Printer Friendly

Women and Poverty or Gender and Well-Being?

This article addresses two connected elements of the current consensus on women and poverty: One is the view, in poverty discourses, that women are "the poorest of the poor," and the other is the view, in gender and development (GAD) discourses, that gender analysis and interventions need to be mainstreamed into poverty reduction policies and practice. I argue that to characterize women as especially "poor" is to misrepresent gender disadvantage, and that rather than mainstreaming gender into poverty by defining women as especially poor within existing poverty concepts, we should seek to reformulate understandings of poverty to reflect the distinctively gendered nature of disadvantage for both women and men. This involves expanding notions of poverty beyond narrowly materialist viewpoints and toward greater recognition of gendered identities, ideologies and struggles, as well as toward a relational field which encompasses more culturalist perspectives.

Poverty reduction through development has recently become more prominent in both development studies and policy. Examples include the emphasis on poverty reduction in the 1997 White Paper produced by the new Labour Government in Britain, and the domestic social policy in Europe. At the same time, poverty thinking is also adapting to a new political environment, globalized and post-socialist, in which the understandings of social justice are shifting. In Nancy Fraser's U.S.-based analysis:
 Many actors appear to be moving away from a socialist political imaginary,
 in which the central problem of justice is redistribution, to a
 `post-socialist' imaginary in which the central problem is recognition.
 With this shift, most salient social movements are no longer economically
 defined `classes' who are struggling to defend their `interests,' end
 `exploitation' and win `redistribution.' Instead, they are culturally
 defined `groups' or `communities of value' who are struggling to defend
 their `identities,' end `cultural domination' and win `recognition.' The
 result is a decoupling of cultural politics from social politics, and the
 relative eclipse of the latter by the former.(1)

The turn to culture and to "recognition" rather than redistribution in the West has penetrated development debates in the form of the postmodernist critique of poverty, gender and development.(2) However, mainstream poverty and development discourses remain resolutely redistributionist and wedded to a materialist sense of social justice, and it is arguable that rather than "flying blind," as Fraser calls the visionlessness of current progressive struggles, poverty discourses in development are "flying blinkered," paying too little attention to cultural politics. Class politics or cultural politics should not be alternatives, and, as Fraser argues, should have a bivalency which integrates "the social and the cultural, the economic and the discursive."(3) I argue here that gender disadvantage cannot be fathomed from a narrowly materialist perspective.

There are multiple ways in which poverty is conceptualized, but arguably few capture what, for a gendered subject, makes a life go well. In other places, I have noted the tendency in development discourses to represent gender issues in development as variants of poverty problems and to reduce gender disadvantage to a claim that women are over-represented among the poor.(4) This brief review suggests that gender disadvantage cannot be understood with unmodified poverty concepts and indicators, which can both misleadingly deny the material subordination of women(5) and entirely fail to reflect the ideological and cultural bedrock of gender inequity Gender into poverty won't go. The point is not that women are poor but that poverty is gendered.

In the sections that follow, I first argue that, in the context of mainstreaming gender into poverty reduction policies, it has become important to consider both the best analytical approaches to integrating gender into poverty reduction work and the feminist politics of just how "women's needs" are constructed, deconstructed and reconstructed in the mainstreaming endeavor. The rest of the article examines some of the difficulties, in a range of poverty concepts, with identifying women as the poorest of the poor, and it identifies more promising approaches through which poverty reduction can start to conceptualize poor people as gender subjects.


Why does it matter that gender disadvantage is so frequently represented as a problem of poor women, and that "one-size-fits-all" poverty concepts are expected to apply to understanding gender and well-being? The issue of the relationship between gender and poverty is perhaps increasingly important in policy terms since gender mainstreaming has become the focus of much GAD effort,(6) after women in development (WID)-inspired projects were discredited for marginalizing women. Mainstreaming was expected to avoid isolating gender discourses as bounded and separate, bring about broader institutional transformations and allow access to resources on a grander scale than "women's projects" command. Two possible approaches to mainstreaming gender within poverty reduction work suggest either arguing a case r inclusion on the grounds that gender identity entails poverty, or alternatively arguing that poverty is gendered, in that women and men often experience poverty in distinctive ways. The problem with the former, which has been the predominant approach, is that being a woman does not necessarily lead to poverty as defined for a universal (read: male) subject, as we have outlined above. The problem with the latter is that there is considerable resistance to a gender mainstreaming which demands a transformation in ideas of what it is to be poor, although I remain convinced that this is important work.(7)

