Venkatesh 1
Mahima Venkatesh
Dr. Norwood
AFST 300H Final Exam
Question 1
The main theoretical perspectives on women, gender in/and development deal with the
three main theories linking population to development and the five feminist approaches
(Professor Norwood Lecture 11/16/2011). These perspectives help to shape academic and
applied work (Visvanathan 1997: 17). The three main theories linking population to development
are Population growth promotes economic development, population growth causes poverty, and
population size has no specific effect on development. The five feminist approaches that
integrate women to population and development include Women in development (WID), Women
and development (WAD), Gender and development (GAD), women, environment and
development (WED) and third world women and development (empowerment model) (Professor
Norwood Lecture 11/16/2011). It is important to understand these theories and then apply the
theories to practical applications.
The first three main theories link population to development. In the first theory, it is
believed that population growth promotes economic development. One supporter of this theory is
Sussmilch. He argued that the government should promote population growth, more marriages at
an earlier age and discouraged the natural contraceptive of breast-feeding (Professor Norwood
Lecture 11/16/2011). Hartmann also discusses that population is related to economic
development since children are a source of income for families and are a source of insurance for
the family (Hartmann 1995:3)
In the second theory it is stated that population growth causes poverty. One supporter of
this theory was Townsend who was an Eugenist. His view on population control was that the
number of poor people should be controlled and that poverty laws should be made stiffer and
should encourage motivation (Professor Norwood Lecture 11/16/2011). His views were opposite
from Sussmilch since he advocated postponing marriage (Professor Norwood Lecture
11/16/2011). Another supporter of this theory was Malthus. His views were that there was a link
between population and poverty (Professor Norwood Lecture 11/16/2011). He stated that the
result of population growth was food shortage (Correa 1). He also advocated for preventative
checks to control growth through disaster, disease, and reduced fertility levels (Professor
Venkatesh 2
Norwood Lecture 11/16/2011). Hartmann refers to these preventative checks as the superiority
complex of the westerners (Hartmann 1995:3). Westerners think that by procreating, the poor are
creating their own poverty (Hartmann 1995:1).
The last theory is that population has no specific effect on development. This theory,
promoted by Marx and Engels, states that poverty level and economic development are not
hindered by population growth (Professor Norwood Lecture 11/16/2011). However, economic
development is due to imperialist policies and unjust economic policies that favor
commercialism and the elite (Professor Norwood Lecture 11/16/2011). The examples given in
the section “Who is Destroying the Forest” by Hartmann shows that sometimes environmental
degradation in poorer countries is due to commercialism, government policy, and the elite.
Engels also states that Malthus’s theories are not supported by proper evidence since population
growth also contributes to labor force (Professor Norwood Lecture 11/16/2011).
The next set of important theories are the feminist approached of women, gender,
population and development. In the early stages of the feminist theory during the 50’s and 60’s
the status of women and children was given little importance (Professor Norwood Lecture
11/16/2011). However, when women started demanding rights to self-autonomy by voting,
access to higher education, reproductive rights and work at equal pay, they gained more
importance and visibility (Professor Norwood Lecture 11/16/2011). The first theory is Women in
development (WID). This theory is the most prominent and the most recognized theory. The
supporters of this theory worked to improve the status of women as producers of capital
(Professor Norwood Lecture 11/16/2011). It was thought that my improving the status of
women, economic, national and social development would improve (Professor Norwood Lecture
11/16/2011). The theory is grounded in modernization theory and focused on the productive
aspects instead of the reproductive aspects (Visvanathan 1997:19). WID advocates are working
to connect women’s priorities to national and global issues (Visvanathan 1997: 41). Economic
independence for women is thought to be the key to free women from male dominance
(Visvanathan 1997:40).
The second theory is Women and development (WAD). This theory pulls from
dependency theory and states that women play a subordinate role in the development process
(Professor Norwood Lecture 11/16/2011). Supporters of this theory place an importance of
women in the economic system but state that women play a role mainly in unpaid labor and
Venkatesh 3
exploitable labor (Professor Norwood Lecture 11/16/2011). Women’s roles in production are
considered to be important as well as in the development of equality of men and women
(Visvanathan 1997:18). The ultimate goal for the supporters of this theory is the elimination of
class and sex hierarchies (Visvanathan 1997: 50).
