A Gendered Analysis of the Social Protection Network in ... - CISAS

Introduction
A Gendered Analysis of the Social
Protection Network in Nicaragua
Sarah Bradshaw and Ana Quirós Víquez 1
Draft October 2003 not to be cited without authors permission
The Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSP) initiative has been promoted as marking
a new policy era for the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. 2 The World
Bank highlight and reiterate that there is no ‘blueprint’ for PRSPs stressing that they are
country owned and produced through participatory processes. However a review of
PRSPs to date show similarities in terms of their central components with most
containing the following four central elements; economic growth, investment in human
capital, social safety nets, and good governance. In addition issues such as gender and
the environment are mentioned within the documentation, most usually as ‘cross-cutting’
themes. This paper considers social safety nets in the Nicaraguan context through a
gendered analysis of the Social Protection Network (Red de Protección Social - RPS) the
pilot phase of which has recently evaluated prior to its wider implementation.
Gender in the Poverty Reduction Strategy Framework
Increasingly World Bank economists are recognising the importance of political and
social factors as being essential to the success of macroeconomic policy in developing
countries. The emerging view is that the lack of success in the past in terms of poverty
reduction rates, indebtedness and economic growth are partly due to social and political
problems rather than economic ones (see Collier and Dollar 2001 and 2002; Easterly,
2002; Hanlon, 2000; Hout, 2002; Neumayer, 2002; Roodman, 2001). This view suggests
the need to improve the policy mix and that development assistance should include not
only ‘advice’ on economic policy but also advice on the good governance of that policy.
A second recent research focus has been on the relationship between economic growth
and gender equality (see Dollar and Gatti 1999; Klasen 1999 and Kabeer 2003 for
debate). Most central has been evidence to suggest that ensuring more equal access to
education for girls, that is increasing women’s human capital potential, could impact
positively on economic growth. At the same time it could also have a beneficial impact
on fertility thus reducing population growth and further enhancing economic growth
gains. This work has partly informed the Bank’s recent ‘Gender Mainstreaming Strategy’
which highlights the additional opportunities for economic growth and possibilities to
“capitalize” on the opportunities that a reduction in gender-related barriers could bring
(World Bank 2001a: xii). Such findings appear to have informed the emerging PRSP
process. For example, the gender section of the World Bank’s PRSP Source Book
1 Sarah Bradshaw - Middlesex University / International Cooperation for Development, UK.
Ana Quirós Víquez - CISAS / Civil Coordinator (CC), Nicaragua. The views expressed in this document
are the authors own and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the organisations for which they work.
The authors would like to thank Brian Linneker for his useful comments on earlier drafts of the document.
2 The production of a PRSP is a condition for future international concessionary lending and debt relief
from the two key International Financial Institutions (IFIs) to countries identified as eligible for the
Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC II) initiative.
1

highlights that “gender-sensitive development strategies contribute significantly to
economic growth as well as to equity objectives” (Bamberger et al 2001: 3 emphasis
added).
While noting that equality should be a “development objective in its own right” (World
Bank 2001b: 1) the newfound interest in gender may then be seen to have an ‘efficiency’
rather than an ‘equity’ basis. This may result in an emphasis not only on economic
growth gains, but on macro level economic gains. This means that the individual costs
of such gains, and the extent to which such gains accrue to the individuals who have
contributed to them, are largely ignored. Such an approach may use women to gain
macro level growth goals, while not improving women’s micro level situations, or while
reducing their well being, as was the case with the Structural Adjustment Programmes of
the past (see Elson 1995). Even when women gain financially in this scenario the
narrow economic focus means that other possible costs may be ignored, as for example
when women’s incomes increase via waged labour in a factory that at the same time puts
at risk their health. Accepting that women’s relative poverty is experienced as social not
just economic inequality means that an improvement in the economic situation does not
necessarily bring about a decline in ‘poverty’.
A recent review of PRSPs (see Zuckerman 2001; 2002) notes a further conceptual
problem in that those PRSPs that have attempted to include gender have taken a Women
in Development (WID) rather than a Gender and Development (GAD) approach. The
WID approach sees the ‘problem’ of development for women is their exclusion from the
process (see Suanders 2002 for discussion). The proposed inclusion of women in
development has tended to focus on their incorporation into education and formal sector
employment. What WID does not do is critique the development process itself, seeing
inclusion as having purely positive ‘development’ outcomes. It also does not consider
the underlying reasons for women’s exclusion and as such the unequal power relations
on which it is based remain unchallenged. In contrast a GAD approach starts from an
analysis of existing gender roles and relations and seeks to challenge them.
In terms of the Nicaraguan PRSP, no specific proposals around gender are included in
the PRSP, but it does include specific references to women. Where mentioned, women
are presented as mothers, in both their caring and reproductive roles, and also as ‘victims’
of male abandonment and violence. In contrast very little mention is made of women as
producers and income generators. Women’s fertility is also central within the
Nicaraguan PRSP, since population growth may effectively cancel out any economic
growth gains. The focus not only places the responsibility for reproduction with the
woman alone, it also highlights the need for ‘responsible’ reproduction as targets such as
improving access to family planning for ‘women with a partner’ suggests. Although
women are the specific target of fertility programmes, more generally they are included in
the strategy as the means by which specific targets can be reached – the mechanism by
which goods and services can be provided to the family and more specifically children.
Civil society has been analysing the PRSP process since the beginning (see CCER 2001;
Quirós Víquez 2002). A gendered analysis of the PRSP process has also been on going
and the shortcomings of the final policy document have been presented both nationally
and internationally (see Quirós Víquez et al 2002). However, to date little attention has
been paid to these evaluations and pilot projects have gone ahead without taking into
account the concerns raised. The Social Protection Network, the key policy component
of the social safety nets pillar, is a prime example of this.
2

