Feminist Critical Economics: View of Development Unlike neo-classical economics, feminist critical economics questions whether markets are a reliable means of mobilizing resources for production and an effective means of meeting needs. First, as 'social institutions' markets are inevitably structured asymmetrically to the advantage of some participants over others. Second, while markets entail opportunities, they also involve risk. In other words, 'costing' provided by markets will fluctuate as supply and demand fluctuates; the outcome may be that the market value of a resource will drop so low that those dependent on selling that resource to make a living will be unable to do so (Elson 1993b: 23), necessitating non-market safety nets (kin, community, state provisions) to counteract market insecurity. Regarding structural adjustment programmes, questions are raised about the risks entailed in the shift from non-tradables to tradables. World market prices are not constant or certain. Adjusting economies, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa, have faced fluctuating and deteriorating terms of trade in recent years. The promotion of increased production of tradables may jeopardize the security of people's livelihoods (Elson 1995: 1860). Another point raised by feminist critical economics concerns the focus of adjustment programmes on monetary aggregates of the 'productive economy' (GNP, savings, investment, public expenditures, imports, exports, etc.) and their disregard for the human resource aggregates of the 'reproductive economy' (indicators such as health, population, nutrition, education, skills, etc.). Overcoming male bias in adjustment would involve a full recognition of the role that women's work in social reproduction plays in underpinning both the production of tradeables and the care and maintenance of human beings (Elson 1995). Since monetary aggregates are limited in capturing the value of women's input into the economy, feminist critical economics calls for changes in national and international economies so that human development targets take priority (Elson 1993a and 1994). Human development indicators would need to take into account the vital role of unpaid labour in producing human capacities, a perceived shortcoming in UNDP's human development indicators, but one to which the 1995 Human Development Report has attempted to draw attention. Also implicit in feminist critical economics is the importance of the politics of development. Questions are raised about who controls the adjustment process and how far those who are excluded from the policy process are likely to be the ultimate losers. For feminist critical economics, 'restructuring' would involve reforms that foster advocacy groups able to effectively intervene in the political process. As Elson (1994: 522) suggests, more satisfactory market opportunities are likely to be provided if access to markets is complemented by 'public action' to regulate markets. This would involve a combination of actions by government agencies and activist groups to uphold health and safety regulations, to provide services like sanitation, electricity, and child care, to educate workers about their rights, to provide alternative sources of income, etc. From this perspective, 'empowering' people to determine the way in which they develop and use their capabilities means more than a few participatory projects run by development agencies; it involves introducing more democratic and co-operative decision-making arrangements at the policy level (e.g., through policy dialogues). Incorporating gender awareness into development policy would thus go beyond 'top down' interventions by 'enlightened' planners. The reallocation of resources to women will of necessity involve organized public action (by co-operatives, community associations, trade unions, savings associations, etc.) on behalf of their needs. It is through public action that women can improve the terms on which they participate in the development process. Feminist Critical Economics: Development Interventions Feminist critical economics pitches development interventions at the macro-economic policy level (see Elson and MacGee 1995). Economic tools of analysis aim to provide new ways of thinking about a national economy as a gendered structure, drawing attention to the linkages between aggregate macro-economic and human resource indicators and the need to redefine efficiency in resource use to include unpaid resource use in the social reproduction and maintenance of human resources. The analytical tools suggest that gender-based distortions cannot be removed simply by deregulation; they point to the complementarity between state provisioning and women's ability to make gains from market participation. Feminist Critical Economics: Applications The work of feminist critical economics is becoming increasingly familiar to policy-making institutions, although it has not yet between developed into a training framework. Recent training materials developed by the British Council, CIDA, the