Bottoms Up!
Participatory & Grassroots Development As an Avenue Toward Gender Equality
Since the word “development” was structured in contemporary terms, following the
conclusion of World War II, it has meant many things. Criticism and debate have caused the
ever-changing nature ascribed to development and what it means, what it should mean, and how
it should be exercised. Scholars and academics from many disciplines have voiced their
respective concerns over the implications and consequences of current development practice.
Specifically, gender‟s relationship to development has sparked decades of discourse, with
thoughts and theories that are as consistently changing as the term development itself. Among
the various theories and strategies of rural development concerning the global south, exist two
which, when implemented correctly and together, yield the most effective, non-imperialistic, and
egalitarian results. “Participatory1” development initiatives, executed through small scale
“grassroots2” development, provide the best contemporary model for generating gender equality
through economic development. That‟s not to say that such initiatives are perfect theoretically or
in practice. Rather, the potential for success, in rural communities that seek to eliminate poverty3
and improve their way of life (whatever that may mean to a community) while simultaneously
working to generate gender equality, is greater than the top-down approaches that have
dominated development practice. To begin, an analysis of the progression of development (with
attention on the value judgments surrounding such discourse) is necessary in order to explicate
the problems with other forms of development and position the origins of discourse around
gender and development.
DEVELOPMENT: WHAT IT MEANS
“ONE OF THE many changes that occurred in the early post-World War II period was the „Discovery‟ of
mass poverty in Asia, Africa, and Latin America.” (Escobar 21)
1
Arturo Escobar, author of Encountering Development, outlines the paradigm shift that
Western governments were subject to in regards to foreign affairs following the war. Once the
war was over, a new battle emerged. Some say it was a fight to defeat poverty and others take
what might be a more cynical view: it was a fight over control and dominance over the Third
World. Development, in contemporary terms, began following World War Two in a convention
known as the 1944 Bretton Woods convention. There, the beginnings of organizations such as
the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund4 (IMF) and the General Agreement on Tariffs
and Trade5 were created. After the war, the “developed” countries thought it important to
“develop” the rest of the world. It was thought by those in control of Inter Governmental
Organizations6 (IGOs), such as the IMF and World Bank, that development served the interests
of all people, “developed” and “underdeveloped.” Economic security was tied to the justification
and need for development; Arturo Escobar recalls this popularly held conception, “The destinies
of the rich and poor parts of the world were seen to be closely linked…something had to be done
before levels of instability in the world became intolerable” (22). The “poor parts of the world”
became known as the “Third World” (although this was not its original meaning and stemmed
from a political term “third world7”). The Third World, also known as the “underdeveloped
world,” to which I will refer as “the global south,”8 carried with it strong Eurocentric9 ideas that
were manifested in the policies aimed at those regions under the initiatives of development.
Development actors use the term “modernity10” to explain development ideals that many
academics describe as Eurocentric (believed superiority of “development”: industrialization, high
technology use and urbanization), which has drawn criticism. “For some, this diffusion [ideas of
modernity spread throughout the world] of modernity is interpreted as „development‟ and
„progress‟, while for others it is associated with the eradication of cultural practices, the
2
destruction of natural environments and a decline in the quality of life” (Willis 3). The above
criticism of modernity as explained by Katie Willis, author of Theories and Practices of
Development, is the sort of criticism that leads to further reconstruction and creation of new
development approaches (such as, dependency theory, sustainable development, grassroots
development, participatory development) as a result of relentless discourse (27). That‟s not to
say that these new approaches have completely shed Eurocentric ideals, but the latter two have
come a long way. In addition to new approaches toward development came new ways of
measuring and determining the extent of poverty of the global south and new goals for
development initiatives.