Social Safety Nets
As debates around the real ability for economic growth to reduce poverty and inequality
continue (see Dollar and Kray 2000; and Weisbrot 2000; Oxfam 2000 for debate), it
appears that it has been accepted that economic growth will not instantly ‘trickle down’
to the most vulnerable and there is a the need for the protection of vulnerable groups via
social safety nets. The Nicaraguan PRSP states that ‘special protection’ must be afforded
to children under five years of age and other particularly vulnerable groups, such as
‘abused women’, the disabled and the aged (Gobierno de Nicaragua 2001:34). Social
protection in this context takes the form of a transfer of financial and in kind resources
(in general food or food vouchers) to those selected as especially ‘needy’. The most
fundamental criticism of this welfarist approach is that the ‘protection’ of the most
vulnerable does nothing to change the root causes of their vulnerability.
Emerging from criticisms of defining poverty as income or consumption, and in
recognition that the relationship between income or consumption level and other forms
of deprivation such as environmental risks, crime, violence, is often weak, the concept of
vulnerability evolved as one attempt to encompass more subjective elements of wellbeing
into official discourses (see McIlwaine 2002 for further discussion). Vulnerability
was considered useful within the development context as a dynamic concept in relation
to the concept of poverty that is static and describes only the situation of people at a
particular point in time. Although the poor may be vulnerable, and the vulnerable poor,
the two are distinct concepts and vulnerability and poverty cannot be used
interchangeably.
The overall focus of the PRSP is poverty, more explicitly the PRSP highlights that ‘top
priority’ has been assigned to the reduction of extreme poverty. In terms of social safety
nets the focus is on the protection of vulnerable groups, however, the PRSP also states
that social programs will be crucial for reducing extreme poverty (Gobierno de Nicaragua
2001:24). This suggests that social programmes are being used to fulfil more than one
aim, or rather that the real aim is not that which is stated. In the short term the priority
is the reduction of extreme poverty in line with international development goals.
Resources will be dedicated to moving those below the extreme poverty line, over this
line. 3 What this means in practice is that while the numbers in extreme poverty may go
down, the numbers in poverty will rise, since these resources are not sufficient to move
the extreme poor out of poverty. Moreover the change is not sustainable.
The notion of vulnerability accepts that people’s situations change and can be changed.
It does not then focus on the resources available to different groups of people to
describe their actual position within a society, but to provide insights into how people
may use those resources to change their situation. This focus is on assets and asset
ownership (Moser, 1996: 24) where assets are defined as labour, human capital,
productive assets (such as land and housing), household relations (focusing on income
pooling and consumption sharing), and social capital (referring to the capacity to make
claims at the inter-household level within communities based on social ties). The
dynamic of vulnerability rests on the strategies adopted by the poor to withstand shocks
through diversifying and mobilising their asset base (see McIlwaine 2002 for further
discussion). Welfare type programmes of giving money or food to those in a ‘vulnerable’
3 In Nicaragua the1998 poverty line on which PRSP calculations were based was US$ 402.05 per year. The
extreme poverty line for 1998 was estimated at US$ 212.22.
3