Mainstreaming has brought with it concern that the inclusion of gender in poverty debates has been on terms which diminish its analytical power. Critics point to the yawning gulf which separates the framing of gender and need in poverty discourses from feminist understandings of the complex and contradictory ways in which poverty is gendered. Mainstreaming also entails the danger of instrumentalism in terms of gender inclusion, where women are frequently seen as the means to other development ends, such as lowered fertility, environmental conservation and the well-being of children.(8) Some observers argue, however, that instrumentalism may be a misplaced concern.(9)

What these discussions suggest is the importance of understanding the politics of how needs are constructed, recognized, depoliticized and repoliticized over time. Why and how are women seen as needy, poor and deserving? Who establishes authoritative definitions of women's needs and how do they do this? What are they perceived to need, and how are these needs to be addressed? Fraser suggests three moments to the politics of needs: first, the struggle to establish or deny the political status of a need; second, the struggle over the right to define and specify a need, and thus implicitly its management; and third, the struggle over the satisfaction of, and provision for, the need.(10)

Currently, there is a generally recognized problem of women and poverty in development discourses, and an enclaving of women's needs within dominant "poverty" discourses through arguments for, and institutionalization of, mainstreaming, while non-hegemonic groups (e.g., feminist academics and women's movements in the South) struggle for the power to be part of the definition of those needs. My concern is for the relabeling of subordination as poverty. Another discursively enclaving process is the persistent elision of "gender" with "women," which thereby denies that men have gender identities, and presents them as engendered and unmarked--the universal subject, in comparison to women as the "special case."

The following sections comment on the pitfalls and promises of these discourses, from a gender perspective, and point out the ground on which to build more satisfactory understandings of gender and well-being.


Private consumption poverty (PCP) refers to a point at which private consumption per person falls below a "poverty line" of income. Michael Lipton contends that this is the most useful definition of poverty "for the purpose of understanding material deprivation in developing countries and evaluating progress and policies against it," and argues that other indicators, such as life expectancy, deserve separate measurement and analysis rather than amalgamation within PCP.(11) We might add that poverty lines, useful as they are for understanding change over time, say little about gendered disadvantage.

In practice, most income data are collected on a household basis and do not admit a gender breakdown; therefore, decomposition into per capita terms simply assumes equality of access within households. Even if data on individual incomes existed, they would be difficult to interpret comparatively. In terms of food and money, it is difficult to compare the poverty of men and women because of the complexity of intra-household transfers. Household income tells us nothing about the intra-household pattern of access and control. Yet the alternative of "individual" incomes poses data availability problems as well as interpretation problems, since spouses have both shared and individual income streams, which are derived from collective and individual activities, and accessed for both joint and individual consumption.

Examining other conventional poverty indicators such as land holdings and assets reveals further evidence of the problems of understanding gendered disadvantage through the lens of existing poverty definitions, conceptualized as a material lack. Women generally lack land control, but does this have the same meanings and implications as it does for men? Material deprivation does not connect to ill-being in the same ways for women and men, at least because of intra-household transactions and the character of kinship.

Poverty lines may not be able to penetrate the household, but it is theoretically possible to generalize about types of households in order to depict the extent of poverty among women according to the assumptions of statements such as the following:
 There is a wide consensus that the incidence of poverty among women is very
 high and that they account for a great proportion of the poor

This statement is based on research by Idriss Jazairy et al., in which the estimation of women living below the poverty line is made on the basis of the number of women assumed to live in poor households, plus all female-headed households.(13) However, this is problematic for a number of reasons. One is that female-headed households cannot be assumed to be poor; indeed, many studies have shown that this is not the case. Female-headed households can be acutely poor, in the case of elderly widows for example, but they can also be de facto female-headed households in receipt of remittances from absent male members, or other forms of support. The assumptions about female-headed households are an example of neglect of differences between women--a cornerstone of gender analysis--which leads to flawed generalizations about women and poverty. In place of the concept of the feminization of poverty, I argue for a recognition of the gendered character of all poverty.

