a specific context. They are practical in nature and often address inadequacies in living conditions such as water provision, health care and employment. They are needs shared by all household members yet identified as PGNS of women who assume responsibility for meeting these needs.

 

Practical Gender Need Includes:

§   Water Provision

§    Heath Care

§    Income earning for household provisioning

§   Housing and basic services

§    Family food provision

 

1.7.2. Strategic Gender Needs (SGN)

 

Strategic gender needs are the needs women identify because of their subordinate position in society. They vary according to particular contexts, related to gender divisions of labour, power and control; may include such issues as legal rights, domestic violence, equal wages, and women’s control over their bodies. Meeting SGNs assists women to achieve greater equality and change in existing roles, thereby challenging women’s subordinate position.

 

Strategic gender needs include:

 

§    Abolition of Sexual division of labour

§    Alleviation of the burden of domestic labour and child care

§    The removal of institutionalized forms of discrimination such as rights to own land or property

§   Access to credit and other resources

§    Freedom of choice over child bearing

§    Measures against male violence

§    Participation in decision making

 

 

1.7.3. Criticisms of GAD approach

 

1.      GAD has been criticized for emphasizing the social differences between men and women while neglecting the bonds between them and also the potential for changes in roles.

2.      GAD does not dig deep enough into social relations and so may not explain how these relations can undermine programs directed at women.

3.      It also does not uncover the types of trade-off that women are prepared to make for the sake of achieving their ideals of marriage or motherhood.

4.      Another criticism is that although GAD perspective is theoretical distinct from WID, but in practice, a program seem to have the element of the two. Whilst many development agencies are now committed to a gender approach, in practice, the primary institutional perspective remains as WID (Reeves, Hazel, 2000).

5.      There is a slippage in reality where gender mainstreaming is often based in a single normative perspective as synonymous to Women. Development agencies still advance gender transformation to mean economic betterment for women (Reeves, Hazel, 2000).

 

Table-2 Gender needs assessment

R = Reproductive P = Productive CM = Community managing
PGN = Practical gender need SGN = Strategic gender need

 

1.8. Alternative approaches

 

An alternative way of viewing development has evolved out of grassroots experiences. This alternative view is based on interactions at the local level. Ideas and policies are shaped by everyday practice rather than by the dominant development theory. Being aware of their interests and needs the local people are capable of promoting their own development if their initiatives are recognized and supported. There are many examples that clearly show that these grassroots movements result in empowerment for poor women. The local NGOs have created space for women’s voices to challenge and change the development plans that are biased against women. Women should be the agents of development (Gurung, 2004, pp16).

 

Other approaches with different paradigms have also played a historically important role in advancing theories and practices in gender and development. The structuralist debate was first triggered by Marxist and socialist feminists. Marxism, particularly through alternative models of state socialist development practiced in USSR, China and Cuba, challenged the dominant liberal approach over time. Neo-Marxist proponents focused on the role of the post-colonial state in development in general and also on localized class struggles (Mies, Bennholdt, 1998).

 

Table-3    Strategies to Improve Equity

 

 

1.9. Capability Approach:

 

Capability approach is an approach to welfare economics, conceived in 1980’s. Amartya Sen brings a range of ideas that are excluded from traditional approaches. The core focus of the capability approaches is on what individuals are capable of doing (Sen, 1985).The approach emphasizes functional capabilities i.e., is ability to live to old age, engage in economic transactions, or participate in political activities, these are construed in terms of the substantive freedoms people have reason to value, instead of utility (happiness, desire-fulfillment or choice) or access to resources (income, commodities, assets). This approach emphasized on the human wellbeing and the importance of freedom of choice, individual heterogeneity and the multi-dimensional nature of welfare (Sen, 2001).Sen’s Concern for the capability approach is that the individuals can differ greatly in their abilities to convert the same resources into valuable functioning (beings and doings). For example, those with physical disabilities may need specific goods to achieve mobility.

 

Martha Nussbaum’s account of capability differs from Sen’s and is motivated by a concept of human dignity. Access to these capabilities is required by human dignity, but this does not mean that a life lacking in any of these, whether from external deprivation or individual choice, is a less than human life. Choice and deprivation are different however. If someone lacks access to these capabilities, for example, to be well nourished (bodily health), that reflects a failure by society to respect her human dignity. If someone chooses not to take up her opportunities to certain capabilities, for example, to adopt an ascetic life-style and fast for religious reasons at the expense of her bodily health, respecting that choice is also an aspect of respecting her dignity.

 

1.9.1.The Human Development Index (HDI) and Gender Development Index (GDI) Amartya Sen’s capability approach paved the way for one of the most comprehensive development indicators “The Human Development Index (HDI)” developed by Pakistani economist Mahbub ul Haq. It is a composite statistic of life, education, and per capita income indicators, which are used to rank countries into four tiers of human development (http://hdr.undp:org/en/humandev).