Commonwealth Secretariat, DGIS, and UNDP, for example, reproduce or cite this work. Neo-Classical and Feminist Critical Economics: Convergence and Divergence It should be clear that neo-classical and feminist critical economics share several important premises. First, both approaches criticize the omission of the reproductive sphere in conventional macro-economics. Second, both draw attention to the interdependencies between the unpaid and the paid economy and women's social positioning as intermediaries between the two spheres. Palmer (1991), for example, likens the reproductive work that women have to do before they can devote time to income-generating work to a tax-'reproduction labour tax'. Like Elson, she argues that women's labour is not infinitely elastic, and that there may come a point where women are no longer able to devote time to their market activities, with negative implications for agricultural supply response, exports and balance of payments (all important items on the structural adjustment agenda). The two approaches diverge, however, on their view of markets. Palmer accepts the neo-classical view of markets as essentially unbiased and capable of liberating women. She criticizes small-holder agriculture for being inefficient and incapable of providing a 'proper costing' of women's labour, recommending the development of large-scale agricultural enterprises where women become wage labourers, because the formal labour market is more efficient and also able to provide a 'proper costing' of women's labour. Palmer's 'market optimism' is quite different from the view taken by feminist critical economists who stress the gendered nature of markets and the need to regulate them through public action (Cagatay 1996; Elson 1993a; Joekes 1995b). Similarly, Palmer recommends that reproductive work should be opened up to market forces in order to be properly valued, while feminist critical economics point out that where components of women's work have been opened up to market forces this has not necessarily resolved the problems of under-valuation (e.g., domestic service, nursing). The two approaches also differ in their view of commercializing human reproduction. While Palmer recommends its complete commercialization (1991:165), Elson points out that even when services and goods are purchased or publicly provided (e.g., creches, laundry services, ready-made foods), women are still responsible for household management (1993a:23). She highlights the intrinsic value of some aspects of human reproduction, such as child care, noting that women may want to share that responsibility more equally with men rather than become paid housekeepers. Finally, feminist politics has no role to play in neo-classical feminist economics, while in critical approaches it is through political processes that both markets and the public sector can become more accountable to women. As noted, the view that markets are essentially benign and self-correcting means that interventions from trade unions or women's groups are at best redundant, but more often 'distorting'. 14 In contrast, a view of markets as social institutions permeated with social norms, including gender norms, envisages a critical role for women's constituencies in civil society contesting those norms, strengthening women's collective bargaining power through women's networks and collectives. Similarly, feminist critical economics recognizes that public policy is not intrinsically benign; public policy in both North and South has systematically by-passed women because of the patriarchal family forms that it upholds. The traditional family models that underpinned the welfare state havebeen adjusted in many Western countries as a result of pressures from women's groups. Elson (1993a:26) advocates a change in the relationship between providers and users of public sector goods and services to make public policy more responsive to the views of those it is meant to serve. Conclusion This review of gender analytical frameworks and training methodologies has highlighted several main themes. A summary of the characteristics of each, according to the four criteria considered here, is given in Table 1 (p. 37). The first main theme is that the institutional scope of gender training frameworks has widened over time. While earlier frameworks (e.g., GRF) focused exclusively on gender dynamics at the household level, more recent approaches attempt to bring a wider range of institutions under gender scrutiny. In many ways this shift in emphasis mirrors the trends in feminist scholarship where the initial interest in households as gendered institutions has given way to a concern for institutions that are not intrinsically gendered, but which nevertheless are bearers of gender. A diverse literature on the state and on a wide spectrum of development agencies analyzes the ways in which they have tended to institutionalize the power asymmetries attached to gender difference-historically and currently. At the same time feminist critical economics has questioned the