Content deleted Content added
Rchard2scout (talk | contribs) m Fix lint errors |
m Removed/fixed incorrect author parameter(s) to remove article from Category:CS1 errors: generic name, performed general fixes |
||
Line 63:
Gender mainstreaming mandated by the 1995 Beijing Platform for action integrates gender in all aspects of individuals lives in regards to policy development on gender equality.<ref>World Bank. An Evaluation of World Bank Support, 2002-08: Gender and Development. Washington, D.C.: World Bank, 2010. IEG Study Ser. Web.</ref> The World Bank's Gender Action Plan of 2007-10 is built upon the Bank's gender mainstreaming strategy for gender equality. The Gender Action Plan's objective was advance women's economic empowerment through their participation in land, labor, financial and product markets.<ref>World Bank. "Gender Equality as Smart Economics: A World Bank Group Gender Action Plan (Fiscal Years 2007-10)." IDEAS Working Paper Series from RePEc (2006): IDEAS Working Paper Series from RePEc, 2006. Web.</ref> In 2012, the [[World Development Report]] was the first report of the series examining Gender Equality and Development.<ref name="WB Gender"/> [[Florika Fink-Hooijer]], head of the [[European Commission]]'s [[Directorate-General for European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations]] introduced cash-based aid as well as gender and age sensitive aid.<ref>Fink-Hooijer, Florika (2014-01-01). "7 The EU's Competence in the Field of Civil Protection (Article 196, Paragraph 1, a–c TFEU)". ''EU Management of Global Emergencies'': 137–145. [[Doi (identifier)|doi]]:10.1163/9789004268333_009.</ref><ref>{{Cite book|last=Boin|first=Arjen|url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/854975218|title=The European Union as crisis manager : patterns and prospects|date=2013|others=Magnus Ekengren, Mark Rhinard|isbn=978-1-4619-3669-5|___location=Cambridge|oclc=854975218}}</ref>
An argument made on the functions behind institutional financial institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank are that they support capitalist ideals through their means of economic growth of countries globally and their participation in the global economy and capitalist systems. The roles of banks as institutions and the creation of new workers’ economy reflect neoliberal developing ideals is also present in the criticisms on neoliberal developing institutions.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Pradella |first1=Lucia |last2=Marois |first2=Thomas |title=Polarizing Development: Alternatives to Neoliberalism and the Crisis |date=2014 |publisher=Pluto Press |isbn=978-0-7453-3470-7 }}{{
=== Gender and Outsourcing ===
Line 114:
Advocated chiefly by the [[World Bank]], smart economics is an approach to define gender equality as an integral part of economic development and it aims to spur development through investing more efficiently in women and girls. It stresses that the gap between men and women in [[human capital]], economic opportunities, and voice/agency is a chief obstacle in achieving more efficient development. As an approach, it is a direct descendant of the efficiency approach taken by WID which “rationalizes ‘investing’ in women and girls for more effective development outcomes.”<ref name="Chant and Sweetman (2012)">{{cite journal|last=Chant|first=Sylvia|author2=Sweetman, Caroline|title=Fixing women or fixing the world? 'Smart economics', efficiency approaches, and gender equality in development| journal=Gender & Development| date=November 2012|volume=20|issue=3|pages=517–529|doi=10.1080/13552074.2012.731812|s2cid=154921144}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last=Chant|first=S.|title=The disappearing of 'smart economics'? The World Development Report 2012 on Gender Equality: Some concerns about the preparatory process and the prospects for paradigm change|journal=Global Social Policy|date=16 August 2012|volume=12|issue=2|pages=198–218|doi=10.1177/1468018112443674|s2cid=145291907}}</ref> As articulated in the section of WID, the efficiency approach to women in development was chiefly articulated by [[Caroline Moser]] in the late 1980s.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Moser|first=Caroline O.N.|title=Gender planning in the third world: Meeting practical and strategic gender needs|journal=World Development|date=November 1989|volume=17|issue=11|pages=1799–1825|doi=10.1016/0305-750X(89)90201-5}}</ref> Continuing the stream of WID, smart economics’ key unit of analysis is women as individual and it particularly focuses on measures that promote to narrow down the gender gap. Its approach identifies women are relatively underinvested source of development and it defines [[gender equality]] an opportunity of higher return investment. “Gender equality itself is here depicted as smart economics, in that it enables women to contribute their utmost skills and energies to the project of world economic development.”<ref name="Chant and Sweetman (2012)"/> In this term, smart economics champions neoliberal perspective in seeing business as a vital vehicle for change and it takes a stance of [[liberal feminism]].