It would be inaccurate, however, to see this as a problem confined to the workings of households (though this is a major element), because the ways in which women and men relate to material resources are grounded in their different social relations and subject positions in communities and societies at large. The idea of poverty as a condition, and the expectation that all resources have the same meanings to all subjects, conceived of as atomized and implicitly male, needs to be replaced by a more relational concept of poverty which also admits gendered subjects.


Amartya Sen's formulation of entitlements theory(14) was an important conceptual advancement for considering gendered poverty, because it shifted the unit of analysis from households to individuals and from a focus on resources themselves to command over commodities. While original entitlement theory emphasized the legal basis of command over commodities, the idea of extended entitlements, covering the more informal rights to command over commodities, which are embodied in norms and social notions of legitimacy, was elaborated explicitly to deal with the feminist criticism that the law has little direct influence on the intra-household distribution of food.

Charles Gore argues that this amendment does not go far enough because Sen continues to separate a legalistic notion of rules of entitlement outside the household from moral rules of entitlement within it.(15) Thus Sen, according to Gore, fails to respond adequately to feminist analyses which show how the interplay of legal and moral rules about command over commodities, inside and outside households, create the actual rules of entitlement. Feminist analyses show that "legal rights ... authorize particular patterns of power relationships within the household,"(16) such as those invested in household heads. And just as legal rules are significant within households, so too are moral rules outside of households. Indeed the law, in all its operation, is social practice marked by gender ideologies, which pattern forms of discretion and produce gaps between legal principles and practice. Sen's rather determinist approach to legal and moral rules, which are presented as unchanging and accepted by actors, needs to be dynamized with greater attention to how rules are contested and reformulated ("structurated" in Giddens's term) over time. Gender analytical approaches have rethought women as active and knowing subjects rather than as victims or objects of pity.

This illustrates how thinking about gender offers a stronger conceptualization of rules of entitlement for all the poor, not just women, because it insists on examining the connectedness between the domestic and the public, between the well-being of the household and its members, and it conceives of women and men as social actors making their worlds, albeit within structures of constraint.

In his capabilities approach to well-being, Sen argues that commodities cannot be taken to indicate well-being because possessions do not guarantee a state of being; what matters is not the commodity but what it allows a person to be or do. Sen distinguishes between "capabilities" as the potential for beings and doings, and "functionings" as the achievement of those beings and doings. Functionings are thus the achievement of, say, a state of adequate nutrition, which can occur, but does not always, when a person has access to a commodity, e.g., food. Similarly, the question of women's land rights is not one of mere possession, but of what such possession allows them to be and do. It cannot be assumed that if land is good for poor men, it is also good for poor women in the same ways, since the conversion of commodities to functionings differs for men and women. It depends on, for example, access to labor to cultivate land, physical proximity to land and social acceptability of farm laboring or management by women. This is a helpful move away from private consumption poverty concepts such as income measures, because looking at gender differentials in functionings overcomes some of the problems with commodities outlined above.

Gender analyses have been receptive to the capabilities and functionings approach, although criticisms have been expressed about its individualism. Looking at individuals is preferable to households, but the relational character of poverty is seen as underacknowledged in capabilities thinking. There has also been criticism of Martha Nussbaum's elaborations of gender and capabilities, which use functionings to describe what constitutes a human life by ranking "some capabilities and functions as more central, more at the core of human life, than others"--an approach she defends as "frankly universalist" and "essentialist."(17) Her purpose in doing this is to find a conception of the human being that allows for "the assessment of the quality of life in a developing country, with special attention to the lives of women,"(18) thereby responding to Catherine MacKinnon's famous statement that "being a woman is not yet a way of being a human being." Critics have objected to the universalism of her approach as well as the items on her list and have argued for locally specified understandings of well-being.