view of markets as abstract cash nexuses, and exposed the gender hierarchies that are often embedded within 'impersonal' markets through the operation of social norms and networks that are heavily biased against women. It is worth noting that while the literature on households provided useful analytical tools for practitioners to adopt and use, such as bargaining models and the 'co-operative-conflict' framework, the work on state and market institutions has not yet produced user-friendly tools that can be incorporated within gender training modules. The second main point is the change in the type of development intervention at which the training frameworks are pitched. Over time, the preoccupation with development projects has given way to a concern for sectoral and macro-economic policies. The culmination of this trend can be found in the work of feminist economists who are applying gender analysis to the macro-economic level. Although much of this work remains in the form of papers and reports (some of it commissioned by development agencies), certain strands of this thinking are beginning to find their way into the policy-making process (as technical and advisory notes). To date, there are no discrete gender training frameworks that draw on the gender and macro-economics literature. It seems to us that this is an area where further work needs to be done, especially in distilling the main analytical building blocks of feminist economics into more 'user-friendly' forms that practitioners can use.15 Although all development institutions may not need macro-economic training, since many of them still work on the project level, several combine project-level work with policy advocacy, which requires a better understanding of gender issues at the macro-economic level. Likewise many women's networks in governments and international development agencies that are marginalized from the processes of macro-economic policy-making may find that a better understanding of macro-economic analysis enables them to take part in the policy-making process and question economic analysis and economic policies. The third ongoing theme is the persistent tension between the so-called 'integrationist' and 'agenda-setting' approaches. The divergence which marked debates within the WID literature (e.g. Beneria and Sen's critique of Boserup 1981) is manifest in the more recent literature on gender and macro-economics. In essence, we have argued, the approaches are based on different understandings of the development process and of market-led growth. Integrationists see development as an inherently benign process from which everyone can benefit, while critical or agenda-setting approaches take a more structuralist view of society wherein development interventions tend to work to the advantage of the more powerful (and often at the expense of the less powerful). They thus question whether markets can be self-correcting, and highlight the ways in which they reproduce gender (and other) hierarchies. Similarly, the integrationist approach does not examine state institutions and development agencies, while the agenda-setting approach examines the complex ways in which male/ female hierarchies are embedded within these institutions and are reproduced through their development interventions. Paralleling their different views of these institutions, the critical approaches attach considerable importance to the role of feminist advocacy and politics in regulating state and market institutions and countering their biases, while integrationists, without explicitly saying so, regard feminist politics as redundant. Finally, while it is not our intent to offer a thorough analysis of the correspondence (or lack of it) between the gender training frameworks used by specific development organizations and their institutional mandate/culture, it does seem to us that Kabeer's (1994a) observation, that 'like-minded planners and gender trainers tend to gravitate towards each other' because of the common world views they endorse, is valid. For example, USAID still uses a framework very similar to the GRF. The emphasis is on gender disaggregation (of data, for example) rather than gender relations and conflict; on how gender can constrain or facilitate pre-determined development goals (growth, human resource development and fertility reduction) rather on how gender can re-define development goals or set alternative development agendas; and on planning as a top-down technical exercise (ignoring participatory methods of data gathering and development planning) rather than a political process where the weak tend to have little voice. In contrast, the Oxfam manual adopts elements of the DPU framework that draw attention to women's subordination and the need to address power inequalities through development interventions (the practical/strategic distinction pointing to a more transformatory planning agenda); starting from the DPU framework's recognition that planning must be a bottom-up process, it goes beyond this to offer concrete examples of