The thinking behind smart economics dates back, at least, to the lost decade of the [[Structural adjustment|Structural Adjustment]] Policies (SAPs) in the 1980s.<ref name="Chant and Sweetman (2012)"/> In 1995, World Bank issued its flagship publication on gender matters of the year Enhancing Women's Participation in Economic Development (World Bank 1995). This report marked a critical foundation to the naissance of Smart Economics; in a chapter entitled ‘The Pay-offs to Investing in Women,’ the Bank proclaimed that investing in women “speeds economic development by raising productivity and promoting the more efficient use of resources; it produces significant social returns, improving child survival and reducing fertility, and it has considerable intergenerational pay-offs.” <ref>{{cite journal|last=World Bank|title=Enhancing Women's Participation in Economic Development|year=1995|issue=Washington, DC: World Bank|page=22}}</ref> The Bank also emphasized its associated social benefits generated by investing in women. For example, the Bank turned to researches of Whitehead that evidenced a greater female-control of household income is associated with better outcomes for children's welfare <ref>{{cite book|editor-last=Young|editor-first=
Other [[international organizations]], particular [[UN]] families, have so far endorsed the approach of smart economics. Examining the relationship between child well-being and gender equality, for example, [[UNICEF]] also referred to the “Double Dividend of Gender Equality.”<ref>{{cite book|last=UNICEF|title=The state of the world's children 2007: women and children: the double dividend of gender equality.|url=https://archive.org/details/stateofworldschi0000unic|url-access=registration|year=2006|publisher=United Nations Children's Fund|isbn=9789280639988}}</ref> Its explicit link to a wider framework of the [[Millennium Development Goals]] (where the Goal 3 is Promoting Gender Equality and Women's Empowerment) claimed a wider legitimacy beyond economic efficiency. In 2007, the Bank proclaimed that “The business case for investing in MDG 3 is strong; it is nothing more than smart economics.”<ref>{{cite book|last=World Bank|title=Global Monitoring Report 2007: Millennium Development Goals: Confronting the Challenges of Gender Equality and Fragile States (Vol. 4).|publisher=World Bank-free PDF|pages=145}}</ref> In addition, “Development organisations and governments have been joined in this focus on the ‘business case’ for gender equality and the empowerment of women, by businesses and enterprises which are interested in contributing to social good.”<ref name="Chant and Sweetman (2012)"/> A good example is “Girl Effect initiative” taken by Nike Foundation.<ref>{{cite news |title=Nike Harnesses 'Girl Effect' Again |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/11/giving/11VIDEO.html?_r=0 |newspaper=The New York Times |date=November 10, 2010 |access-date=1 December 2013}}</ref> Its claim for economic imperative and a broader socio-economic impact also met a strategic need of NGOs and community organizations that seeks justification for their program funding.<ref name="Chant and Sweetman (2012)"/> Thus, some NGOs, for example [[Plan International]], captured this trend to further their program. The then-president of the World Bank [[Robert B. Zoellick]] was quoted by Plan International in stating “Investing in adolescent girls is precisely the catalyst poor countries need to break intergenerational poverty and to create a better distribution of income. Investing in them is not only fair, it is a smart economic move.”<ref>{{cite book |last=Plan International |title='Because I Am a Girl: The State of the World's Girls 2009. Girls in the Global Economy. Adding it All Up.' |publisher=Plan International |page=11 and 28 |url=http://www.ungei.org/resources/files/BIAAG_Summary_ENGLISH_lo_resolution.pdf}}</ref> The global financial meltdown and austerity measures taken by major donor counties further supported this approach, since [[international financial institutions]] and international NGOs received a greater pressure from donors and from global public to design and implement maximally cost-effective programs.
Line 121:
From the mid-2000s, the approach of smart economics and its chief proponent –World Bank– met a wide range of criticisms and denouncements. These discontents can be broadly categorized into three major claims; Subordination of Intrinsic Value; Ignorance for the need of systemic transformation; Feminisation of responsibility; Overemphasized efficiency; and Opportunistic pragmatism. This is not exhaustive list of criticisms, but the list aims to highlight different emphasis among existing criticisms.
The World Bank's gender policy aims to eliminate poverty and enhance economic growth by addressing gender disparities and inequalities that hinders development. A critique{{by
Smart economics’ subordination of women under the justification of development invited fierce criticisms. Chant expresses her grave concern that “Smart economics is concerned with building women’s capacities in the interests of development rather than promoting women’s rights for their own sake.”<ref name="Chant and Sweetman (2012)"/> She disagrees that investment in women should be promoted by its instrumental utility: “it is imperative to ask whether the goal of female investment is primarily to promote gender equality and women’s ‘[[empowerment]]’, or to facilitate development ‘on the cheap’, and/or to promote further economic liberalization.”<ref name="Chant and Sweetman (2012)"/><ref name="Roberts 2012 949–968">{{cite journal|last=Roberts|first=Adrienne|author2=Soederberg, Susanne|title=Gender Equality as Smart Economics? A critique of the 2012 World Development Report|journal=Third World Quarterly|date=June 2012|volume=33|issue=5|pages=949–968|doi=10.1080/01436597.2012.677310|s2cid=153821844|url=https://www.research.manchester.ac.uk/portal/en/publications/gender-equality-as-smart-economics-a-critique-of-the-2012-world-development-report(a61627a0-c30c-4b5c-a288-275cace3c695).html}}</ref> Although smart economics outlines that gender equality has intrinsic value (realizing gender equality is an end itself) and instrumental value (realizing gender equality is a means to a more efficient development),<ref name="World Bank"/> many points out that the Bank pays almost exclusive attentions to the latter in defining its framework and strategy. Zuckerman also echoed this point by stating “business case [which] ignores the moral imperative of empowering women to achieve women’s human rights and full equal rights with men.”<ref name="Roberts 2012 949–968"/> In short, Chant casts a doubt that if it is not “possible to promote rights through [[utilitarianism]].” <ref name="Chant and Sweetman (2012)"/>
|