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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
Page 1 and 2: Introduction A Gendered Analysis of
Page 3 and 4: Social Safety Nets As debates aroun
Page 5 and 6: earners were more likely to perceiv
Page 7 and 8: child) for all eligible children in
Page 9 and 10: and need of other particularly vuln
Page 11: earner take priority and resources
Page 15: Klasen, S. (1999) ‘Does Gender In

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?