{"id":145,"date":"2018-07-22T09:16:10","date_gmt":"2018-07-22T09:16:10","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/socp10.epgpbooks.inflibnet.ac.in\/?post_type=chapter&p=145"},"modified":"2018-12-28T12:15:05","modified_gmt":"2018-12-28T12:15:05","slug":"womenand-development","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/ebooks.inflibnet.ac.in\/socp10\/chapter\/womenand-development\/","title":{"rendered":"Women and Development"},"content":{"raw":"
\"epgp<\/a>\r\n<\/span><\/div>\r\n
\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n1.1. Genesis:<\/strong>\r\n\r\n \r\n

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 \u2018Third World\u2019. With the collapse of the state socialist model in the USSR and Eastern Europe in 1989, the American model of neoliberal capitalism became dominant.<\/p>\r\n \r\n\r\n1.2. Growth v\/s Development:<\/strong>\r\n\r\n \r\n

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).<\/p>\r\n \r\n

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.<\/p>\r\n \r\n\r\n1.3. Women and Development:<\/strong>\r\n\r\n \r\n

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\u2019s 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 \u2018Western\u2019 women and the \u2018Other\u2019, 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\u2019s organizations, and the various United Nations International women\u2019s 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.<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

\r\n\r\n \r\n

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\u2019s 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\u2019s work is often taken as signaling the origins of the Women in Development (WID) approach by pointing to women\u2019s invisibility and exclusion from development (Moser, 1993).<\/p>\r\n \r\n\r\n1.4. Paradigm shift in Development: From Women as passive recipient to women as an active agent of transformation<\/strong>\r\n\r\n \r\n

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\u2019s 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, <\/span>Women\u2019s Role in Economic Development<\/em>, 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.<\/span>The evolution of thinking about women\u2019s development parallels the changing pattern of women\u2019s development programs, as shown on the chart below. Women\u2019s Welfare remains the central concern in women\u2019s development. Each general goal incorporates the preceding goals.<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

\r\n\r\n \r\n

Table-1 Evolution of <\/strong>Women\u2019s Development<\/strong><\/p>\r\n\"\"\r\n\r\n\"\"\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

\r\n\r\n1.5. <\/strong>Various Approaches<\/strong> to Women\u2019s Development:<\/strong>\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n1.5.1<\/strong>. Women in Development (WID) Approach:<\/strong>\r\n\r\n \r\n

The Women in Development (WID) movement, which grew out of Boserup\u2019s work, aimed for more efficient, effective development through incorporating women- specific projects into existing development processes. The strategies that were developed included:<\/p>\r\n \r\n\r\nAdding women\u2019s projects or project components. Increasing women\u2019s income and productivity.<\/strong>\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nImproving women\u2019s ability to look after the household<\/strong>\r\n\r\n \r\n

However the WID approach did not address gender discrimination \u2013 the root cause preventing women\u2019s full participation in their societies.<\/p>\r\n \r\n\r\n1.5.2. Criticisms:<\/strong>\r\n

1. WID approach had in some cases , the unwanted consequence of depicting women as a unit whose claims are conditional on its productive value,<\/span><\/p>\r\n

2.\u00a0 \u00a0It made <\/span>mistake of associating <\/span>increased female status with the value of cash income in women\u2019s lives (Razavi, 1995).<\/span><\/p>\r\n

3. Although the WID advocated for greater <\/span>gender equality, <\/a>it did not tackle the unequal gender relations and roles <\/span>at the basis of women's exclusion and gender subordination.<\/span><\/p>\r\n

4.\u00a0 It did not address the gender stereotyped expectations of men (Bradshaw, Sarah, 1998).<\/span><\/p>\r\n

5.\u00a0 Moreover, the underlying assumption behind the call for the integration of the <\/span>Third World <\/a>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).<\/span><\/p>\r\n

6. The WID was also criticized for its views on the fact that women's status will improve by moving into \u201cproductive employment\u201d, implying that the move to the \u201cmodern sector\u201d need to be made from the \u201ctraditional\u201d sector to achieve self-advancement,<\/span><\/p>\r\n

7.\u00a0<\/strong>This further implies that \u201ctraditional\u201d work roles often occupied by women in the developing world were inhibiting to self-development (Koczberski<\/span>,, 1998).<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n1.6. Women and Development (WAD) Approach:<\/strong>\r\n\r\n \r\n

In the late 1970s the Women and Development (WAD) perspective developed in reaction to omissions in WID. WAD proponents argued that:<\/p>\r\n\r\n