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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
Page 1 and 2: Introduction A Gendered Analysis of
Page 3: Social Safety Nets As debates aroun
Page 7 and 8: child) for all eligible children in
Page 9 and 10: and need of other particularly vuln
Page 11 and 12: earner take priority and resources
Page 13 and 14: evaluating its impact. These hidden
Page 15: Klasen, S. (1999) ‘Does Gender In

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?