The UNDP report elaborates that “neglecting the gender dimensions of poverty seriously undermines effects to achieve sustainable human development.” When this report was written in 1995, around the time of the 4th Bejing Conference, the idea was infectious, reshaping international development agencies, models of statistical data collection, and long term strategic government plans.
“Women, the World’s Greatest Untapped Resource”
That’s the slogan on billboards in the Tunis airport of a prominent development group that focuses on women’s issues. Their claim seems to be generally widely supported in academic literature.
Improving the condition of women has large and sustainable returns.
Returns in the financial sense, since encouraging women to work in the formal sector certainly increases the available labor force. But perhaps even more discussed, microeconomic studies have demonstrated that households models are not unitary -- women and men invest resources differently. When women have increased or independent control over financial resources, the health, educational level, and general wellbeing of children in the household improves. In addition, many researchers claim that women are more financially trustworthy, work harder, and make better investment decisions. Combine these results with the idea that gender equality is the sign of any modern and civilized society (a concept we ironically proclaim the in US), gender equality in development has attracted international attention, and money.
You don’t have to look far (the Millennium Development Goals, for example, or UNIFEM, as pictured above) to see that gender equality has taken center stage. But a closer look reveals that gender quality coming in vogue has been accompanied by a great debate. In addition to questions of what “achieving gender equality” or “empowering women” actually means (more on this in a later post), some women’s groups, both locally based an internationally have questioned whether current practices of development through globalization have actually achieved these ends.
McDonalization – helpful or harmful?
The first report I read at my internship, the Arab Women’s Development Report 2001, explained that the benefits of global restructuring are to date “unequally distributed.” It furthers by explained “far from reducing international migration flows by moving products instead of people, globalization’s “movers” have become its “losers.” This fairly evident in many countries where benefits of globalization have accumulated with the owners of multinational corporations where the backbone of the labor force – often previously part time or migrant workers – receive almost no compensation for their work. You don't have to look far to see pictures and hear stories of women and children in horrible working conditions in sweatshops in developing countries. It’s not a universal trend, but it’s certainly visible.
So to be honest, there isn’t really a conclusion to this post right now, although I certainly have more thoughts. And I certainly want to explore the entanglement, for better or worse, of globalization and development through my internship.
As I read back on this post, it sounds a little bit snarky. That’s purposeful. I want to clarify that I whole-heartedly agree that engendering development is essential to make a positive impact. At the same time, gender issues in development are complicated, often more so than presented in the media, and real sustainable approach to development requires a critical examination of our current models, and a healthy dose of skepticism about Westernization.
For those of you that are interested in learning more, I highly recommend:
“Half the Sky: Turning Oppression into Opportunity for Women Worldwide by Nicholas D. Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn"
“Paradise Beneath Her Feet: How Women are Transforming the Middle East by Isobel Coleman”
This post was written by the request of Lindsay. Let me know if you have any posting requests and Ill do my best to muse about them :)
No comments:
Post a Comment