Transcript What Do Bonobos Have to Do With the Millennium Development

What Do Bonobos Have to Do
With the Millennium Development
Goals?
Rae Lesser Blumberg
Wm. R. Kenan, Jr. Prof. of
Sociology, Univ. of Virginia
Abstract, 1 of 2
• I discuss the linkages between women’s
economic empowerment & the level of
gender equality within a group (my theory).
• I take us back to bonobos and chimps,
with whom we share a common ancestor,
and across human history to show that
women have held substantial economic
power and have been behind significant
technological innovations
Abstract, 2 of 2
• In conclusion, I argue that measuring the
3d Millennium Development Goal,
“promoting gender equality and
empowering women,” requires the
development of additional indicators than
the end of the gender gap in education
• I suggest that such indicators begin with a
sex-disaggregated measure of relative
economic empowerment
Gender Equality Goal - & Women’s
Economic Power as the Key Means
• Historically, of the 5 main types of power –
economic, political, force, ideology and
information – the only one where women
get above the “50-50 line” is economic
power (defined as control of key economic
resources); this varies from near-zero to
near-100% for both men and women
• It is the most achievable form of power for
women, as well as the most important
Gender Equality in History 1
• There have been 4 main “techno-economic
bases” in human evolutionary history: (1)
foraging (hunting-gathering); (2) horticultural
(hoe cultivation); (3) agrarian (plow cultivation),
and (4) industrial; now, the 5th, information/
biotech/ globalization, is emerging
• In each, we can measure level of gender
equality and it proves closely tied to relative M/F
economic empowerment
The Big Picture: Gender Equality in
History 2
Gender Equality in History 3
• In each previous techno-economic base,
or mode of subsistence, there always have
been some groups ~on/very near the “5050 line” of gender equality
• In all cases, women’s degree of economic
power has been equal to or greater than
that of counterpart men (e.g., Iroquois of
Colonial North America; N.E. Thailand/
lowland Lao today)
Some key variables from my theory
• For women, work in key production
activities is a necessary but insufficient
condition for gender equality
• But unless “mere work” in such activities is
translated to economic power, it does not
lead to greater control over one’s destiny
– “life options,” my dependent variable, include
M/F say in marriage, divorce, fertility, freedom
of movement, sex, hh power
Key variables, cont.
• 3 sets of factors help translate “mere work”
by women into economic power:
– It’s harder in more unequal/stratified societies
– It depends on the extent the kinship/property
system disadvantages/advantages each sex
– It depends on their “strategic indispensability”
• Of the 6 main “strategic indispensability factors” 2
are impt. here: (1) degree of organization, & (2)
control of technical expertise
On to bonobos & chimps
• There are ~200,000 chimps vs. ~20,000
bonobos (they live in war-torn SE Congo)
• Bonobos’ walk=more upright; body=more
human-shaped; sex=often face-to-face
• Bonobo females (Fs) are more organized
& control the food supply (i.e., control of
main economic resources/econ. power)
• Fs have the upper hand, & keep it by
making love, not war (av.=every 1.5 hrs.)
Chimps
• Chimp males (M) are more organized than
females & compete for political power, not
control of food supply; can be violent (vs.
peaceful bonobos)
• Males usually have upper hand but more likely
to die than bonobo Ms (sex %)
• But females=tool makers/users/trainers, even for
hunting weapons (new data from Senegal)
– No bonobo data on tools
Foraging
• Began millions of years ago when we were
hominids; homo sapiens=<200,000 yrs.
• Classically nomadic, sharing & egalitarian
• Women, main gatherers, as impt. as men;
diet=60-80% gathered in non-Arctic lands
• Women & men had ~equal control of key
economic resources (explain)
• Classic foragers=~gender egalitarian too
Foraging, gender & technology
• Women credited with invention of baby
sling & gathering basket, 2 keys to human
survival (but no archeological record)
• Baby sling helped wide spacing between
births (av. F raised ~2 to adulthood, 4-5
yrs. apart), group survival, F equality
Horticulture (hoe, digging stick)
• Rise of cultivation=biggest revolution of all
• Women generally credited with gradual
development of cultivation in many places (as
botanical specialists); F usually=main farmers
• 1st cultivation=18-20k yrs ago in Africa
• But 1st horticultural societies=10-12k in Fertile
Crescent & SE Asia; soon emerged in all major
land masses bar Australia (no suitable cultigens)
• Why? Agreement on population pressure
• How/what? Massaging genetically plastic
cultigens (wheat, rice, corn, potatoes, etc.)