participatory, bottom-up development. It is important not to exaggerate the degree to which organizational mandates/cultures correspond to the training modules, however. Development organizations are also eclectic in what they adopt from the different gender training frameworks. For example, even though Oxfam is explicit about gender as a power relation it still adopts DPU's triple roles framework which is not analytically geared to highlighting gender relations (and gender conflict). Similarly, organizations that are not necessarily committed to transforming gender relations adopt the practical/strategic distinction. It seems to us that some analytical tools are widely adopted because they provide a 'neat mental grid' or 'user-friendly handle' on certain complex issues, even if their analytical underpinnings (and political implications) are not necessarily endorsed by the organizations that adopt them. In sum, the development of gender analysis over the last two decades has produced an ever-evolving conceptual literature, as experience and critique generate insights and re-thinking and as the ideas and experiences of other fields are incorporated into the conceptualization of gender inequalities and the process of development. At the same time, the experience of gender training by a number of development institutions has enabled them to both contribute to and draw from the conceptual literature, resulting in an impressive range of analytical tools and practical exercises for use by different institutions. The result is a continuing process of cross-fertilization between theory and practice, in both gender and development. Endnotes 1. The term 'gender roles framework' is not always used, but the theoretical approach is the same. This framework has led to the formulation of guidelines, checklists and impact statements for integrating gender at the project level (see Moser 1993:155-69). 2. Similar criticisms have been made of sex role theory: the emphasis on role learning and socialization results in an 'abstract view of the differences between the sexes and between their situations', not a concrete account of relations between them that can grasp social conflict and change (Connell 1987:50-54). 3. Presumably such unequal power relations can subvert resources directed at women into male hands. See for example Goetz and Sen Gupta (1994) on credit schemes. 4. This can be called the 'modernization' approach to economic development. It does not consider either the contradictory effects of capitalist development process, nor the possibility of alternative development models (see Beneria and Sen 1981). 5. Levy (1996) has introduced the term 'constituency-based politics role' to encompass political activities beyond the community level. 6. See Kabeer (1992; 1994a) for a full account of her interpretation of the DPU framework. Her point about the lack of applicability of the triple role schema to all women in low-income households across the world seems to us to be of less importance than the other points. Even if some categories of poor women do not carry out productive or community roles (given cultural restrictions on appropriate female behaviour), the framework nonetheless draws planners attention to the fact that women's participation in these activities is restricted, an important insight in itself. 7. There also has been some debate regarding the language of 'needs' and 'interests', and whether they are interchangeable (see Kabeer 1992, 1994a; Young 1993; Molyneux 1985). 8. This seems to sit uneasily with the statement that the aims of gender planning are 'the emancipation of women and the release from their subordination' (Moser 1993:212). 9. The brief sections on gender and structural adjustment programmes (e.g., macro-policy) are structured to look at the impact on women primarily at the household level. 10. Feminist critical economics does not, of course, completely endorse any of these approaches; while it takes as its starting point their critique of the 'choice-theoretic' logic (central to neo-classical economics), it criticizes the structuralist approaches too for neglecting gender at the meso and macro levels. 11. Tradables are those commodities that can be traded in international markets, i.e., export commodities and import substitutes (on which protection should be eliminated so their prices will fall to internationally tradable levels). Non-tradables are goods and services that cannot be traded internationally (e.g., transport, housing). 12. Feminist critiques of the micro-economic foundations of neo-classical economics predate work on the macro- and meso-levels (see Kabeer 1994a). 13. This draws on critical institutional economics (e.g. Hodgson, 1988) which questions the view of markets as abstract cash nexuses (pure contracts and exchanges). The operation of markets, it suggests, necessarily draws upon social norms, trust, cohesion and networks. 14. Hence mainstream neo-classical economists view both state (e.g. minimum wage legislation) and civil society attempts at regulating markets as 'distortions', a view Palmer does not endorse. 