Transcript Gender and public works

Gender and public works
Lessons from Ethiopia and India
Nicola Jones
Overseas Development Institute
1. Gender and public works
• Although public works programmes (PWPs) have technical
and political benefits, women’s participation has been
historically low due to:
–
–
–
–
Care burden/ time poverty (Dejardin, 1996; ILO, 2002)
Socio-cultural mobility constraints (McCord, 2004)
Gender-biased piecemeal rates (Quisimbing, 2004)
Programmes often target male household heads (Antonopoulos,
2007)
– In contexts of job scarcity women often pressured not to
compete for public works jobs (Dejardin, 1996)
• Recent attention to promoting women’s participation,
although gender analyses of PWPs remain limited
2. Ethiopia’s PSNP
• Public works programme aimed at reducing
reliance on ad hoc emergency food aid appeals
• Initiated 2004; now reaches 8 million food
insecure beneficiaries nationwide
• Focuses on creation of community assets aimed
at environmental rehabilitation
• Implemented by Government of Ethiopia,
supported by coalition of donors
• ODI mixed methods research focused on 4
kebeles (sub-districts) in two regional states:
SNNP and Tigray
3. India’s MGNREGA
• Public works programme aimed at fulfilling
citizens’ constitutional right to 100 days of work
at minimum wage per hh per year
• Initiated in 2005, now reaching 45 million
households nationwide
• Community assets are infrastructure focused
• Funded by Government of India but implemented
by state governments with varying efficacy
• ODI research focused on 2 districts in Madhya
Pradesh State
4. Engendering programme design
• Strengths:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Quotas for women/ female headed hhs
Guarantee of equal wages
Provisions for gender-specific lifecycle needs
Childcare facilities
Creation of gender-sensitive community assets
Mechanisms to promote women’s involvement in
programme governance
• Linkages to complementary programmes
• Weaknesses:
• Limited definition of community assets
• Limited attention to equitable access to complementary
extension services
5. Programme impact: individual
• increased economic opportunities and remuneration
for women
• enhanced knowledge, skills and confidence among
women
• greater mobility for women; and
• subtle changes in men’s attitudes
But gendered impacts are still limited:
“the programme is good for household consumption on
a daily basis but not for transforming lives’
(Female FGD, Shibhta, Ethiopia, 2009).
6. Programme impact: household
• Meeting women’s practical gender needs, esp.
female headed hhs
• Improving access to credit and protecting
assets
• Greater psychological security in times of crisis
• But limited impact on intra-household power
relations
7. Programme impact: community
• Enhanced social capital; especially valuable for
women given limited participation
opportunities
• Focus on quantitative participation in
programme governance has not been
matched by a focus on quality participation
8. Political economy dynamics
• Gender-related objectives are secondary at best
• Limited high level support for gender-related goals
evidenced by under-investment in capacity building and
minimal integration of gender indicators in M and E
• ‘The activities are not gender sensitive. There is no gender
mainstreaming. The programme is theoretically well
developed but practical application is flawed: women were
not consulted during design, implementation and
evaluation processes, which are just top down’
(Project Manager, Wolayta, Ethiopia, 2009).
• Weak inter-sectoral coordination hindering programme
potential to tackle economic and social risks synergistically
9. Policy implications
• Ensure sensitivity to lifecycle demands including:
– alternative direct support for nursing/pregnant
women;
– providing child care facilities that are culturally
sensitive; and
– offering flexible working hours to help balance
domestic responsibilities and employment activities.
• Commit to equal wages between men and women and
ensure that women have access to this income.
• Promote cross-institutional linkages to complementary
programmes, e.g. agricultural extension and rural
financial services, and support capacity strengthening of
programme implementers to take advantage of this.
10. Policy implications (cont.)
• Provide appropriate types of work in accordance
with men’s and women’s skills sets as well as
household labour availability.
• Invest in community assets which reduce
gendered vulnerabilities such as time poverty.
• Encourage the involvement of women in
programme governance, especially in terms of
defining community assets to be undertaken
through public works labour.
• Embed sex-disaggregated M&E indicators within
programme design and reporting requirements
For more information see:
http://www.odi.org.uk/work/projects/details.asp?id=102
0&title=gender-vulnerability-social-protection