Poverty discourses, in recent years, have become interested in poverty as a subjective experience(19) and in the importance of self-definitions of poverty by the poor. Yet I would argue that feminist thought has considered these issues in far greater depth than mainstream poverty debates, recognizing the tension between, on the one hand, the central importance of women's voices, on ethical, political and methodological grounds, and, on the other, the problem of the cultural mystification of gender, by women as much as men, in local specifications of well-being. Feminists have interrogated both the politics of speech(20) and the question of how gender interests are experienced, recognized and represented.(21) What is significant here for poverty analysts is a set of arguments about functionings in the context of universalism/relativism and subjective/objective definitions of poverty, which are not specific to women, and deserve wider mainstream consideration. Mainstreaming gender into poverty discourses should mean taking feminist thought seriously rather than simply labeling women of the South, for example, as poor.

Apart from conceptual responses, there has been a major attempt to apply the capabilities approach by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) through the Human Development Reports (HDR), which provide ranked well-being indices for international comparison, based on three functionings: having a long life (based on life expectancy at birth); being educated (based on education indicators); and having enough resources (based on income indicators). Since 1995, UNDP has also produced the Gender-related Development Index (GDI) which discounts the Human Development Index (HDI) for gender inequality. These tell us about levels of human development in relation to gender differentials in well-being and do not assess gender differentials alone. When Ruhi Saith and Barbara Harris-White use HDR data to rank countries by gender inequality, they end up with very different orderings from GDP, HDI and GDI rankings, in which levels of gender inequality are not clearly associated with income groups.(22) In their functionings approach to gender differentials, they analyze three core functionings--being healthy, being educated and being nourished--which only the most extreme relativist might argue are ethnocentric, and show that gender and poverty have a very complex relationship. Overall, they suggest that gender differentials in these functionings are marked but locally variable and difficult to extrapolate from, and that, "except for the gap in education, it is not evident that gender inequality is universally higher among lower income groups."(23) The specificity of patterns of gender disadvantage, the difficulty of categorizing "women" and the existence of gender bias across all income groups rather than concentrated among the income poor are good reasons why considering gender bias against women as a poverty issue is quite inappropriate.

The capabilities and functionings approach makes a number of conceptual advances, offering a fuller picture of gender-based disadvantage than the income and calorie indicators of private consumption approaches to poverty. However, indicators of individual well-being reveal a complex picture in which it is far from clear that women are, by conventional indicators, universally "poorer" than men.(24) At the same time, such indicators arguably fail to capture how gender identity is connected to forms of ill-being for (some) women. The clearest and most general arena of female disadvantage is in literacy and education, where gender gaps are large in many countries. Other indicators are fairly ambiguous and fail to capture the core of gender disadvantage.

For example, indicators of nutritional status have been shown to display complex patterns in which the girl child is often disadvantaged in South Asian countries but adult women less obviously so, at least in calorie terms.(25) Many of these problems stem from the fact that "women" are not a homogeneous social category. In food adequacy issues age is a vital element by which gender must be disaggregated to be meaningful.

Crude life expectancy figures favor women in most countries, but are a misleading indicator because they mask age-specific mortality differentials and because the biological potential for long life seems to vary between men and women. The HDR is adjusted to assume a five year "natural" advantage for women against which figures are discounted. This assumes that where there is no gender bias women will live five years longer than men, with the West being taken as an example. However, it could be argued that the greater longevity of women in the West is not entirely natural, since much excess male mortality derives from "lifestyle" causes.(26) For example, there are more male deaths related to smoking and alcohol consumption, which could be seen as gendered health risks in that they are entailed in the ways in which Western societies "construct" what it is to be a man. The boundaries between the biological and the social are never clear-cut. It would be unfortunate if the notion of a naturally shorter life for men led to a neglect of excess male mortality in certain age groups among poor men. What I am arguing here is that men can experience gendered vulnerabilities which are revealed through considering their gendered roles and relations, and that these insights should command attention in transforming poverty analysis toward a recognition of gender, beyond a patronizing pity for women.