15. Some work has already been done in this area, most notably a training course designed for economic planners and gender specialists in the Caribbean (see Pearson 1995). References Beneria, L. and G. Sen. 1981. 'Accumulation, Reproduction, and Women's Role in Economic Development: Boserup Revisited', Signs, 7 (2). Blackden, C.M. and E. Morris-Hughes. 1995. Paradigm Postponed: Gender and Economic Adjustment in Sub-Saharan Africa, World Bank, Washington, DC. In I. van Staveren, Reader: Gender in Macro Economic Development. University of Manchester. Cagatay, N. 1996. 'Gender and International Labor Standards in the World Economy,' Review of Radical Political Economics, September. Cagatay, N., D. Elson and C. Grown. 1995. 'Gender, Adjustment and Macroeconomics,' World Development, 23 (11). Cloud, K. 1985. 'Women's Productivity in Agricultural Systems: Considerations for Project Design,' in Overholt et al., eds., Gender Roles in Development Projects. Kumarian Press, West Hartford, CT. Collier, P. 1989. Women and Structural Adjustment. Unit for the Study of African Economies, Oxford University, Oxford. Connell, R.W. 1987. Gender and Power: Society, the Person and Sexual Politics. Polity Press, Cambridge. Elson, D. n.d. Feminist Approaches to Development Economics: A Reader. Department of Economics, University of Manchester. Elson, D. 1993a. Micro, Meso, Macro: Gender and Economic Analysis in the Context of Policy Reform. Working Paper No.1, Gender Analysis and Development Economics, University of Manchester. Elson, D. 1993b. Structural Adjustment with Gender Awareness: 'Vulnerable Groups', 'Gender Based Distortions' and 'Male Bias'. Working Paper No.2, Gender Analysis and Development Economics, University of Manchester. Elson, D. 1994. 'People, Development and International Financial Institutions: An Interpretation of the Bretton Woods System,' Review of African Political Economy, no. 62. Elson, D. 1995. 'Gender Awareness in Modeling Structural Adjustment,' World Development, 23 (11). Elson, D. and R. McGee. 1995. 'Gender Equality, Bilateral Program Assistance and Structural Adjustment Policy,' World Development, 23 (11), 1995. Elson, D. and R. Pearson. 1981. 'The Subordination of Women and the Internationalization of Factory Production', in K. Young et al., eds., Of Marriage and the Market. CSE Books, London. Evans, A. 1989. 'Gender Issues in Rural Household Economics,' Discussion Paper No. 254, IDS, Sussex. Folbre, N. 1986. 'Hearts and Spades: Paradigms of Household Economics,' World Development, 14 (2). Goetz, A.M. 1989. 'Fishy Business: Misunderstanding Gender and Social Relations in a Fish Smoking Project in Guinea', paper presented to the Canadian Association of Africa Scholars Annual Meeting, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario. Goetz, A.M.. 1992. 'Gender and Administration', IDS Bulletin, 23 (4). Goetz, A.M. 1994. 'From Feminist Knowledge to Data for Development: The Bureaucratic Management of Information on Women and Development', IDS Bulletin, 25 (2). Goetz, A.M. and R. Sen Gupta. 1994. 'Who Takes the Credit? Gender, Power, and Control over Loan Use in Rural Credit Programmes in Bangladesh', Institute of Development Studies, Sussex. Guyer, J. 1988. 'Dynamic Approaches to Domestic Budgeting: Cases and Methods from Africa', in D. Dwyer and J. Bruce, eds. A Home Divided: Women and Income in the Third World, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA. Hodgson, G. 1988. Economics and Institutions. Polity Press, Cambridge. Humphrey, J. 1987. Gender and Work in the Third World: Sexual Divisions in Brazilian Industry, Tavistock Publications, London. Institute for Development Studies (IDS). 1995. 'Getting Institutions Right for Women in Development,' IDS Bulletin, 26 (3). Jahan, R. 1995. The Elusive Agenda: Mainstreaming Women in Development. Zed Books, London. Jackson, C. 1996. 'Rescuing Gender from the Poverty Trap,' World Development, 24 (3). Joekes, S. 1995a. 'Women's Employment and Moroccan Competitive Advantage'. UNRISD/ UNDP, Technical Co-operation and Women's Lives: Integrating Gender into Development Policy. Joekes, S.. 1995b. Trade-related Employment for Women in Industry and Services in Developing Countries. Occasional Paper 5, UNRISD and UNDP, Fourth World Conference on Women, Geneva. Kabeer, N. 1996. 'Agency, Well-being and Inequality: Reflections on the Gender Dimensions of Poverty', in Poverty, Poverty and Aid, 27 (1), January. Kabeer, N. 1995. 'Necessary, Sufficient or Irrelevant? Women Wages and Intra-Household Power Relations in Urban Bangladesh', Working Paper 25, Institute of Development Studies, Sussex. Kabeer, N. 1994a. 'Gender-Aware Policy and Planning: A Social-Relations Perspective', in M. Macdonald, ed., Gender Planning in Development Agencies. Oxfam, Oxford. Kabeer, N. 1994b. Reversed Realities: Gender Hierarchies in Development Thought. Verso, London. Kabeer, N. 1992. 'Triple Roles, Gender Roles, Social Relations: The Political Subtext of Gender Training'. Discussion Paper No. 313, Institute of Development Studies, Sussex. Kabeer, N. and Subrahmanian. 