 

1.9.2.“Gender-related Development Index (GDI)” is an index designed to measure of gender equality. GDI together with the Gender Empowerment Measure (GEM) were introduced in 1995 in the Human Development Report written by the United Nations Development Program. The aim of these measurements was to add a gender-sensitive dimension to the Human Development Index (HDI). It addresses gender-gaps in life expectancy, education, and incomes.

 

1.10.    Millennium Development Goals :

The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) are eight international development goals that were established following the Millennium Summit of the UN in 2000,to mitigate gender imbalance and to usher in a just world order by 2015. These are again rephrased under 17 sustainable development goals. They are:

 

1.     To eradicate extreme poverty and hunger

2.     To achieve universal primary education

3.     To promote gender equality

4.     To reduce child mortality

5.     To improve maternal health

6.     To combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other diseases

7.     To ensure environmental sustainability

8.     To develop a global partnership for development

 

1.10.1. The Post-2015 Development Agenda have proposed 17 Sustainable Development Goals which are as follows:

 

1.      End poverty in all its forms everywhere;

2.      End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture;

3.      Ensure healthy lives and promote wellbeing for all at all ages;

4.      Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all;

5.      Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls;

6.      Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all;

7.      Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all;

8.      Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment, and decent work for all;

9.      Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization, and foster innovation;

10.  Reduce inequality within and among countries;

11.  Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable;

12.  Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns;

13.  Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts (taking note of agreements made by the UNFCCC forum);

14.  Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development;

15.  Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification and halt and reverse land degradation, and halt biodiversity loss;

16.  Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels;

17.  Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development. (http://www.undp.org)

 

1.11. Sustainable development:

 

The term Sustainable development was brought into common use by the World Commission on Environment and Development (The Brundtland Commission) in its seminal report (1987) called “Our Common Future”. According to the Brundtland Commission: “Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (World Commission, 1987:8)”.This definition contains within it two concepts:(1) the concept of ‘needs’, Especially the essential needs of the world’s poor to which overriding priority should be given; and (2) the idea of limitations imposed by the state of technology and social organization on the environmental ability to meet present and future needs (World Commission on Environment and Development , 1987:43).

 

1.11.1. Salient features of sustainable development are:

  • It is an alternative design for development, which, by definition should be environmentally benign and eco-friendly.
  • The present generation should meet its needs without com-promising the ability of future generations to meet their needs to ensure that the productive assets Available to future generations are not unfairly diminished.
  • Those who enjoy the fruits of economics development today must not make future generations worse off by excessively degrading the earth’s exhaustible resources and Polluting the earth’s ecology and environment.
  • There is a symbolic relationship between consumerist human race and producer natural systems.
  • Environment and development is not mutually exclusive. It is essential to sustainable development and healthy economy.
  • Sustainable development has two major aspects- internally sustainable development and externally sustainable development-without both, no real sustainable development would exist.
  • Sustainable development is accountable to the poor, and hence, it should ensure that the poor should have adequate access to sustainable and secure livelihoods.
  • Women’s   close   proximity   with   nature   often   victimizes   them   during environmental degradation as often they are the primary provider for the family. Due to this often women took the leadership in ecological movements. Women’s participation in Narmada and Chipko movement proves that.

 

 

Table-4 Important Schemes and Programmes for the Development of Women by Indian Government

 

 

1.12.Conclusion:

 

In India development is both challenge and possibility. Real struggle for a developing country lies in balancing development, environmental sustainability and gender justice. A gender just sustainable development model depends on:

 

  • Women’s empowerment and capacity building through access to resources, credit and technology
  • Making development more participatory, responsive to the women’s needs through recognition of their differences.
  • Addressing strategic gender needs to reduce gender disparities in the society.
  • Holding more environmental sensitive ,sustainable approach towards development
you can view video on Women and Development

References:

 