Ultimately, approaches which focus on women as a single category and on outcomes rather than processes are very blunt tools for describing gendered disadvantage, since how capabilities become functionings for women and men depends both on other social identities (e.g., age and ethnicity) and on social processes such as intra-household relations. For women and men, commodities become capabilities and functionings in ways that are enabled and constrained by their household relations. For example, a woman may have a certain education which equips her for employment, yet the achievement of the functioning of "being employed" may be prevented by a husband or by a mother-in-law who objects to her working. Or a man may achieve a functioning of "being healthy" on the basis of caring labor provided by a wife. This is not to suggest that gender relations always enable male functionings and always constrain female functionings. Jocelyn Kynch and Mike MacGuire's research in Palanpur found that poor men in their reproductive years were failing to achieve the functioning of "being adequately nourished" because of the burden of gendered provisioning roles.(27)

Functionings have been applied conceptually and practically in useful ways for important purposes, but leave a need for a finer grained and more dynamic view of gender and disadvantage. Another strand of Sen's work looks at gendered processes and relations; his cooperative-conflicts model of intra-household relations offers a clearer understanding of how well-being outcomes for individual men and women reflect intra-household negotiations within specific extra-household contexts.(28) Although feminist critiques of assumptions of how households allocate resources have been important in pushing definitions and measurements of poverty from those based on households toward those based on individuals, treating women and men as free-floating individuals within a household is also problematic, since women and men are (differently) embedded in the dense social relations of marriage, parenting and kinship. We need ways of thinking about people which recognize this tension.


The starting point here is the concept of a household in which individual members negotiate their personal interests with a mutual desire to cooperate.
 [M]embers of a household face two different problems simultaneously, one
 involving cooperation (adding to total availabilities) and the other
 conflict (dividing the total availabilities among the members of the
 household). Social arrangement regarding who does what, who gets to consume
 what, and who takes what decisions can be seen as responses to this
 combined problem of cooperation and conflict.(29)

Where a conflict of interests exists, individuals bargain from different positions of power which are related to the "breakdown position" of each party In the case of marriage, the common "breakdown" is a divorce. The breakdown position of each partner--his/her ability to recover from divorce and survive outside of marriage at an equivalent standard of living and cultural acceptance--will influence the power of each in bargaining for his/her interests. Sen criticizes standard bargaining models as inappropriate because they assume that all members have a clear sense of self-interest, when in fact women in particular cultural settings may have a tendency to conceptualize their well-being in terms of the well-being of spouses, children and family. Sen therefore offers a modified bargaining model in which the direction of bargained outcomes is influenced by the individual's "breakdown well-being response" (his/her position in the event of cooperative failure), their "perceived interest response" (his/her sense of self-interest and value attached to personal well-being) and "perceived contribution response" (his/her perception, and that of others, of their individual contribution to the "overall opulence of the group").(30)

The advantages of this model are clear. It presents the societal context of gender bias as setting the terms of intra-household bargaining, since the reality of divorce for men and women is differentiated in legal, cultural and economic ways--in the loss of rights to children, loss of access to land, loss of social respectability and so on. To exit from a marriage is more costly for women than for men in most cultures, a fact which weakens them in intra-household bargaining over, for example, division of labor, consumption rights, freedom of movement and freedom from domestic violence. A second advantage of the model is that it differentiates between the objective contribution to household livelihoods by women and men and their perceived contributions. This allows it to recognize gender ideologies which can invisibilize, de-skill and devalue women's work in the eyes of both men and women. Such ideologies further weaken the position of women by undermining, for example, the importance of domestic labor, and in turn, the power of a threat to withhold domestic labor contributions.

From a poverty perspective, the cooperative conflict model suggests how capabilities are, or are not, converted to functionings. More significantly; it suggests the possibility that women may face everyday lives in which, despite adequate elementary functionings, their work is devalued, they face implicit threats of physical violence, their physical mobility is curtailed and their exit options are extremely limited. This is not to imply that women are inevitably weak and victimized, for there is a great deal of evidence for effective struggles against subordination, but simply to suggest that poverty is as much a cultural as a material phenomenon in even the poorest societies, pace Fraser, discussed in the introduction.