Horticulture 2
•
•
•
•
Semi-sedentary groups, shifting/slash & burn cultivation
1st great population explosion; no return to foraging
Early hortculture=egalitarian, peaceful, matri-focal
“4 paths through horticulture”: 3=complex unilineal corp.
kin groups – matri + 2 patri types
• Where women (still) control economic resources,
remain ~equal (e.g., Iroquois)
• If kin/property system=patri polygyny, brideprice
– Africa=still mostly horti because of thin soils; most ethnic
groups=patri but women more equal where local marketsF
economic power (more prevalent in W. Africa than E. Africa)
• Many patri groups=internal war, disadvantages women;
• Matri groups=external war only (if war)
Agrarian (plow; mixed farming)
• Plow invented in M. East 5-6 k yrs ago,
spread E-W on Eurasian landmass, home
of ~all top domestic animals (Diamond)
• Permanent cultivation & settlement
because plow brings up nutrients &
animals provide fertilizer. Need deep soil
• Most agrarian societies=patriarchal but it’s
not inevitable (e.g. NE Thailand, Lao Lum)
Agrarian 2
• Types: dry (rainfed)=male farming (& patriarchy to
varying degrees) vs. wet (irrig. rice)=everyone (M,F
animal) works (most labor intensive/elastic)
• 2 wet types: most=patri. but in SE Asia matrioriented/bilateral, with >F econ. power, equality
• ~500 million in SE Asia (about same population as EU)
but their >gender egalitarianism is lost in (very patri)
agrarian average: China+India=2.5 billion; most of world,
in fact, lives in industrializing agrarian societies
• Tech innovation low for F if no stake in outcome
• All industrial societies emerged from patri agrarian types;
so we think tech=male & patriarchy=universal
Industrial societies
• Rise of capitalism in NW Europe ended
“technostasis” of v. stratified patri. agrarian
societies: econ. growth due to reinvesting
surplus + gold & silver of New World
• In <400 yrs, “marriage of capitalism &
technology” (in M hands) led to industrial
societies; England=1st, ~1800
• But despite home/work split, F rise as % of labor
force. If they control income-->equality
Rise of Base V?
• Globalization, tech change=exponential growth;
uncertainty also increasing
• Information society? Biotech society?
• Gender, the “tree of knowledge” & the “tree of
life”: women lag in IT but education gap is
closing, & women are almost at parity in the life
sciences (stats below)
• Better shot at equality, driven by >% of F
earning, controlling income & stronger role in
emerging techno-economic base
Subsistence Technology & Gender
• Most important historically, per Lenski
(similar to my techno-economic bases)
• Women played important roles through
most of history (gender inequality 1st rose
~6,500 years ago), i.e., until they lost
stake in outcome
• Foraging – baby sling, gathering basket
• Horticulture – developing it; villages
permitted F-developed pottery & weaving
More Women & Technology
• Cooking=chemistry process;
• Learned what can be made edible, e.g.,
leach cyanide from bitter cassava
– Now: Igbo women’s compound gardens (they
control proceeds)
Tree of Knowledge; Tree of Life
• Women in IT: in US, BSc degrees declined
from 29-28% between 1994-2001 but
more F at lower, middle levels (e.g., 1/3 of
IT mgrs., many info jobs=largely female)
• Women in biotech/life sciences= in US
now majority of BSc, 48% of Ph.Ds in
2004 (quiet revolution; but may as
important as IT)
Consequences of Economic
Empowerment (Blumberg’s Theory)
At micro level
• > self-confidence
• > say in household decisions, including:
– Domestic well-being decisions (e.g., sending
sons vs. daughters to school)
– Economic decisions
– Fertility decisions (& women usually want to
lower it, which helps developing nations grow)
– Land use decisions (F = mainly “pro-green”)
Consequences of Women’s
Economic Empowerment
At macro level:
-The increase in female paid employment
in developed countries has been the main
driving force of growth in last 20+ years;
-These income-earning women have
contributed more to global GDP growth
than either new technology or China and
India (per The Economist, April 15 ‘06)
Blumberg’s 2d Theory: Women’s
Economic Power & Development:
• M and F with provider responsibilities spend
income under their control differently:
– Both take care of economic activities
– But women spend the rest more single-mindedly on
children’s human capital formation: diet, health,
survival and education
– > human capital is linked to > GNP growth
• And women spend more equally on girls & boys
• In sum, economically empowered women
provide a “synergy bonus” for development
Linking Economic Empowerment
and Education
• In general, women who control income are
more likely to send both daughters and
sons to school, even when their income is
less than male counterparts (Blumberg et
al. 1992, Santiago, Chile data)
• Educating girls has its own cornucopia of
benefits for development, & no down side
Benefits of Educating Girls 1
A. Blumberg (1989) posited 8 benefits; 7/8
=linked to lower fertility (all but #5)
1. Later age of marriage; 2. > contraceptive
use; 3. < fertility [itself]; 4. < infant/child
mort.; 5. > child nutrition/family health; 6. >
participation in modern wage labor force; 7.