The formation of economic and “quality of life” measures such as Gross National
Product11 (GNP), Human Development Index (HDI)12, Gini coefficient13, and the Human
Poverty Index 14(HDI) (Willis 5-9), have developed in the wake of academic discourse on
development. On the surface these measurement tools can seem reasonable, but a deeper dig
reveals some of the same Eurocentric values inherent in development approaches mentioned
above. To determine the extent of poverty, the results of the measurements are compared
between the global north and global south, perpetuating the same standards of what is and is not
poverty/wealth. It is not my intent to recklessly discredit such measurements, but to point out
their lack of neutrality. In fact, many people (dare I say the majority) in the Global North, and-as a result of globalization--many in the Global South would agree, with the Millennium
Development Goals15 that: “People living on less than one US$1 per day are defined as in
„extreme‟ poverty and less than US$2 per day are in „poverty‟” (Willis, 13-14), without much
needed comparison to what the average daily living expense is in the Global North. These
3
measures are however used by most development actors16, particularly those who operate in topdown development approaches.
Top-down approaches are those that operate under a larger macro-economic approach.
Most are carried out by IGOs, governments, large corporations, investors, and basically any
party that mobilizes large loans or contributions to a country‟s government or development
project, with the belief that the money will be used to improve such things as infrastructure and
create new business ventures. Poverty is intended to be reduced by this top-down approach
because of the “trickle-down” theory that is thought to benefit the poor as well as those betteroff. “During the 1970s the top-down approaches…were increasingly recognized as being limited
in their success at reducing the extent of poverty in large areas of the world” (93). This
recognition led to the “Basic needs” (see ILO categories of Basic needs17) approach which began
the grassroots and participatory approach, yet some still say development reform was
unnecessary.
To some it is arguable that the ideologies inherent in so many development dimensions
(theories, actors, measurements, approaches, etc…) are culturally neutral. Many on the other
hand believe that economic development through scientific and technological advancement, neoliberal government policy, industrialization, and other such directions encouraged by large IGOs
like the World Bank and IMF is culturally imperialistic. Such ambivalence points to issues like
environmental degradation (seen by ecofeminists as not only detrimental to future sustainability,
but also as undermining the relationship between women and the environment as explained later
in the paper) which is caused by many forms of industrialization. Also, pointed to is the loss of
cultural identity and tradition due to occupation changes from rural work to factory work, for
example. Yet another concern is social value assimilation which is caused from integration into
4
the global market as a result of neo-liberal18 government policies. Such policies have been
responsible for collective-centered societies‟ shift toward individualism. For example, Structural
Adjustment Programs (SAPs) are a type of crisis loan from the IMF and World Bank given to
governments that are in economic turmoil and/or in debt. These top-down loans are not without
strings attached, and by accepting the loan, governments must also follow neo-liberal economic
policies. Gender and Development, one particular branch of development debate and discourse,
has undergone its own theoretical and ideological evolution and has become a powerful
influence over development practice, for some of the same reasons development has. Milika
Basu, author of “Feminist Perspectives and Gender Link in Development: the Critical Role in
Women‟s Organizations,” makes this connection: “…if statistics provide any foresight, then the
maddening quest for technological advancement, symbolic of growth and progress, is
systematically marginalising or pushing women to the periphery” (Sec.3).
GENDER AND DEVELOPMENT: WHATS THE BIG DEAL?
Development initiatives began to focus on women in 1970 as a result of a feminist
scholar, Ester Boserup, who shed light on the benefit inequalities between men and women from
development projects. Boserup‟s work was the mere beginning of critical evaluation and
evolution of theory on the subject. This inevitably led to the “Women in Development” (WID)
approach which aimed at fixing the problems pointed out by Boserup by inclusion of women in
economic development. This was adopted by many “top-down” development actors and, to
different degrees, implemented in their projects. As Janet Momsen, an expert in the field with
over forty years of international experience in locations across the globe, points out in her book
Gender and Development, the WID approach was not to last. Criticism confronted its simplistic
nature, which was evident from its failure. Women were not always able to take advantage of
5
industrial and factory occupational opportunity due to an already high work load at home, and
often when women would begin to acquire monetary gains, the result led to household conflict
and drastic shifts in gender roles. More importantly, women were generalized under a superficial
homogenous grouping that seemed to reflect the characteristics of women in the first world,
which saw all women as equally oppressed. In addition, WID‟s simplistic nature was exposed in
relation to other parallels such as ethnicity and class. As a result, Gender and Development
(GAD) then emerged as the leading approach. Gender and Development has represented
different theories, and has never for long been a static approach. Generally speaking it aims to
both provide for women‟s basic needs and to empower them (Momsen 13-14).