Bargaining models have their roots in how economists came to understand the negotiations between labor unions and management in industrial disputes, and some elements of this legacy seem uncomfortable. To characterize breakdown as divorce is to imply that the threat of breakup is invoked, or at least implicit, in every disagreement, a situation which is characteristic of only a subset of marriages at any one time. Most are partners in a union which is not placed in question on a daily basis but part of a long-term commitment, in which there are identity issues involved (beyond that of an employment relation), sets of kin as well as spouses, the cement of children and the binds of location. All of these influence the relative breakdown positions of wives and husbands, but they also create ties that bind.

The model offers a metaphor for understanding the theoretical weakness of women within marriage, but it can imply an assumption that the social reality confronting actors is largely given by dominant norms. However, there are always multiple sets of "norms" which can be drawn upon as discursive resources to argue for a particular interpretation of events, or justification for a particular action, and this plurality is the ground for the resistance and agency which constantly reformulates the "rules" of social life. For example, the devaluation of women's work may be a dominant view, but it is contested by women through counter-discourses of value. The weakness of an actor within a cooperative venture such as a household livelihood is not easily predictable from representations of cultural norms and economic relations, since so much depends on specific opportunities for creative struggle.

Despite these limitations, the cooperative conflict model does suggest a gendered process producing well-being outcomes. It focuses on social relations, does not necessarily conflate women and gender, and connects the domestic with the societal, the material with the cultural.


Considering the gendered nature of poverty sharpens poverty discourses by revealing the limited conceptual range of some ideas and thus the limits of their appropriate usage. It also enriches poverty debates by suggesting how the lived experience of poverty is conditioned by gender identities for both women and men. In this article I have argued that the inclusion of gender perspectives in poverty analysis and policy should take place on terms which recognize the analytical strengths of gender analysis, in particular the separation of women and gender, the integration of the domestic and the societal, the relational focus of gender and the positive meanings of gender identity.

(1) Nancy Fraser, Justice Interruptus: Critical Reflections on the Post-Socialist Condition (New York and London: Routledge, 1997) p. 2.

(2) Martha Nussbaum, "Human Capabilities, Female Human Beings," in Martha Nussbaum and Jonathan Glover, eds., Women, Culture and Development: A Study of Human Capabilities (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995) pp. 61-104; and Marianne Marchand and Jane Parpart, eds., Feminism, Postmodernism, Development (London: Routledge, 1995).

(3) Fraser (1997) p. 5.

(4) Cecile Jackson, "Rescuing Gender from the Poverty Trap," World Development, 24, no. 3 (1996) pp. 489-504.

(5) One of the enduring problems of gender analysis is how to speak about "women." It has significance here since it is precisely because women are not a single social category that many statements on women and poverty are so misleading. My usage of "women" here is not intended to universalize, but rather is a short hand for "some women in particular contexts."

(6) Shahra Razavi and Carol Miller, "Gender Mainstreaming: A Study of the Efforts by the UNDP, the World Bank and the ILO to Institutionalise Gender Issues," UNRISD Occasional Paper 4 (Geneva, 1995).

(7) Shahra Razavi, "Fitting Gender into Development Institutions," World Development, 25, no. 7 (1997a) pp. 1111-1125.

(8) Jackson (1996) pp. 489-504 and Anne Marie Goetz "From Feminist Knowledge to Data for Development: The Bureaucratic Management of Information on Women and Development," IDS Bulletin, 25, no. 2 (1994) pp. 27-36.

(9) Razavi (1997a).

(10) Nancy Fraser, Unruly Practices: Power, Discourse and Gender in Contemporary Social Theory (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1989) p. 164.

(11) (Michael Lipton, "Editorial: Poverty--are there holes in the consensus?" World) Development, 25, no. 7 (1997) p. 1004.

(12) International Labour Organisation, "Gender, Poverty and Employment: Turning Capabilities into Entitlements" (Geneva: ILO, 1995) p. 5.

(13) Idriss Jazairy, Mohiuddin Alamgir and Theresa Panuccio, The State of World Rural Poverty: An Inquiry into its Causes and Consequences (London: Intermediate Technology Publications, 1992) p. 274.