  • Agarwal, B (1989): ‘Rural Women, Poverty and natural resources: Sustenance, Sustainability and Struggle for Change’. Economic and Political Weekly. Vol 24, No 3, WS 46-WS112.
  • _______ (1995): A field of One’s Own: Gender and Land rights in South Asia’. Cambridge
  • University Press: Cambridge
  • ________ (1999): Social Security and Farming: Coping with Seasonality and Calamity in Rural India in E. Ahmed, J Dreze, J Hills and A Sen (eds): Social Security in Developing Countries.
  • Oxford University Press: New Delhi.
  • _________ (2003): “Gender and land Rights: Revisited: Exploring New Prospects via the State, Family and Market’, in S Razavi (ed), Agrarian Change, Gender and Land Rights. Oxford: Blackwell. Pp 184-224.
  • Badn, S and Milward, K (1995): Gender and Poverty. BRIDGE Report Commissioned by Sida.
  • Institute of Development Studies. Brighton.
  • Darooka, P (2008): Social Security: A Women’s Human Rights Discussion Paper, No 2. PWECSR.
  • New Delhi.
  • Discussion Paper (2011): Locating Women’s Livelihood in the Human Right Framework. PWESCR No 3, July 2011. New Delhi. pp 1-12.
  • Jha, D (2003): Policy Drift in Agriculture. Economic and Political Weekly Vol 38, No 47 (Nov 22-28) pp 4941-4948.
  • Jodhka, S (2006): Beyond ‘Crises’: Rethinking Contemporary Punjab Agriculture. Economic and Political Weekly Vol 41, No 16 (Apr 22-28), pp 1530-1537.
  • Kannan, K P (2010): ‘Social Security for the Working Poor in India: Two National Initiatives’, Development. 53; 338-42.
  • Krishna, S (2003): Light Shines through Gossamer Theads. Inside- Outsside Political Spaces. Vol 38, No 17, pp 1691-1696.
  • _________ (2005): Gendered Price of Rice in North- Eastern India. Vol 40, No 25, pp 2555-2562.
  • _________ (2007): Women’s Livelihood Rights: Recasting Citizenship for Development. SSage Publication. New Delhi.
  • _________ (2009): Genderscapes: Revisioning Natural Resource Management. Zubaan: New Delhi.
  •     _________ (2010): ‘Gender Equity in National Rural Mission: Institutions and Collective Actions:
  • paper presented at Two decades of Impact and Learning. Regional Conference: Orissa Watershed Development Mission. DFID and N R Int. U K). New Delhi 21-23. April 2010. Hirway, I (2002): Employment and unemployment situation in the 1990s – How good is the NSS data? Economic and Political Weekly Vol 37, No 21, pp 2027-2036.
  • _________ (2012): Gender and Sustainable Livelihoods; ‘Sidestream’/’Mainstream’ in W.
  • Harcourt (ed), Women Reclaiming Sustainable Livelihoods. Plagrave: Macmillan
  • Krishnaraj M and Shah, A (2004): Women in Agriculture. Academic Foundation: New Delhi.
  • Krishnaraj, M (2005a): Food Security: How and For Whom? Economic and Political Weekly Vol 40, No 25 (June 18), pp 2508-2512.
  • ________ (2005b): Displaced from Land: Case of Santhal Praganas. Economic and Political Weekly Vol 40, No 41 (Oct 8-14), pp 4439-4442.
  • _________ (2006); Food Security, Agrarian Crisis and Rural Livelihoods: Implications for Women. Economic and Political Weekly, Vol 41, No 52- (Dec 30- 2006 – Jan 5 2007), pp 5376-5388.
  • Masika, R and S Joekes (1996): Employment and Sustainable Livelihoods: A Gender Perspective Commissioned by SIDA. Report No 37. Institute of Development Studies, Brighton.
  • Mishra, S (2007): Risks, Farmers Suicides and Agrarian Crisis in India. Is there a way Out?
  • Working Paper – 2007-014, IGDIR: Mumbai.
  • Padhi, R (2009): Women Surviving Framer Suicides in Punjab. Economic and Political Weekly. Vol 44, No 19 (May 9 -15), pp 53-59 Patnaik, U and Patnaik, P (2001): The State, Poverty and Development in India in Nirija Gopal
  • Rao, N (2005a): Women’s Rights to Land and Assets: Experiencing of Mainstreaming Gender in Development Programmes. Economic and Political Weekly Vol XL, No 44-45, Oct 29, pp- 4701-4708.
  • Sainath, P (2007): The Decade of our Discontent. The Hindu. August 9th, 2007.
  • ________ (2011): Census Findings Point to a Decade of Rural Distress’. The Hindu 27th September 2011.
  • Sayeed, H and Tzannatos, Z (1995): Sex Segregation in the Labour Force’. World Bank.
  • Sen, G (1999): Gender Mainstreaming in Finance: A Reference Manual for Government and Other Stakeholders. Commonwealth Secretariat. 1999. London.
  •  Standing, G (1989): ‘Global Feminism through Flexible Labour’, World Development. Vol 17, No 7.
  •  Sticher, S and Parpart, J (eds) (1990): Women, Employment and the Family in International Division of Labour. London: Macmillan.
  • Sydenham, E (2009): Women and the Right to Livelihoods. World Social Forum 2009. PWESCR.
  • Tzannatos, Z (1995): ‘Women’s Labour Hours’. World Bank: Washington D C.
  • Vasavi, A.R (1994): ‘Hybrid Times, Hybrid People’: Culture and Agriculture in South India. Man.New Series, Vol 29, No 2 (Jun 1994). Pp 283-300.
  • _________ (1999): ‘Agrarian Distress: Market, State and Suicides’. Economic and Political Weekly. Vol 34(32), April 7th, pp 2263-68.
  • Vepa, S (2009): Bearing the Brunt: Impact of Rural Distress on Women. Sage Publications: New Delhi