1996. 'Institutions, Relations and Outcomes: Framework and Tools for Gender-Aware Planning', Discussion Paper 357, Institute of Development Studies, Sussex. Kardam, N. 1991. Bringing Women In. Women's Issues in International Development Programs. Lynne Rienner, Boulder, CO. Levy, C. 1991. 'Critical Issues in Translating Gender Concerns into Planning Competence in the 1990s', paper presented at ACSP/AESOP International Congress, Planning Transatlantic: Global Change and Local Problems, Oxford. Levy, C. 1992. 'Transport,' in L. Ostergaard, ed. Gender and Development: A Practical Guide. Routledge, London. Levy, C. 1996. 'The Process of Institutionalising Gender in Policy and Planning: The Web of Institutionalisation,' Working Paper No. 74, DPU, University College, London. Mackintosh, M. 1989. Gender, Class, and Rural Transition-Agribusiness and the Food Crisis in Senegal. Zed Books, London. Molyneux, M. 1985. 'Mobilisation without Emancipation? Women's Interests, State and Revolution in Nicaragua', Feminist Studies, 11 (2). Moser, C. 1989. 'Gender Planning in the Third World: Meeting Practical and Strategic Gender Needs,' World Development, 17 (11). Moser, C. 1993. Gender Planning and Development: Theory, Practice and Training. Routledge, London. Overholt, O., M.B. Anderson, K. Cloud and J. Austin. 1985. Gender Roles in Development Projects. Kumarian Press, West Hartford, CT. Palmer, I. 1991. Gender and Population in the Adjustment of African Economies: Planning for Change. International Labour Organisation, Geneva. Palmer, I. 1992. 'Gender Equity and Economic Efficiency in Adjustment Programmes'. H. Afshar and C. Dennis, eds. Women and Adjustment Policies in the Third World. Macmillan, London. Pearson, R. 1995. 'Bringing It All Back Home: Integrating Training for Gender Specialists and Economic Planners', World Development, 23 (11). Pearson, R., A. Whitehead and K. Young. 1981. 'Introduction: The Continuing Subordination of Women in the Development Process', in K. Young et al., eds., Of Marriage and the Market. CSE Books, London. Razavi, S., and C. Miller. 1995. Gender Mainstreaming: A Study of Efforts by the UNDP, the World Bank and the ILO to Institutionalize Gender Issues. Occasional Paper 4, UNRISD. Sims Feldstein, H. and S. Poats, eds. 1989. Working Together: Gender Analysis in Agriculture. Vol. 1, Kumarian Press, West Hartford, CT. Staudt, K. 1990. 'Gender Politics in Bureaucracy: Theoretical Issues in Comparative Perspective,' in K. Staudt, ed., Women, International Development and Politics: The Bureaucratic Mire. Temple University Press, Philadelphia. Whitehead, A. n.d. Gender-aware Planning in Agricultural Production,' in IDS, Gender and Third World Development, Module 7. Whitehead, A. 1979. 'Some Preliminary Notes on the Subordination of Women', IDS Bulletin, 10 (3). Whitehead, A. 1985. 'Effects of Technological Change on Rural Women: A Review of Analysis and Concepts', in I. Ahmed, ed., Technology and Rural Women. George Allen and Unwin, London. Whitehead, A. 1990. 'Rural Women and Food Production in Sub-Saharan Africa', in J. Drèze and A.K. Sen, eds. The Political Economy of Hunger, Vol. I: Entitlement and Well-Being. Clarendon Press, Oxford. Young, K. 1993. Planning Development with Women: Making a World of Difference. Macmillan, London. Appendix Alternative Analytical/Training Frameworks A number of training frameworks do not fit easily into the categories reviewed in this document. They are eclectic, drawing on insights/conceptual tools of the other approaches, but also tend to prioritize certain issues (e.g. participation, organizational change, advocacy) that did not figure centrally in any of the approaches described. Women's Empowerment Framework The women's empowerment framework reconceptualizes the development objectives of gender-responsive programming. Rather than focusing on economic objectives, such as enabling women to be more productive or use their labour time more effectively in order to reap the benefits of development, it views women's equality and women's empowerment as central development objectives in their own right. The framework aims to provide tools for the design, implementation and evaluation of programmes and projects that explicitly contribute to women's empowerment and gender equality. This involves promoting a 'bottom up' approach to planning. The argument is that 'when development planners conduct a baseline survey and gender role analysis they can identify only practical needs, not strategic interests'. The objective is to provide 'a systemic and analytical understanding of the grassroots empowerment process by which the local community recognizes and pursues its strategic interests'. Included as a component of the Oxfam Gender Training Manual and CIDA's Gender and Development Briefing Module, 'What's Leading Edge?' the framework is incorporated into UNICEF's Gender Equality and Women's Empowerment Package, on which this assessment is based. The main methodological tool is a