(14) According to Des Gasper, "Entitlements analysis: relating concepts and contexts," Development and Change, 24 (1993) pp. 679-718, entitlements theory has generated a wide and varied commentary and usage. See also Jean Dreze and Amartya Sen, Hunger and Public Action (Oxford: Claredon, 1989). They define entitlements as "the set of alternative bundles of commodities over which a person can establish ... command" (Dreze and Sen, p. 9).

(15) Charles Gore, "Entitlement Relations and `Unruly' Social Practices: A Comment on the Work of Amartya Sen," Journal of Development Studies, 29, no. 3 (1993) pp. 429-460.

(16) ibid., p. 444.

(17) Nussbaum, p. 63.

(18) ibid., pp. 86-87.

(19) Tony Beck, The Experience of Poverty: Fighting for Respect and Resources in Village India (London: Intermediate Technology Publications, 1994).

(20) Edwin Ardener, "Belief and the Problem of Women," in Shirley Ardener, ed., Perceiving Women (London: Malaby Press, 1975) pp. 1-15; and Gayatri Spivak, "Can the Subaltern Speak? Speculation on Widow Sacrifice," Wedge, 7/8 (Winter 1985) pp. 120-130.

(21) Maxine Molyneux, "Mobilisation Without Emancipation? Women's Interests, the State and Revolution in Nicaragua," Feminist Studies (1985) p. 11; Kathleen Jones and Anna Jonasdottir, eds., The Political Interests of Gender (London: Sage, 1988); Deniz Kandiyoti, "Bargaining with Patriarchy," Gender and Society, 2, no. 3 (1988) pp. 274-290; and Katherine Fierlbeck, "Getting representation right for women in development: accountability and the articulation of women's interests," IDS Bulletin, 26, no. 3 (1995) pp. 23-30.

(22) Ruhi Saith and Barbara Harris-White, "An Analysis of the Gender Sensitivity of Conventional Well-Being Indicators," Paper to EURISD/UNDP/CDS Workshop on Gender, Poverty and Well-Being: Indicators and Strategies (Trivandrum, Kerala, 24-27 November 1997).

(23) ibid., p. 55.

(24) Shahra Razavi, "From Rags to Riches: Looking at Poverty from a Gender Perspective," IDS Bulletin, 28, no. 3 (1997b) pp. 49-62.

(25) Barbara Harriss, "The Intrafamily Distribution of Hunger in South Asia," in Jean Dreze and Amartya Sen, eds., The Political Economy of Hunger, 1: Entitlement and Well-Being (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990) pp. 351-424; Peter Svedberg, "Undernutrition in Sub-Saharan Africa: Is There a Gender Bias?" Journal of Development Studies, 26, no. 3 (1991) pp. 469-486; Ruhi Saith and Barbara Harriss-White, "An Analysis of the Gender Sensitivity of Conventional Well-Being Indicators," Paper to EURISD/UNDP/CDS Workshop on Gender, Poverty and Well-Being: Indicators and Strategies (Trivandrum, Kerala, 24-27 November 1997).

(26) Ingrid-Waldron, "Contributions of Changing Gender Differences in Behavior and Social Roles to Changing Gender Differences in Mortality," in Donald Sabo and David Frederick Gordon, eds., Men's Health and Illness: Gender Power and the Body (California: Sage, 1995).

(27) Jocelyn Kynch and Mike MacGuire, "Food and Human Growth in Palanpur," The Development Economics Research Programme no. 57 (London: London School of Economics, Suntory-Toyota International Centre for Economics and Related Disciplines, 1994).

(28) Amartya Sen, "Gender and Cooperative Conflicts," in Irene Tinker, ed., Persistent Inequalities: Women and World Development (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990) pp. 123-149.

(29) ibid., p. 129.

(30) ibid., p. 136.
COPYRIGHT 1998 Columbia University School of International Public Affairs
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 1998 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Jackson, Cecile
Publication:Journal of International Affairs
Date:Sep 22, 1998
Previous Article:Poverty Alleviation: Is Economics Any Help? Lessons from the Grameen Bank Experience.
Next Article:The Politics of Marginalization: Poverty and the Rights of the Indigenous People in Mexico.

Terms of use | Copyright © 2017 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters