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

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