> earnings; 8. > GNP/national income
growth (since ‘89, increasing evidence of all)
B. <fertility=linked to >GNP growth in 3W
Benefits of Educating Girls 2
• In a 100-country study, Dollar & Gatti (1999)
found: a 1% rise in % of F with secondary
education raises income growth/cap. 0.3%
• If the gender parity gap in the 3 “gap regions”
(Sub-Saharan Africa, S. Asia & M. East/N.
Africa) had fallen at the same rate as in E. Asia
1960-1990, their GNP/capita would have grown
0.5-0.9% more/year (Klasen 1999)
Closing the Gender Gap in
Education: Progress on Target #4,
MDG #3 (& EFA Goal #5)
• Per UNESCO 2006:2, of 181 countries w/
2004 data, ~2/3 have achieved gender
parity in primary education
• Now: 94 girls/100 boys in primary
education vs. 92/100 in 1999
• But ~70 countries=still below gender parity
in primary ed. (2005); & 24=unlikely to get
to parity in either primary or 2dy by 2015
More Benefits of F Economic
Empowerment/Equality: <Conflict
• Re int’l conflict, Caprioli (2000) found an
inverse link to F equality (r or causal??):
– A 5% rise in female Labor Force Participation
(LFP) was linked to a state being 495% less
likely to fight neighbor states
– A 1/3 drop in fertility was linked to a state
being 467% less likely to fight its neighbors
• Re internal conflict, she found (2005):
– Nations with only 10% F LFP=30 times more
likely to have it than those with 40% F LFP
More Benefits of F Economic
Empowerment/Equality:<Corruption
• Where women are active in the labor force
or politics, govts.= less corrupt (King &
Mason 2001)
• An 80-country study showed an inverse
link between index of women’s economic
& social rights and a corruption index
• Women in business=less likely to bribe
• >% of F in parliament linked to <corruption
More Benefits of F Economic
Empowerment/Equality: <HIV/AIDS
• Copeland 2006 found an inverse link in
Sub-Saharan Africa between women who
controlled their own income and HIV/AIDS
prevalence rate (but educ. & HIV = no link)
• Economically empowered women=more
likely to demand husbands use condoms
for non-marital sex (Blumberg et al. re
Zanzibar, Tanzania 2002)
Millennium Development Goals
1. Eliminate extreme poverty & hunger
2. Achieve universal primary education
3. Promote gender equality & empower
women
4. Reduce child mortality
5. Improve maternal health
6. Control HIV/AIDS, malaria, & other diseases
7. Ensure environmental sustainability
8. Develop a global partnership for development
MDG #3, Promote Gender Equality
and Empower Women
• Currently, the target (#4) is: “Eliminate
gender disparity in primary and secondary
education, preferably by 2005, and in all
levels of education no later than 2015”
• This is good but not enough to achieve the
goal.
Summary & Policy Implications 1
• Measures of relative female control of
income = best, but they’re rare;
• F vs. M income measures are good;
• F/M LFP measures vary by country in
extent to which non-income work “counts”
• Moreover, we need more initiatives that
include both economic & education
objectives aimed at both genders
Summary & Policy Implications 2
• Add new target to MDG #3, Promote Gender
Equality & Empower Women:
• Ideally, it should be an indicator of (relative)
income under female control
• It should be linked with many benefits, including
a synergy effect with girls’ education
• It also should be linked with less conflict, less
corruption and less HIV/AIDS prevalence
• In sum, women’s economic empowerment is not
only a measure of MDG #3, but a virtual “magic
potion” of development
Epilogue: Gender Equality in
History and Now
• Then: starting ~6,500 years ago, gender inequality
began to rise in some horticultural, and most herding &
agrarian societies
• In each previous techno-economic base, always some
groups on/very near the “50-50 line” of gender equality;
in all, women had significant economic power
• But war close to home constrained F ec. power/equality
• Now, a main globalization trend=a growing % of men &
women earn income but % of women doing so is rising
faster, implying increasing levels of gender equality in
most groups and countries
• But war close to home still constrains gender equality