position does little to alter this asset base or the capacity to mobilise it. As such they do
little to reduce vulnerability. They may actually do more harm than good as a gendered
consideration of such projects and the possible outcomes suggests.
One of the first problems noted with welfare programmes or the provision of social
safety nets is the unit of inclusion. Often programmes are intended to improve the well
being of the ‘family’. This assumes that there is a universally agreed notion of what
constitutes a ‘family’. Programmes often use as a model the nuclear family, despite the
fact that this may not be the majority household type. 4 While many different household
forms exist, only female-headed households are generally considered as a specific
alternative household type. Originally concern rested on female-headed households as
physical manifestations of ‘dysfunctional’ families. More recently the ‘feminisation of
poverty’ thesis in which female-headed units are presented as the ‘poorest of the poor’
has achieved general acceptance. Although criticised by many gender analysts and
academics (see Chant 2003 for a full discussion), the ‘poorest of the poor’ notion has
been embraced by key international actors and policy makers.
The notion of women headed households as the ‘poorest of the poor’ is based on an
analysis of total household incomes, with total household income being lower than in
comparable male-headed units, not least since women earn less than men. However,
studies suggest women-headed households demonstrate a more equal distribution of the
(limited) income available making the actual resources available to women and children
within woman headed households approximately equal to male-headed units (see Chant
1999; Chant 2003 for full discussion). The fact that male heads may withhold income
from the household for personal consumption, that is not contribute all that they earn to
the common ‘pot’, has been seen to place women and children who depend on that
income in a situation of so called ‘secondary poverty’ (for evidence from Nicaragua see
Bradshaw 2002a) 5 .
This notion of secondary poverty is implicit in programmes that target resources destined
for the family at women. That is there is an acceptance that men may use resources in
activities that do not necessarily benefit other household members, or increase overall
well being. Rather than tackling this issue the programmes attempt to circumvent the
‘problem’ by targeting resources at women. However, what is assumed is that the
resources given to women will stay with women, that they have ultimate control over
their use. There is evidence to suggest that this is not always the case (see Dwyer and
Bruce 1988). Even in situations where women maintain control over their own
resources, the implications for household well being are not as clear cut as may be
expected.
Recent research from Nicaragua (Bradshaw 2002a) suggests that the ‘extra’ income
earned or received by women in male-headed households does not necessarily
complement or add to existing income sources. The resources women bring into the
home may be seen by the male ‘head’ to substitute for his earnings, that is he withholds
the equivalent of his own earnings leaving the resources available to other household
members unchanged. The research also highlighted that women who were income
4 Family is generally used to refer to the wider social grouping while household more correctly defines a
domestic unit that is usually, but not always, based on kinship ties.
5 Studies suggest that in contrast women wage earners are more likely to contribute all their wages to the
household. While studies have highlighted this ‘irresponsible’ behaviour of men few have problematised
this ‘altruistic’ behaviour of women.
4

earners were more likely to perceive themselves as participating in decision making
within the household. However, in turn those women who stated that they participated
in decision making within the household were more likely to mention economic issues as
the basis for arguments within the home. This suggests there may be a trade off with any
gains in economic well being made being made at the expense of social well being.
The real impact of channelling resources to the household through women is largely
unknown. Some suggest an association between giving such resources to women and a
rise in conflict within households and violence against women, however evidence is often
anecdotal and as such is often, or easily, ignored. Moreover, as the focus on women in
these social protection programmes derives from efficiency not equity concerns such
negative social impacts are of little account to policy makers.
The more efficient use of resources, through improved targeting of existing resources
rather than the provision of more resources is fundamental to the social safety net
proposed within the PRSP framework (Gobierno de Nicaragua 2003). The provision of
welfare for the poorest is envisaged to occur not solely nor necessarily through increased
spending. The importance of improved targeting is also highlighted as is the
rationalisation and consolidation of existing programmes and the increased role of the
private sector, measures that others have suggested will have a negative rather than
positive affect on the poor (see CCER 2001). This will occur alongside the privatisation
of basic goods and services such as electricity, water and telecommunications in line with
the conditionalities of the IMF’s Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility (PRGF)
agreements The privatisation of basic goods and services shifts their provision from the
public to the private sphere, and as such tends to impact on women the most, as
demonstrated in the 1980s by Structural Adjustment Programmes (see Elson 1995) .
Background to the Social Protection Network
The Red de Protección Social (RPS) or the Social Protection Network is financed by two
loans form the Inter American Development Bank (BID) the first of $9 million and the
second of $20 million 6 . The pilot phase of the implementation of the RPS is now
complete and the results are considered to be ‘positive’ by its funders. Successful
completion of the goals laid out in the first phase ‘triggers’ the funding of the second
phase. The impact evaluation in fact suggests goals have not only been met, but that
outcomes have been better than expected (BID 2003).
The overall objective of the RPS is to improve the well being of the population in
extreme poverty, supporting the accumulation of human capital (BID 2003: 2). This
suggests that a relationship is seen to exist between increased human capital formation
and increased well being. Stocks of Human Capital such as health and education have
been seen to be important in terms of improving access to income generating
opportunities (income poverty approach) withstanding shocks (vulnerability approach)
and for a dignified life (human development approach). Human capital formation is also
seen as important for improving the overall productivity of the labour force and
attracting foreign investors (market oriented approach). The relationship between
human capital and well being may be limited, may be indirect and may be only over the
long term.
6 Interest payable on the loan is 1% during the first ten years (when repayment is not expected), rising to
2% from then onwards. The maximum repayment period is 40 years.
5