The third theory is Gender and development (GAD). This theory represents multiple
feminist viewpoints and draws from the advantages of WID and WAD while rejecting their
limitations (Professor Norwood Lecture 11/16/2011). There is more of an emphasis on gender
relations in the workplace and the reproductive sphere (Professor Norwood Lecture 11/16/2011).
Men are encouraged to be potential supporters of women (Professor Norwood Lecture
11/16/2011). GAD theory is influenced by socialist feminist thinking and views all aspects of a
women’s life by questioning assigned gender roles (Visvanathan 1997:18). This theory views
women as agents of change and tries to move women into the public sphere (Visvanathan
1997:19). Economic and political self-reliance is encouraged as well as restructuring the balance
between men and women (Visvanathan 1997:54).
The fourth theory is Women, environment and development (WED). This reflects on the
concerns women’s issues and development and how it related to the environmental crisis
(Professor Norwood Lecture 11/16/2011). This feminist view of the situation draws parallels
between male control over nature and over women (Visvanathan 1997: 24). Many of these
feminists are known as ecofeminists and relate women empowerment with the ecological health
of the planet and progressive social movement (Visvanathan 1997: 25).
The final theory is third world women and development. This theory focuses on the
importance of the voices of women and the comparision of western feminists to third world
feminists (Professor Norwood Lecture 11/16/2011).
These theories are all interconnected and are applied in real world applications to
understand feminist movements and how women impact population, gender relations, and
development.
Venkatesh 4
Mahima Venkatesh
Dr. Norwood
AFST 300H Final Exam
Question 4
Environmentalists have shown that humans are slowly destroying their planet. Through
pollution and overuse of resources, the degradation of the planet only seems to be getting worse.
One popular view of the causes of this environmental degradation is from the traditional
Malthusian warnings about the relationship between population, women, and the environment.
These warnings emphasize that there are “reasons for worry about the long term effects of
population growth on the environment” (Furedi 1997:145). However, in his writings, Furedi
examines this claim and determines if there is an actual link between population growth and the
environment. Hartmann also discusses the link between population and the environment by
examining the causes of the environmental crisis. This discussion is furthered by the Women,
Environment, and Development (WED) theoretical perspective on development studies as
examined in the “Women, Gender and Development Reader”. In this theoretical perspective,
there are connections drawn to ecofeminism by Braidotti as well as sustainable development.
Finally, Hartmann assesses the validity of connecting population growth to the empowerment of
women. The examination of the claim of the link between population growth and environment,
discussion of the theoretical perspective of WED, and women’s empowerment and ecofeminism
all play a role in how environment is related to population issues and women.
The Malthusian warnings, based on the relationship between population and the
environment, stem from the perceived impact that the total number of people on the planet have
on the earth’s life-supporting resources (Furedi 1997:144). Furthermore, there is evidence that
human activity has eroded the soil, overgrazed the farmlands, led to desertification, dwindled the
number of several species of animals, led to deforestation, polluted the air and depleted the
ozone(Furedi 1997:144). These concerns were what lead to the shift in the rationale for
population control in the 1990s from economic development to environmental balance. Furedi
states that the basis for the environment and population connection comes from the long standing
argument about the availability of resources (Furedi 1997:146). Malthus stated that it was
impossible for food production to keep up with population growth. Both Furedi and Hartmann
dispute this claim by Malthus. Furedi cites that Malthus did not foresee technological
Venkatesh 5
innovations that allow for more food production (Furedi 1997:147). Hartmann also discusses that
Malthus underestimated the capacity of the earth to feed and clothe a growing population
(Hartmann 1995:15). She also states that there were numerous improvements in living standards
and social changes that helped support the population (Hartmann 1995:15). Agricultural
productivity has also helped sustain the population. However, the focus on cash crops versus
food sources and the problem with the appropriate distribution of the food has lead to food
shortages (Hartmann 1995:18). One example of this is that the average Central American eats
less beef than the average U.S. housecat (Hartmann 1995: 26). When too small of a percentage
of the population monopolizes food and other environmental resources, this can lead people to
think that there is an environmental crisis. This is certainly true with fossil fuel and water
resources. There is a great disparity since the shortage of the resources is not due to population
growth but rather the consumption patterns (Hartmann 1995:21). The examples given in the
section “Who is Destroying the Forest” by Hartmann shows that sometimes environmental
degradation in poorer countries is due to commercialism, government policy, and the elite. Both
Furedi and Hartmann agree that the government needs to change bad agricultural and economic
policies, promote local farmers and resources, and better distribute resources and land (Furedi
1997:149).
