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

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