Those in support of GAD, mainly structural feminists, emphasize gender over women
because it‟s socially constructed, and gender relations19 and gender roles20 are important factors
in equating and increasing women‟s empowerment21. This umbrella term (GAD) has been used
to incorporate several directions through which gender has been emphasized in development.
One such direction under GAD, Gender and the Environment (GED), taken by an Indian
ecofeminist, Vandana Shiva, has, as Momsen puts it, “…made an essential link between women
and the environment and encouraged environmental programmes to focus on women‟s roles”
(15). This approach argued that industrialization was destroying the environment, which is part
of the lives of many women in rural “underdeveloped” areas. It was also argued that women
have valuable talent and knowledge in relation to their environment that industrialization only
marginalizes. This, in development discourse, has placed value on the knowledge and talent
women have in relation to their environment, and critiqued development projects for not
acknowledging women‟s skills. Another approach under GAD is the “empowerment” approach:
Jo Rowlands (1997) sees empowerment as a broad development process that enables people to gain
self-confidence and self-esteem, so allowing both men and women to actively participate in
development decision-making. The empowerment approach was also linked to the rise of participatory
6
approaches to development and often meant working with women at the community level building
organization skills. (Momsen 14-15)
Both of these approaches, GED and Empowerment, strictly support participatory and grassroots
development. Valuing local knowledge, or Appraisal, as a “way of understanding the local
communities and their understandings of wider processes,” is one of Willis‟s four components of
Participation (103), and the pillar of GED. Empowerment, as Momsen directly states above, is
linked to Participatory and Grassroots development. It is no small connection that Participatory
and Grassroots development are intimately tied with two of the most accepted approaches to
GAD--those of GED and Empowerment. The question now is, are participatory and grassroots
development theories effective empirically? To answer this we must define what “effective”
means and what the criteria and goals are for Gender and Development. But first we need to
examine the implications of following a set of indicators for success; then we can more critically
look at those indicators.
HOW TO MEASURE SUCCESS:
Stepping back for a moment, could it be said that these strategies (Participatory/
Grassroots) are the best form of Gender and Development, leaving no room for improvement?
Bottom-up approaches to development, that incorporate the local people into the process, might
just be the best way to promote gender equality along side economic growth. This brings up the
concern, are gender equality and economic growth, as goals, universal and non-imperialistic?
It must be made clear that no development strategy is without flaw, and all development
theories are based on ideologies that embody some level of what is and is not important. Even
so-called “human rights,” such as freedom and the right to not be physically harmed, are
debated; look at the current debates over democracy and genital mutilation in parts of the Middle
East and Africa. It is also important to understand that the ideas of poverty and wealth are just
7
that, ideas. Escobar, in the second chapter of Encountering Development titled “The
Problematization of Poverty: The Tale of Three Worlds and Development,” writes:
“…Vernacular societies had developed ways of defining and treating poverty that accommodated
visions of community, frugality, and sufficiency” (22). These conceptions are quite different, and
arguably more complete, than the definition and solution to poverty that, as Escobar argues, is a
result of western beliefs and influence as a result of modernization, “Poverty brought into
existence new discourses and practices that shape the reality to which they referred. That the
essential trait of the Third World was its poverty and the solution was economic growth and
development became self-evident, necessary, and universal truths” (24). However, it is a mistake
to believe that any region or community can be sheltered from the influence of outside
(Eurocentric) norms; the influence of globalization cannot be walled off by isolationism as many
nations have begun to realize. Although “development” is ideologically centered on monetary
value, and as discussed, is a value judgment in itself, its norms (of what counts as poverty/
wealth, un/ developed) have penetrated the discourse that constrains and structures development
theory and practice (i.e. Third World, Wealth, GDP, Loans, HDI, etc…). It is therefore
necessary to work within those norms in any analysis of development, not only because of the
seemingly un-deflectable influence such norms have around the world, but also because they are
what have come to centrally define development.