Ehrlich, an environmental activist, tried to connect the environmental impact to the
factors relating population. Hartmann discusses the Ehrlich equation I=PAT, or Impact=
Population multiplied by Affluence multiplied by Technology (Hartman 1995: 23). However,
there are several major problems with Ehlrich’s equation and his view that population control is
the only method to solve the impact on the Earth. The equation leaves out social, economic, and
political power and relations. Also, it doesn’t consider that industrialized nations consume the
greatest percent of energy of resources with a smaller amount of population (Hartman 1995: 24).
This is because the “P” in the equation lumps together all people, disregarding gender, race, and
class as well population distribution (Hartman 1995: 25). The “A” part of the equation is also
flawed since it fails to consider that a greater standard of living is sometimes a negative factor
since these societies face overwork, lower amount of satisfaction, which lead to
overconsumption and discontent, and in turn is bad for the environment (Hartman 1995: 26).
Finally, the “T” part of the equation fails to account for the fact that modern technology can be
detrimental. Some argue that using modern technology to raise third world living standards will
Venkatesh 6
degrade the environment (Hartman 1995: 27). Critics argue that technology should be improved
to increase availability and be more environmentally friendly.
Furedi states that many of the conclusions and equations between environment and
population are premature and that there is a lack of supporting data (Furedi 1997:153). Many of
the claims are based on intuition rather than hard evidence (Furedi 1997:153). He concludes that
the answer to the environmental crisis lies with more innovative forms of social organization and
technology rather than population control.
While Furedi and Hartmann agree that there is an inconclusive link between population
and the environment, there is another emerging theory that deals with Women, Environment, and
Development (WED). This feminist view of the situation draws parallels between male control
over nature and over women (Visvanathan 1997: 24). Many of these feminists are known as
ecofeminists and relate women empowerment with the ecological health of the planet and
progressive social movement (Visvanathan 1997: 25). Braidotti uses examples from history to
show the close relationship between women and nature. Women were seen as the culprits of
deforestation due to their need of wood-fuel during the oil crisis in 1973. However the women
actually reduced wood-fuel consumption by introducing wood-saving stoves and initiating largescale afforestation to increase wood supply (Visvanathan 1997: 55). It should be brought to
attention that deforestation due to commercial logging was a bigger issue than the wood used for
domestic fuel consumption (Visvanathan 1997: 55). There are also other examples, such as the
Chipko Movement in India where the local people worked to protect their forests, which
exemplify women’s actions and special role in environmental management (Visvanathan 1997:
55).
Since women are close to nature due to the dependence on nature for subsistence needs,
Braidotti argues that women should become more involved in programs (?) aimed a sustainable
development (Visvanathan 1997: 56). By providing the basic necessities for the family, nurturing
and giving birth to children, sometimes women are considered not only close to nature but they
“are” nature (Visvanathan 1997: 57). The western, patriarchial society tries to dominate women
and nature, which is essentially detrimental to all (Visvanathan 1997: 57). It is encouraged that
women embrace their life-creating and preserving “feminine principle” to develop an alternative
global development model (Visvanathan 1997: 58). As for the environmental crisis related to
nature, author Shiva is quoted by Braidotti. “Shiva propagated the idea that only poor, rural
Venkatesh 7
women bearing the brunt of the environmental and developmental crisis in their daily struggle
for survival, know and have known, how to survive since time immemorial and therefore have
the solutions to the crisis” (Visvanathan 1997: 58). While this ecofeminist view is more
uncommon and doubted by many critics, the view still encourages women to use their resources
to speak out.
Finally, Hartmann states that women are at the center of population, development, and
the environment. She states that by improving women’s status, the development and
environmental issue will become fixed automatically (Visvanathan 1997: 299). She advocated
for empowering women through family planning, education, health-care, and proper
contraception (Visvanathan 1997: 302). She states that this, in alliance with coordinance
development activists and environmentalists, will lead to a more balanced society.
The examples provided show that the claim of the link between population growth and
environment in still not valid. Also it shows that women’s empowerment and ecofeminism both
play a role in how environment relates to population issues and women.