ER 275; Fall 2007 Water and Development Isha Ray

1. ER 275; Fall 2007Water and DevelopmentIsha Ray Dublin Principle III Women play a central part in the provision, management and safeguarding of water

2. What is DP III? • A statement about the world?(e.g. WHO estimate of 10 million person years / year fetching water?) • A policy prescription? If so, what sorts of policies? • We begin with broad understanding of how women / gender are viewed in context of ‘development’

3. Outline of lecture • How is gender analysis applied to development? [and to water and development?] • Women and the political economy of development: WID, WAD, WED and GAD [These frames more important in policy analysis than in academia today…] • 2 examples: environmental protection micro-credit [from Cecile Jackson & Ruth Pearson (eds.) Feminist Visions of Development] • Bargains and the household

4. Women and the development establishment • UN Conference on Women, Mexico City 1975, recognized women as “key participants” in programs of poverty alleviation, social transformation • Reflected in Dublin & Rio in 1992 • BUT: gender* analysis has been applied to development in several different ways

5. Sex A biological category Gender A social / relational category Notions of gender roles have strong ideological content [Simone de Beauvoir, Second Sex: “A woman is not born, she is made” ] Sex v gender

6. Strategic v practical interests Practical needs: • Needs that women identify in socially accepted roles • Water & sanitation, healthcare, jobs Strategic needs: • Needs that women identify because of their positions in society • Division of labor, legal rights, domestic violence

7. Women in Development [WID] • Challenged ‘rising tide lifts all boats’ theories of development • Women being bypassed, lacked access  • Percy Amendment 1973: “integrate women into national economies … improving their status and assisting the development effort” [Ester Boserup 1970. Women’s Role in Economic Development] [Razavi & Miller 1995. From WID to GAD. UNRISD, Occasional Paper 4]

8. Women & Development [WAD] • WID critiqued thru’ 1970s and 1980s – esp. from South • Exclusion from development process as problem, or development process itself? • Structural constraints, dependency Inequitable models of development • What can development do for women? (not what can women do for development?) [Sen (G) & Grown 1988. Development Crises & Alternative Visions]

9. Women, Environment & Development [WED] • Specific relationship of women to (local) environments • WED (1): Women as victims of environmental degradation / dominant ‘development’ • WED (2): Women as environmental users, managers & conservers of resources [reflected in Dublin Principle III]

10. Ecofeminism • Small but active ‘branch’ of WED • Conceptual (and spiritual) link between women & nature ecofeminism • Dominant models of development as male constructs • Development along ‘feminine principle’ more nurturing, protective • WED & ‘soft’ ecofeminism supported by many NGOs[and in DP III] [V Plumwood; Vandana Shiva & Maria Mies: Ecofeminism]

11. Gender & Development [GAD] • ‘Women’ not a universal category • No essential link to nature / resources, or to particular development processes (such generalizations can backfire) • Problematize gender relations • Analyze processes of institutional behavior and development policies as gendered, not neutral [e.g. work of Jackson, Pearson, Kabeer, Molyneux, Sen & others…]

12. Example (1): environmental conservation • Tension: Commercial resource exploitation v livelihood and / or conservation

13. Environmental conservation • WED: Women depend on environmental resources, they know the resource, promote participation in forestry / water management • GAD: Why are (some) women so dependent? Why should they ‘participate’ in conservation? • GAD view: WED policies can be disempowering

14. Example (2): micro-credit • Small loans for poor farmers/ women to start businesses [Grameen Bank model]

15. Microcredit • WID approach: women are ‘best’ borrowers – they pay back loans, they use extra income for family welfare • GAD approach: gender relations, opportunity cost of additional work for women means we can’t take advantages of micro-credit for granted [Goetz & Sen Gupta 1996. Who takes the credit? World Development]. [Kabeer 1998. Money can’t buy me love. IDS Bulletin]

16. GAD analyses • No conflation of women’s interests with environmental protection • No assumptions about impact of poverty alleviation policies [pro-poor ≠ pro-women] • Focus on economic and personal benefits [e.g. self-worth, dignity] • Focus on relative power / ‘voice’ of women in home & community • GAD (or some versions) is documented position of many int’l agencies today

17. ‘Mainstreaming’ gender • Gender analysis applied to all aspects of development, not just ‘women’s issues’ • ‘women’ as focal points in development agencies could marginalize women by creating ‘ghettos’ • Gender is part of all work of all agencies • 1990s: gender issues ≠ women’s issues – need analysis of decision-making under cooperative conflict

18. Bargaining as theory of h’h choice Traditional assumption • Head of h’h makes ‘best possible’ decisions (about allocation of time, money, food…) taking into account claims / needs of all family members OR • Makes autocratic decision that may not maximize h’h well-being Newer assumption • h’h members interests are partly congruent, partly in conflict – members negotiate over allocations • Each member has exit option if partnership is unduly stressful

19. 2-p bargaining model of h’h U2 • Both sides prefer to cooperate & many outcomes possible, so whose voice & which outcome will prevail? • Exit option & negotiation set influenced by many factors (for some, exit is not an option at all) • Binary model of h’h (older models were unitary) negotiation set  exit option U1 Payoff in utility (more is better) →

20. Does h’h ‘model’ matter? • Unitary model is still most common • Many argue that data on h’h choices too coarse to distinguish between unitary & binary (processes of negotiation usually implicit, after all) • Scale of analysis may require h’h model simplification BUT • Binary modelers (econ & anthro) argue that certain decisions – eg some food and work allocation choices – can only be explained thru’ binary model AND • Binary models themselves simplistic because do not account for extra-h’h influences on h’h decisions (esp. but not only important in interlocked communities)

21. Still being debated • Is focus on practical needs practical? • Is ‘mainstreaming’ gender a form of co-option / sidelining? • Does ‘participation’ increase well-being or workloads? • Should h’h be disaggregated as a default? And: How can DP III be operationalized in vastly different contexts?

22. ER 275; Fall 2006Water and Development