In 2000 the United Nations officially adopted the Millennium Development Goals which
are an encapsulated plan for the larger development initiatives, and not specific to gender.
Malika Basu describes what she calls “vision of social transformation22” put forth by the
women‟s movements of development, and what is useful in an analysis of “effective” gender
sensitive development. While these “visions” are what many, especially westerners and those in
8
the global north, would consider positive, they are not universally valued. It is because of this
conflict with Willis‟s second component to participatory development, “Agenda setting,”
(involvement of the local people from the start of development projects to make dissensions) that
the “visions” don‟t fit snugly with participatory development. Simply put, women of a
particular community may want more rights and empowerment, but have strong cultural or
personal conflicts with the notion of sharing the child-rearing duties (See foot note on Malika‟s
Vision of Social Transformation: Rights and Reproductive Labour). It is then necessary to
follow the “effectiveness” of a participatory or grassroots project in terms of the wants/needs in a
local community, not a top-down dictation from development actors to local communities in the
global south. However, there must be some universal values that GAD represents. Through my
research, the only recurring values/goals of GAD have been the notion of empowerment/agency
(through changing gender roles and relations), alleviation of poverty and domestic violence and
providing for basic needs in a sustainable manor. These goals combined with local
decisions/goals will be the criteria used to examine the effectiveness of participatory/grassroots
development. Those best qualified to report the success of such initiatives are the people subject
to them, not the organizations involved.
PARTICIPITORY & GRASSROOTS DEVELOPMENT: PASS OR FAIL?
Kristina Tiedje in her article, “Gender and Ethnic Identity in Rural Grassroots
Development,” offers personal narratives of individuals who were part of a “gendered model of
participatory development” in an attempt at: “ …tracing the history of this grassroots initiative
[to] explore the characteristics and outcomes of gendered community participation and poverty
alleviation projects as tools for empowerment in terms of challenging cultural stereotypes and
gender inequalities while diminishing aspects of economic marginalization (261).
9
Tiedje examines the effects and processes of two grassroots development projects: The Union of
Peasant Women of Xilitla and the Equality of Xilitla. Both projects are directed at gendered
concerns to eliminate discrimination and promote equality.
Historically the Xilitla movements were a multidimensional approach to grassroots
development that originally did not include much gender sensitive concern. They were started
by a group of nuns in the 1970s, under the leadership of Catholic and Protestant churches, who
worked to raise consciousness about current social problems (oppressive economic, political, and
cultural domination from big land owners) under the nose of that elite ruling class in Huasteca,
Mexico (9). It began as community meetings where the local situation was discussed in terms of
the problems and their solutions. Both men and women were involved in the process of
“liberation theology” education. “For many women this proved to be difficult as the additional
task of community service interfered with their responsibilities as wives and mothers, and stood
in contrast to the gendered division of labor women where women were kept at home”(10). The
gender roles were still strongly cemented in the social fabric of the communities at this time.
Even though initiatives for agricultural “fair pay” in the community were conducted by men and
women, and women played active roles, they still worked under their husbands. It wasn‟t until
the 1990s that women began to operate restaurants (as part of the Xilitla movements) virtually
independent of husbands and direct male influence. While Tiedje asserts, “The creation of a
town-based restaurant entailed major changes in the daily domestic routines of these rural
indigenous women and their families” (12), it isn‟t the case that these women were truly facing
equal opportunity to work at the restaurant. It was often the case that these women would be
forced to strike compromise with their husbands to leave for extended periods of time to work at
the restaurant that was several days trip for many. Still, the agreements for time that the husband
10
was to care for the child while the woman was at the restaurant, were greatly disproportionate,
leaving the traditional household gender duties still largely in the hands of the women.