The documentation also suggests that the idea of the RPS is to change the behaviour of
families in terms of the formation of human capital and that the programme seeks to
promote a ‘responsible attitude’ among families (BID 2003). Such comments besides
being highly paternalistic, assume that the behaviour of families is at present a problem.
That is the assumption is that families do not know how to behave properly in terms of
reducing health risks nor do they understand the value of education. It could be
contended that on the contrary education and health are highly prized but barely
reachable goals for families living in extreme poverty. The focus suggests the problem is
the ‘bad’ behaviour of individuals or families, ignoring the structural inequalities that
determine that behaviour and shifting blame from wider society to the individual or in
effect – blaming the victim.
A study undertaken in July of 2001 (Bradshaw 2002 b) showed that the great majority of
women interviewed already shared the government’s view of the importance of
education for both boys and girls. However, the reasons for valuing education are not as
straightforward as may be assumed and not necessarily those of the government. The
recent national development plan (Gobierno de Nicaragua 2003: 15) clearly states that
the government is investing in human capital to “increase the productivity of the workers
and their work”. In comparison, only a small proportion of women in the study gave
future employment benefits as the main value pertaining to education. In fact education
was valued not for what it could bring, but rather what it was thought to stop, most
specifically ‘delinquency’ in young men (52% of the women interviewed responded in
this form). In terms of young women education was also seen as important in order that
they could ‘look after themselves’ in later life and not be ‘taken in’ or ‘fooled’ by others,
most notably men. These notions have both economic and social elements as the
following quotes demonstrate: “Women should learn to wash, to cook and to read so
that they don’t get fooled” or more explicitly “When you know how to read and write
you learn how to work and they can’t fool you”.
It would seem that education is highly valued by the poor, but that the benefits are
conceptualised in social rather than economic terms. In fact in economic terms
education may be seen to bring costs rather than benefits. In the short run the costs
include books, uniforms and the opportunity cost of lost income for those children
involved in income generating activities. In the short run investment in human capital
may be associated with reductions in well-being. Analysis of the factors that influence
perceptions of declines and improvements in well being based on the data collected via
the civil society Social Audit initiative (see Linneker 2002) suggests that if a poor
household has a child in school, irrespective of household type, they were more likely to
feel worse off and experience declines in well-being than households without a child in
school.
What the RPS actually proposes is using ‘well being’ incentives to ensure human capital
forming behaviour. To benefit financially families have to commit to sending their
children to school and to health centres to receive basic health care services such as
vaccinations. They also have to commit to improving their nutritional state and
attendance at a series of educational sessions about health (6 per year) that provide
training on reproductive and sexual health, nutrition, in ‘environmental health’ and family
hygiene, and in child care and breast feeding. If they do not fulfil these obligations then
their benefits are temporarily withdrawn or may be cancelled. In return a family may
receive one or more of the incentives offered, that include a school pack (worth $20 per
6

child) for all eligible children in the first to the fourth grade, and a grant ($90 per family).
In terms of health the benefits are a food grant ($207 per family) and an additional grant
worth $130 per family for things such as vaccinations and vitamin supplements.
It is interesting to note that recent research (Linneker 2002) highlights that whom
women and men receive resources from, informal or formal agencies and private and
public sources, is important in terms of perceptions of well being deriving from these
resources. Importantly this research also suggests that the presence of central
government working in a community may, perversely, be more closely related to feelings
of a decline rather than increase in women’s well being.
Mothers have been targeted by the Government as the receivers of the resources,
“motivated by the evidence that resources controlled by women translate into greater
improvements in the well being of children and the family” (BID 2003: 2 author’s
translation). In order to receive the resources children are obliged to attend school and
health clinics and their mothers are obliged to ensure that they do so. Not only that but
women are also obliged to undergo ‘schooling’ themselves. This not only places an
added burden on women, but also reinforces stereotypical ideas of women’s roles and
responsibilities. In addition the fact that women have to attend courses or risk the loss
of resources assumes that women are available or that their work responsibilities allow
this. Better stated, the underlying assumption is that women are not involved in income
generating activities. While it is notoriously difficult to obtain reliable data concerning
women’s employment national level studies in Nicaragua suggest many women work.
Recent research (Bradshaw 2002b) also highlights the importance of women’s work to
household survival, and in those households with only one worker, in 32% of cases this
worker is a woman.
Despite this the notion of women’s primary role as being mothers rather than ‘workers’
is reinforced within the RPS documentation as it suggests the RPS seeks to promote the
‘development’ of women to support actions that consolidate the family unit and that
women beneficiaries will directly benefit through widening their knowledge and abilities
in order that they can participate actively in improving the health and nutrition of their
families and the basic education of their children. The RPS is a good example of how
policies that include or target women can be as, if not more, damaging than those that
exclude or ignore women.
For some women the burden of the RPS will be even greater since women are to be the
community promoters of the programme. Those who act as promoters will be
beneficiaries that ‘voluntarily’ wish to collaborate in the programme. This being said the
documentation also notes they will be ‘designated’ by the other beneficiaries within the
programme. This suggests either that promoters may have little choice over the matter,
being designated by others and not feeling able to decline, or that there will be little
choice as the usual leaders step forward to assume the role. As there is no mention of
what the advantages of such a position are, it is not easy to predict which would be the
case. In either scenario, however, an outcome may be conflict within a community and
ill feeling between women.
Phase I implementation of the Social Protection Network
The beneficiaries of the first phase of the RPS were determined on the basis of the
government’s poverty map. However, it was decided that a finer selection instrument
7

