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

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