However, Tiedje‟s article is packed with testimony of women who say they are experiencing
greater equality since the Xilitla union began. Gregoria, one member of the Union (Xilitla)
explains “Before we did not have any skills, nothing really…But finally with our organization
many things changed.” Another--Carmerina--shares her experience, “…before I joined the union,
I felt like a little bird trapped inside a cage. Now with the organization, I feel like a little bird
who was set free from her cage and who can go where ever she wants…” (Tiedje, 13-14).
These testimonies and Tiedje‟s report provide good evidence of the empowerment,
increased agency, and economic development for local women in this region of Mexico. This
case is an excellent example of both participatory and grassroots development. Naturally, the
initiators of this project, a restaurant, were local people and members of a Non-Governmental
Organization (NGO), a church. NGOs were also responsible for providing other forms of
assistance, “The rural and indigenous women of Xilitla started to attend workshops on alternative
medicine and nutrition assisted by NGO facilitators” (11). It was however the desires of the
local people (men and women) to build and run a restaurant. “In December of 1990, cooperative
members invited their wives to a general meeting to brainstorm about gender-specific grassroots
projects and the possibility of opening a town restaurant; 239 attended. Many women stated
initial fear to follow the invitation of their husbands because many had never been outside their
communities” (11), which in less than a year led to the semi-independent “Union of Peasant
Women of Xilitla” and then to the Independent restaurant project.
Although some may criticize the initial control and involvement of the local men in the
Xilitla union, nevertheless it achieved the ends of GAD approaches as I outlined in the
11
proceeding sections, with limited cultural imperialism from other nations and cultures. In a
situation in Bangladesh, grassroots and participatory development were carried out with the
initial intent for gender equality, rather than as a spring-off from plain economic development.
Microcredit loans are a form of grassroots development that has gained popularity among
development theorists. Small loans given to individuals to help them develop higher incomegenerating jobs has had high success. A documentary on these loans titled Credit Where Credit
is Due, directed by Ashley Bruce, covers the testimonies of six women (Jahanara, Bilikis,
Nargis, Minara, Mageda and Shondha) in a small community in Bangladesh. Bangladesh is one
of the overall poorest regions in the world; thankfully the Bangladesh Rural Advancement
Committee (BRAC), set up in the 1970s, has issued small (about 200 dollars a year) loans to
over three million people, almost all of whom are women (CWCD). According to BRAC, they
have seen a 98% successful return rate on these loans. The villagers have weekly meetings in
order to make payments as well as to take pledges. The loans taken by these villagers are used
for things like tools that can help yield higher production in a given trade/labor (keep cows for
milk, nets for fishing etc.). Qualification for these loans is strictly controlled through credit and
savings checks that will determine the amount of loan given. Failure to repay such loans comes
with strict consequences as the narrator explains: “Failure to re-pay could result in being
ostracized from the local group; it apparently rarely happens. BRAC claims that 98% of loan
money is re-paid.” Such loans are not solely to improve economic situations but also to improve
social concerns. “These women‟s enterprises are intended to bring about changes in the maledominated rural society,” the narrator explains. BRAC, like many lending entities in the global
south, has strings attached to their loans. In this case the women who take out the loans must
also take pledges, for example, “We‟ll raise our sons and daughters equally” and “We‟ll fight
12
against polygamy and domestic violence.” Issues such as domestic violence have begun to be
reformed; Mirandha (a local loan recipient) explains, “Sometimes I eat the head, sometimes my
husband does, and sometimes the children. Whatever I give him [husband] he eats.” (The head
of a fish was traditionally regarded as a male portion, representative of the head of the
household.) However, such steps toward gender equality are not echoed throughout the
community. “I have no power, I just listen. Women work hard, what do they do, they just do one
job and come home with a very hot head. We work everywhere around the house, but we can‟t
get angry,” explains Bilikis, another villager whose husband admits to periodically beating her
when he is angry. Despite the lack of complete reform of such social problems, BRAC‟s
grassroots/participatory development approach, by use of micro credit loans, has had success in
areas such as healthcare, child mortality, and monetary advancement. “The introduction of
micro credit schemes has seen a 25% improvement in infant mortality, among those mothers like
Bilikis who have taken out loans,” says the narrator. “I have done so many things with the loan
and I‟m still doing them. I have really benefited from them. I had no house, now we built a
house,” explains Minara. In addition Minara now owns a piece of equipment that she had to rent
before, which enables her to retain the money she spent on rent, and pay back the low interest
loan. “I am watching and through BRAC people are improving their positions with their loans.