was need and an ‘ad hoc’ instrument was developed (BID 2003: 9) that included four
elements: family size, access to potable water; access to latrines; level of illiteracy.
Further selection criteria included the organisational capacity of the communities. The
evaluation of the RPS suggests that 80% of the families selected live in extreme poverty.
Nationally the total number of people living below the poverty line was estimated to be
2,206,742 in 1998, which represents 51% of the population. The number of people
living in extreme poverty in 1998 is estimated to be 891,720 representing 40.4% of all
poor and 20.7% of the population. Ultimately phase I of the RPS only benefited 10,093
families, in six municipalities, in only two departments of the country (Madriz and
Matagalpa). That is the first phase of the RPS reached less than 1% of the extreme poor,
and not even 0.5% of the poor. Although the number of beneficiaries will be more than
doubled (a further 12,500 new households) during the second phase of implementation,
even with better targeting as a proportion of the numbers in extreme poverty in the
country the RPS has very little impact (a maximum 2.5% of the extreme poor will
benefit).
In its first or pilot phase of implementation the RPS had a number of objectives that
included those that were aimed at setting up, testing and strengthening the system before
full implementation in phase II. Meeting the goals set for improvements in health,
education and nutrition would ‘trigger’ release of the full funds for phase II. The
objectives of the first phase are summarised as: 7
a) To establish the initial operative framework of the RPS
b) To supplement the incomes of families in extreme poverty for up to three years to
increase their expenditure on food
c) Increase the ‘care’ of children under the age of five
d) Reduce school drop out rates during the first four years of schooling
The improvement in the ‘care’ of the under fives appears to have to interrelated strands.
First, a programme of vaccinations and second an improvement in ‘nutritional care’. The
expression ‘nutritional care’ suggests that the aim is to do more than increase food
consumption but also to change behaviour presumably via the training programmes
mentioned above. One important aspect of the health related activities of the RPS is that
private providers were contracted to implement the programmes during the first phase
and their performance was also evaluated in terms of this continuing in phase II.
In terms of education the focus is on the incorporation of children into schools and their
continuation in the school system. It is interesting that although primary education
consists of 6 grades, the incentives are only offered to children in grades 1 to 4.
Although the aim of the project was to increase enrolment by 5%, retention of existing
students was as, if not more, important and the goal in this case was to improve by more
than 10% retention rates.
As can be seen, the main focus of the RPS is young children. As such the RPS fulfils at
least in part commitments made by the government under the PRSP agreements. The
final PRSP - the Strengthened Strategy for Economic Growth and Poverty Reduction
(ERCERP) highlights the need for ‘special protection’ to be afforded to children under
five years of age (Gobierno de Nicaragua 2001:34). However, it also notes the existence
7 From: Red de Protección Social (NI-0075), Resumen Ejecutivo (author’s translation)
8

and need of other particularly vulnerable groups, such as ‘abused women’ the disabled
and the aged. 8 The RPS makes no mention of these groups.
The elements included in Phase I of the RPS are very much linked to achieving not only
the PRSP goals but perhaps more importantly those in line with the Millennium
Development Goals (see Kabeer 2003 for discussion). These include cutting in halve by
2015 the proportion of people whose income is less than the extreme poverty line. It also
includes goals related to increased access to primary education and reductions in infant
and under 5 mortality rates. It is not surprising given the similarities between these goals
and the policies outlined that recent World Bank (2003) estimations suggest that it is
possible that these goals will be met. However, achieving the other Millennium
Development Goals is less likely. That is while infant and under 5 mortality rates may be
cut the proposed reduction in levels of chronic malnutrition is deemed ‘unlikely’ by the
World Bank. Similarly, while access to primary education will be increased, it is deemed
‘very unlikely’ that the general reduction in illiteracy rates will be achieved.
Taking into account the wider poverty context in which the RPS is being implemented,
and the multidimensionality of poverty, the RPS appears not only narrow in its
implementation, but also narrow in its orientation.
Evaluation of the Outcomes of Phase I of the Social Protection Network
An evaluation of the first phase of the RPS has led the funders, the Inter American
Development Bank, to suggest that the results of the programme to have been positive
in that all goals were met or surpassed. Although the results presented do indeed seem
to suggest that the RPS has been a success, in terms of its own measures of success, it is
important to critically examine the results. Perhaps more importantly the effect of the
RPS needs to be evaluated in terms of wider impact, not just the narrow goals suggested
as indicators of its success by its authors.
In terms of education as noted above the goal was to increase matriculation by 5% and
retention by 10%. Both targets have been met and the data suggests no differences in
terms of matriculation and retention by gender. However, differences exist in terms of
the impact of the RPS on matriculation and retention. While the former had the lower
target (5% increase) matriculation increased by 21.7%, this compared to retention that
did not manage to comply with its target of a greater than 10% increase achieving only
9% increase overall and 10% among the extreme poor. 9 The reasons for this discrepancy
have not been fully explored. The results could suggest that parents were enrolling
children in school to receive the initial benefits, both financial and educational, but
finding retention difficult, despite these incentives. Alternatively the number of children
of school age who have never been enrolled in school may have been greatly
underestimated in the past, for various reasons.
Ultimately demand outstripped supply as no provision had been made to contract extra
teachers to cover the increased enrolment, nor a sufficient budget provided. Although
this has been presented as highlighting the overwhelming success of the initiative, looked
at from another view point it suggests the standard of schooling received by children is
8 Although not noted as a particularly vulnerable group, the matrix of policy actions includes a programme
to ‘fight women’s poverty’ via credit schemes and the garden economy (Gobierno de Nicaragua 2001:131).
9 Compared to the control group – data presented in BID 2003 Table 1.2
9

