120 likes | 383 Views
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:
E N D
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=1020&title=gender-vulnerability-social-protection