Whether people agree or not they are improving their lives. I have improved myself through
BRAC, I believe it,” explains Jahanara, another village member. An interesting concern is
brought up by Nassereen Haq (Women‟s Health Activist); microcredit loans will not help the
poorest of the poor. People struggling to find food need jobs, not micro credit.
Creating success out of such a loan does require some sort of job/ business that can be
improved upon by an increase in capital (human or material). Micro credit cannot therefore help
13
all, but it can help many who are living in poverty. According to Philip Porter and Eric
Sheppard, authors of A World of Difference, micro credit loans (not issued by BRAC but by the
Grameen Bank in Bangladesh) have helped people like Nurjahan who “had never earned more
than $37.50 a year until she was offered a loan by the Gremeen Bank. Five years after the loan,
her annual income is $250...” The Grameen bank was founded by a citizen of Bangladesh
(Muhammad Yusuf) who established the bank to “provide „microcredit‟ loans to the poorest of
the poor,” with “interest rates only as high as are needed to keep the bank solvent” (P&S).
Yusuf‟s bank is owned by the borrowers who “purchase one and only one share in the bank,
together owning 98% of its shares.” With success such as “ninety-eight percent of all loans have
been repaid on time, at 20% interest rates, and 54% of borrowers have raised their incomes
above the poverty line,” it‟s hard to argue such grassroots/participatory projects are not
successfully doing the jobs that top-down development projects could not.
Like BRAC
borrowers, Grameen Bank borrowers are almost entirely female (94%). While this fact alone
does not prove and substantiate the changing of gender roles or the reduction in domestic
violence (although I‟m sure it has), it has no doubt achieved other Gender and Development
goals such as equality of opportunity and empowerment. Now in these communities women like
Shanda, under BRAC‟s microcredit scheme, are filling occupations which were dominated by
males, such as health care providers.
NO CONCLUSIONS! PARTICIPATORY/GRASSROOTS IS FOR THE FUTURE
Value judgments are inherent, it seems, in every gender and development theory offered.
The dictations of what is important in regards to development, and what should be the goals of
development, seem inescapable. Such overarching and universal value judgments are
problematic considering the diversity of culture and environment in the global south that
14
development initiatives are directed at. In order to conduct any sort of development there must
however be goals and ways to measure those goals; the idea is to make those goals and
measurements basic and reflective of the differences in cultures to avoid, as much as possible,
cultural imperialism. Large-scale, top-down approaches to development overlook the differences
between communities, and aside from being largely ineffective, have a reputation of bringing an
entourage of social, economic and environmental problems. Development on a small, localized
scale, when operating through the tenets of participation, and thereby reflecting the values and
desires of the constituents of a community, avoid the large-scale grouping of peoples subject to
non-representative values large-scale development is notorious for. In addition to allowing local
communities to decide what is best for them and allowing them agency in the development
process, small-scale, participatory development also often alleviates other problems
characteristic of large-scale development.
Granted, case studies in Bangladesh and Mexico represent only of a small percentage of
the global south. However, they provide the proof that grassroots and participatory development
initiatives can be effective in meeting largely non-imperialistic reforms outlined by feminist
discourse. These cases have proven that this can all be done while still meeting the goals of
economic development. Perfection in the results of grassroots and participatory development is
still far away, social structures such as gender are hard to uproot, and doing so takes meticulous
care in order to ensure that the process of reform does not undermine the tenets of participation.