of little importance to those implementing the project. What is key is getting children
into school, the education they receive there appears to be of less, or little concern.
In terms of health again the impact evaluation suggests targets were met or surpassed.
However, once again the targets themselves can be questioned. Results in terms of the
programme of ‘vigilance’ and promotion of growth and development (VPCD), that
included elements such as monitoring weight gain among babies under 3 years old, were
said to have been 2 or 3 times better than the targets. It is important to remember that
health services were contracted out to private providers and they were paid by coverage
and outcome (eg weight gain). As the evaluation itself notes this suggests a conflict of
interest.
Another element monitored under the VPCD was proportion of children under 3 years
of age who had been given an iron supplement to reduce iron deficiency. While anaemia
is a serious problem in the country, iron supplements would not be necessary if a healthy
diet was available to children or maternal health was improved. The goal provides a clear
example of focussing on symptoms not causes of poor health, looking for a quick fix
rather than addressing the fundamental problem.
The second health element being monitored focussed on the vaccination of children
between the ages of 1 and 2 years old which showed a net gain of 17.3% (compared to a
target of 10%) after having taken account of a general increase in vaccination coverage
during the period in non RPS areas. What both the increase in enrolment in schools and
the take up vaccinations suggests is, as noted above, the original notion underpinning the
RPS of the need to change the behaviour of the poor was erroneous. Schooling and
health appear to be valued by the poor as much as any other group in society what has
been lacking in the past was not lack of interest, but lack of access.
The final element considered in the evaluation of phase I of the RPS was focussed on
consumption of food as a proportion of total consumption of the family. The goal was
the only one that was not to be measured by a percentage change, but rather stated as
‘observe the tendency of the change’. Despite the lack of precision of the goal set, it is
said to have been ‘achieved’ (see BID 2003 table 1.2). Although no explanation of how
this goal was achieved, or what this means is given, some figures related to food
expenditure are presented. The average ‘net impact’ of the programme in annual per
capita expenditure is said to have been 25%, and of this 88% was spent on food - or the
equivalent of an increase in US$64 per capita food expenditure (BID 2003: 7).
These figures are difficult to interpret. Since measuring changes in food consumption
would mean longitudinal household research it is perhaps safe to assume they refer to
expenditure within the RPS on food related programmes, rather than the expenditure by
households on food. If this is the case, their inclusion here suggests that it is being
assumed that the resources given as part of programmes such as the RPS are used for the
purposes intended. This is a problematic assumption.
Even when resources are given in kind rather than in cash, they are not always used for
the purposes intended by the donors. While it is usually assumed that this is due to men
gaining control of the resources and using them for personal consumption it is important
to note that this is also not always the case. In fact resources may be ‘misused’ for good
reason, in that the household may have different needs or prioritise their needs
differently than policy makers. It is rational, for example, that the illness of the key wage
10

earner take priority and resources be diverted in the short term to improve his or her
health and thus well being in the medium to long term.
What narrow programmes such as the RPS do not take into account is not only that the
well being of an individual is multi-dimensional, but that one individual’s well being may
be related to that of another person – in particular that the health and well being of
children may be integrally linked to that of their parents.
The evaluation of the RPS focuses only on the ‘beneficiaries’ of the project and does not
consider the wider impact of the programmes on the other actors involved. Most
notably mothers are impacted by the RPS in a number of ways. First they are the
‘receivers’ of resources and responsible for their management and distribution. Second,
they are assumed to be responsible for ensuring children’s attendance at school, for
ensuring children attend health clinics, and for ensuring the improved ‘nutritional care’ of
children which may in part include ensuring resources are used to this end. They are also
those who must attend workshops and educational talks throughout the year in order to
receive financial assistance. It is not clear what women gain personally in return.
The success of the RPS depends on women assuming an extra burden of work, however,
the evaluation of the RPS does not consider the impact on women suggesting the
policies are assumed to have no impact on women or that the impact is positive.
Another interpretation is that any actions that improve the well being of children are not
seen to be a ‘burden’ for women, and that any ‘costs’ they bear are part of the mothering
role, reinforcing the ideal of the self-sacrificing mother. However, some women may
not be able to assume this extra burden, in particular women involved in income
generating activities may find it difficult not only to attend workshops but also to take
children to the health clinic as this would cut into their working day. Compliance may
mean a loss of income. However, non-compliance may mean a loss of respect in that
women who are not able, or not prepared, to assume these responsibilities may be seen
to be ‘bad’ mothers who do not love their children. Moreover non-compliance would
mean a loss, not only of the financial incentives but also of the opportunity for a child or
children to receive schooling.
Women may suffer personal economic costs through inclusion in the RPS and these are
incurred not only in order to accrue economic and social benefits for their children but
also to reduce personal social costs that non-compliance with the RPS conditions may
bring.
Implications for Phase II
Phase II of the RPS will cover 12,500 new households alongside the 10,000 that are
already beneficiaries of the programme. Selection of households will once again be
determined not only on levels of poverty but other criteria, the first screening after
poverty being dependent on relative education and health indicators and the final
selection between areas being based on their relative ‘productive potential’.
A number of other changes have also been suggested for phase II. The more positive of
the proposals suggest a broadening of the aspects covered, to include prenatal care and
attention, for example, and attention to adolescents. Topics for training sessions will also
be broadened to include topics such as the patio economy. However, the perceived
success of implementation of the RPS during phase I appears to have had one very
11

important potentially negative consequence. The results suggest that targets could be
reached in a more ‘cost effective’ manner, that is that the financial incentives offered to
improve take up of education and health services during phase II could be less than
those offered during phase I (see BID 2003 for discussion).
In particular the high up take of vaccination programmes has led BID to conclude that
the food grant offered as an incentive in this case, can be cut and in the second phase the
amount offered will be reduced each year. Similarly during the next three-year phase it is
intended to gradually cut back the amounts offered to some participating families to
evaluate the impact of such measures in terms of behaviour change. That is the extreme
poor are to be used as ‘guinea pigs’ to explore how few resources can be offered for the
same gains.
The indicators used to evaluate the impact of the first phase of the RPS will be
supplemented by other indicators in the second phase, most notably the inclusion of
‘well being’ indicators including: employment and income sources, possession of
productive assets and variations in the price of basic products. However as to how the
RPS is to have a direct, or even indirect impact on these elements over the three years of
implementation is far from clear.
An evaluation of the impact of the RPS on those on whom its success depends- women
- is not contemplated.
Conclusions
The RPS can be critiqued from a number of positions. Most fundamentally, the
provision of food, money and other services to the most vulnerable does not tackle the
causes of that vulnerability and any change that is brought about is unsustainable. It is
also a relative exercise in that the increases in annual income for those families in
extreme poverty included in the RPS will only be sufficient to move them over the
extreme poverty line and into general poverty.
Taking into account the wider poverty context in which the RPS is being implemented,
and the multidimensionality of poverty, the RPS appears not only narrow in its
implementation, but also narrow in its orientation. Only a small proportion of those
living in extreme poverty will benefit from the programme and within this group
children under five years of age are prioritised. While the PRSP highlights the need for
‘special protection’ to be afforded to children under five years of age, it also notes the
existence and need of other particularly vulnerable groups, such as ‘abused women’ the
disabled and the aged. The RPS makes no mention of these groups.
More generally what narrow programmes such as the RPS do not take into account is not
only that the well being on an individual is multi-dimensional, but that one individual’s
well being may be related to that of another person – in particular that the health and
well being of children may be integrally linked to that of their parents.
This being said, the RPS is a good example of how inclusion can be as problematic as
exclusion. Women are targeted within the RPS as the means by which resources will be
delivered to children. Not only does the RPS reinforce existing gender stereotypes but it
also imposes costs on women that have not been recognised nor included when
12

evaluating its impact. These hidden costs may mean that women’s well being, economic
and social, may actually decline as the well being of ‘the family’ is improved.
13