Therefore, each community that will undergo gender-sensitive grassroots and participatory
development and wishes to find success will need to bear in mind the evolution and discourse of
development and GAD that has lead to the current successful approaches found in Bangladesh
and Mexico.
15
1
Participatory: Development approach that aims at incorporating local people, interests and knowledge into the
development process. The specifics are laid out by Willis in the form of four different dimensions: “Appraisal: Way
of understanding the local community and their understandings of wider processes, Agenda setting: Involvement of
local community in decisions about development policies; consulted and listened to from the start, not brought in
once policy has been decided upon, Efficiency: Involvement of local community in projects, e.g. building schools,
and Empowerment: Participation leads to greater self-awareness and confidence; contributions to development of
democracy.” (103) Willis also, very importantly, connects grassroots and participatory development.
2
Grassroots: Grassroots development: Also known as bottom-up development, it refers to an approach to
development that is aimed at the poorest people in a particular location, and it involves direct development
initiatives in such communities. The origins of this form of development come from the “basic needs” approach
(see foot note) under Leader ship of the International Labour Organization (ILO) and Robert McNamara while
serving as president of the World Bank. (Willis 93)
3
Poverty: Defined by the UN Millennium Development Goals as: those living on less than $2 us dollars a day, and
more than $1. Those less than 1 are defined as in “extreme poverty”.
4
International Monetary Fund (IMF): “The aim of the IMF is to maintain currency stability and develop world
trade. It does this largely through the provisions of support and advice to countries in difficulty.” (36) This
definition used by Willis is accurate to the official description of the IMF, but many suggest that through loan
programs such as SAP, the agenda of the IMF goes beyond “currency stability” and “develop world trade” because
of the policy requirements attached to such loans (See SAP foot note)
5
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT): “Set up in 1947, the role of GATT was to promote free trade
between its members. Originally consisting of 23 members…” GATT later became what is now the World Trade
Organization (WTO), which is currently facing criticism and protest both in the United States and Abroad in regard
to, but not limited to, the inconsistency and Hypocrisy of its policies.
Colonialism: Willis 18
6
Inter Governmental Organization IGO: Simply, an organization controlled by a coalition of governments
7
third world: “…was invented in 1955 as a way of identifying the „non-aligned movement.‟ It is thus political, not
economic, in origin, and is a product of the Cold War.” (P&S 3)
8
Global south: Refers to many geographic souther locations (with execptios such as australia
9
Eurocentric: “It refers to the assumption that European or Western ideas are the only ideas or approaches that are
important.” (P&S 17)
10
Modernization and Modernity: “The central tenet of theories of modernization is the proposition that all nations
occupy positions on a spectrum running from „traditional‟ societies at one extreme to „modern‟ societies at the other,
and that nations may move to the latter group by adopting the characteristics of „modern‟ societies.” (P&S 82) Or as
Willis describes it, “…„modernity‟ has been used as a term to describe particular forms of economy and society
based on the experiences of Western Europe.” (2)
11
Gross National Product (GNP): “This measures the value of all goods and services claimed by residence of a
particular country regardless of where the production took place. It is, therefore, GDP plus the income accruing
from abroad (such as repatriation of profits) minus the income claimed by people overseas.” (Willis 7)
12
Human Development Index (HDI): UN measure of “three dimensions of development in relation to human wellbeing: a long and healthy life, education and knowledge, and a decent standard of living” (Willis, 7) This measure is
vastly more complex than previous monetary based measurements.