References
Bamberger, M. Blackden, M. Fort, L. Manoukian, V. (2001) Gender PRSP source book
chapter draft for comments April 2001.
http://www.worldbank.org/poverty/strategies/chapters/ accessed 16/11/02
BID (2003) La Red de Protección Social, Fase II: Informe de Evaluacion
Bradshaw, S. (2002a) Gendered Poverties and Power Relations: Looking Inside Communities and
Households in Nicaragua CIIR, Puntos de Encuentro, Embajada de Holanda, Nicaragua
Bradshaw, S. (2002b) ‘La pobreza: Una experiencia que se vive de manera distinta según
el género’ Unpublished research report, August 2002
CCER (2001) La Nicaragua que Queremos: Enfoque y Prioridades para una Estrategia
Resultado del Proceso de Consulta, Debate y Análisis, Coordinadora Civil para la
Emergencia y la Reconstrucción - CCER, Managua, Nicaragua, Junio 2001.
Chant, S. (1999) Women-headed Households: Diversity and Dynamics in the Developing World
Macmillan: Basingstoke
Chant, S (2003) ‘Female Household Headship and the Feminisation of Poverty: Facts,
fictions and forward strategies’. New Working Paper Series 9, Gender Institute, London
School of Economics, May 2003
Collier P. and Dollar D. (2002) ‘Aid allocation and poverty reduction’ European Economic
Review, 46, 1475-1500.
Collier P. and Dollar D. (2001) ‘Can the world cut poverty by half? How policy reform
and effective aid can meet international development goals’ World Development, 29: 11,
1787-1802.
Dollar, D and Gatti, R (1999) ‘Gender Inequality, Income, and Growth: Are Good
Times Good for Women?’ Gender and Development Working Papers No 1, May 1999
http://www.worldbank.org/gender/prr/wp.htm Accessed 16/11/02
Dollar, D and Kray (2000) ‘Growth is Good for the Poor’ The World Bank
Development Research Group, March 2000.
Dwyer, Daisy and Bruce, Judith (eds.) (1988) A Home Divided: Women and Income in the
Third World Stanford University Press: Stanford, California
Easterly W. (2002) ‘How did heavily indebted poor countries become heavily indebted?
Reviewing two decades of debt relief’ World Development, 30: 10, 1677-1696
Elson, Diane (1995) Male bias in the Development Process 2 nd edition, Manchester University
Press.
Gobierno de Nicaragua (2001) The Strengthened Poverty Reduction Strategy, July 2001.
Gobierno de Nicaragua (2003) Bases para una Nicaragua Prospera, March 2003.
Hanlon J. (2000) How much debt must be cancelled?, Journal of International Development,
12, 6, 877-901.
Hout W. (2002) Good Governance and Aid: Selectivity Criteria in Development
Assistance, Development and Change, 33, 3, 511-527.
Kabber, N (2003) Gender Mainstreaming in Poverty Eradication and the Millennium Development
Goals Commonwealth Secretariat and IDRC
14

Klasen, S. (1999) ‘Does Gender Inequality Reduce Growth and Development? Evidence
from Cross-Country Regressions’ Gender and Development Working Papers No 7,
November 1999 http://www.worldbank.org/gender/prr/wp.htm accessed 16/11/02
Linneker B.J. (2002) Gender comparisons of capital asset influences on the well being of
women in poverty in Nicaragua, working paper, Civil Coordinator, Managua, Nicaragua.
www.ccer-nic.org
McIlwaine, C. (2002) Perspectives on poverty, vulnerability and exclusion, in McIlwaine
C. and Willis K. (eds) Challenges and Change in Middle America: Addison Longman Wesley,
Harlow.
Moser, C. (1996) 'Confronting Crisis: Household response to poverty and vulnerability'
TWURD, World Bank, Washington DC, mimeo
Neumayer E. (2002) Is Good Governance Rewarded? A cross-national Analysis of Debt
Forgiveness, World Development, 30, 6, 913-930.
Oxfam (2000) ‘Growth with Equity is Good for the Poor’ Oxfam Policy Paper, 2000
Roodman D. M. (2001) Still waiting for the Jubilee: Pragmatic solutions to the Third
World debt crisis. Worldwatch Paper 155. Washington DC: Worldwatch Institute.
Quirós Víquez, A., Bradshaw, S. and Linneker, B (2002) ‘Las mujeres en Nicaragua, la
pobreza y cómo se pretende reducirla’ Paper presented at Conferencia Centroamericana
y del Caribe: Reducción de la pobreza, gobernabilidad democrática y equidad de género’
Managua, Nicaragua August 2002
Quirós Víquez, A (2002) The PRSP Process In Nicaragua Participation Of Civil Society available
at www.ciir.org
Saunders, K (ed) (2002) Feminist Post-development Thought: Rethinking modernity, post-colonialism
and representation Zed Books: London and New York
Weisbrot, et al (2000) Growth may be good for the poor but are IMF and World Bank
policies good for growth? Centre for Economic Policy Research, draft August 2000
World Bank (2001a) Gender Mainstreaming Strategy Paper September 2001
http://www.worldbank.org/gender/overview/ssp/ssppaper.htm accessed 16/11/02
World Bank (2001b) Engendering Development: Summary
http://www.worldbank.org/gender/prr/ accessed 16/11/02
World Bank (2003) Metas ERCERP y del Milenio: Desempeno y perspectives al 2015,
Unpublished presentation, Florencia T. Castro-Leal, World Bank, Managua, Nicaragua.
Zuckerman, E (2001) ‘Engendering Poverty reduction Strategy Papers: Why it Reduces
Poverty and the Rwanda Case’ WIDER Development Conference on debt relief,
Helsinki, August 17 – 18, 2001 (Draft version accessed 16/11/02 from
http://www.wider.unu.edu/conference/conference-2001-2/conference2001-2.htm)
Zuckerman, E (2002) ‘Evaluation of Gender Mainstreaming in Advocacy Work on
Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers: Synthesis report.’ Internal document prepared as
part of Oxfam GB’s Gender Review, May 2002.
15