13
Gini Coefficient: Measurement of economic equality between the upper and lower classes. “varies from 0, which
means perfect equality, to 1 which represents perfect inequality.” (Willis, 9)
14
Human Poverty Index (HPI): As defined by Willis the HPI for „developing‟ countries: Long and Healthy life
(probability at birth of not surviving to age 40), Knowledge (adult literacy), and Decent standard of living (access to
water treatment and children under weight)
15
Millennium Development Goals (MGDs): Officially adopted by the United Nations in 2000, but the product of
former UN lead conferences in the 1990‟s. There are eight specific goals: 1 eradicate extreme poverty and hunger; 2
achieve universal primary education; 3 Promote gender equality and empower women; 4 reduce child morality; 5
improve maternal health; 6 combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases; 7 ensure environmental sustainability; 8
develop a global partnership for development.(Willis,1-2)
16
Actors in Development: Those who have an influential (directly or a closely indirect) relationship to development
that effect development, weather locally or not, in some way. Willis describes the actors as “…a range of
16
actors…that very from individual to large scale-scale global organizations” Willis lists the actors, and in this order:
Individual, Household, Community, Government, Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs), Private companies and
Multilateral organizations. (Willis 25) Willis cautions “The scale differences are apparent, but it is important not to
assume that there is an increase in influence as the scale increases.” (26)
17
Basic needs: ILO categories of basic needs: “1 Basics of personal consumption-food, shelter, clothing; 2 access
to essential services – clean water, sanitation, education, transport, healthcare; 3 access to paid employment; 4
qualitative needs – healthy and safe environment, ability to participate in decision – making.” (Willis 93)
18
Neo-liberal economics: Free trade policy that is centered on deregulation of economic issues including trade,
subsidies, currency etc…
19
Gender relations: “The socially constructed form of relations between women and men” (Momsen 2) A more
critical look suggests; “Gender relations are asymmetrical relations of power that are male-biased and disadvantage
women, though different women are subordinated in different ways, and the form of male bias differ from place to
place, are mediated by class and ethnicity and nationality, and change over time (ibid.).” (Basu Sec.11)
20
Gender roles: “The household tasks and types of employment socially assigned to women and men” (Momsen, 2)
21
Empowerment:
22
Visions of social transformation: Basu‟s outline of the fruits of feminist discourse in regard to the goals for
Gender and development, which are: Rights, guaranteeing women equal rights under the law, enforcing these, and
raising women‟s consciousness about their rights. Entitlement, access to and control over productive resources –
land, capital, information, training, technology, the market and so on – and services, like obtaining credit and
becoming members of producers‟ organisations. Investment, eliminating gender gaps in human development – that is, in
education, health and nutrition and support for gender needs such as women‟s health, science and technical training for women
and so on. Voice, ensuring the presence of women‟s voices in decision making but also strengthen the voice of women in
articulating not merely narrow women in development concerns but also their vision of a total development agenda. Poverty,
eliminating poverty and address the special needs of female-headed households. Women shoulder a disproportionate burden of
poverty, in part because of gender inequalities in entitlement, investment and power. Reproductive Labour, pressing for male
sharing of responsibilities and stronger social policies to ensure changes in laws and the provisioning of public and private sector
services which would relieve women‟s reproductive burden. Security, security within the household and as well as outside it.
Empowerment, asserting their own agency to break out of gender subordination. (Basu CH.5)
17
Works Cited
Basu, Malika. “Feminist Perspective‟s and Gender Link in Development: the Critical Role in
Women‟s Organizations” The Ralph Bunche Institute on the United Nations,
2000.
Credit where credit is due Dir. Ashley Bruce, TVE International; BBC Worldwide 2000.
Escobar, Arturo. Encountering Development: The making and Unmaking of the Third World.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995.
Momsen, Janet. “Introduction: Gender is an Development Issue” Gender and Development
New York: Routledge, 2003.
Moser, Annalise “Happy Heterogeneity? Feminism, Development, and the Grassroots Women‟s
Movement in Peru” Feminist Studies Vol.30, Iss.1 (Spring2004), 211-237.
Porter, Philip W., Sheppard, Eric S., A World of Difference: Society, Nature, Development
New York: The Guilford Press, 1998.
Tiedje, Kristina. “Gender and ethnic identity in rural grassroots development: an outlook from
the Huasteca Potosina, Mexico.” Urban Anthropology and Studies of Cultural Systems
and World Economic Development (Fall-Winter 2002), 256-261.
Willis, Kate. Theories and Practice of Development. New York, New York: Routledge, 2005.
18