five-level profile for measuring women's empowerment, which builds on the access and control profile developed in the GRF. Women's advancement to equality and empowerment is measured on the basis of a hierarchy of ascending 'levels of equality': welfare; access; conscientization; participation; control. Like the GRF, the framework draws attention to inequalities in access to material resources. However, within the empowerment framework approach, overcoming obstacles to access involves confronting systemic discrimination, which can be done only through 'conscientization' and 'participation'. Conscientization implies women's recognition that their subordination is not 'natural', but is imposed by a system of discrimination that is socially constructed and therefore alterable. And 'equality of participation' means involving women from the community in decision-making processes in more than a 'token' manner, enabling them to mobilize and take action against discrimination in access to services and resources. Finally, the understanding of the term 'control' extends to more than material resources, as in the GRF. Instead, 'equality of control means a balance of power between women and men, so that neither is in a position of dominance. It means that women have power alongside men to influence their destiny and that of society' (UNICEF 1994). The gender profile grid is used to measure how planning and implementation projects and programme interventions contribute to each level of empowerment. Another interesting feature of the empowerment framework is the treatment of gender roles. In this perspective, 'gender issues' do not arise merely from gender role differentiation, but from inequalities deriving from the gender division of labour and allocation of benefits. In this perspective gender inequality and subordination should be kept at the centre of gender-responsive planning, a point that sometimes is lost in a focus on roles. The conceptual underpinning of the empowerment framework appears to be a structuralist interpretation of gender inequality. The training package draws attention, in a schematic way, to how the rules and practices embedded in different institutions (household, community and state) structure 'gender discrimination'.1 Unlike the SRF, however, there is little reference to gender 'relations', nor to the way in which gender is embedded in other social relations (e.g. class, ethnicity, age, religion, etc.). Thus women tend to be presented as a homogeneous category. The main institutional focus is on state-level organizations, especially regarding the problem of 'bureaucratic resistance'. While there is some recognition that such 'resistance' could come from UNICEF staff themselves, more emphasis is placed on overcoming resistance in programme partners (e.g., government departments, private agencies, etc.). In this regard, the role of 'gender advocacy' is also emphasized. This involves, first, efforts by staff members (within UNICEF and vis-à-vis partners) to ensure that gender equality becomes an integral element of all programmes and projects; and second, promoting public awareness and popular mobilization around gender issues, viewed as crucial in promoting transformatory change. The main contribution of the empowerment framework lies in its efforts to promote women's empowerment as an intrinsic part of the development process. Its gender profile provides a useful tool in working towards a more 'bottom up' and transformatory approach to development interventions, both at the project level and in cross-sectoral programming. There is some overlap between the empowerment framework and UNIFEM's Gender Analysis Matrix. The main concern of the latter is to shift the focus of information gathering and analysis away from development planner to the people who are the subjects of the analysis. The gender matrix is based on three principles: 1) all the requisite knowledge for gender analysis exists among the people whose lives are the subject of analysis; 2) gender analysis does not require any technical expertise outside the community being analyzed, except as facilitators; and 3) gender analysis cannot be transformative unless the analysis is done by the people being analyzed (Parker 1993: vii). Facilitators thus engage community participants in completing the matrix-which has four levels of analysis (women, men, household, and community) and four categories of analysis (labour, time, resources, and cultural factors)-using information based on both hypothetical case studies and real projects. The idea implicit in this approach is that 'bottom up' gender analysis will involve community groups in critical thinking about gender roles and relations. Since this process necessitates challenging tradition and culture, tension and conflict are inevitable. But because the approach takes a dynamic view of gender (that gender roles and relations have been and are constantly changing) it does not shy away from this process. The Gender Analysis Matrix can provide a useful tool for gender awareness/advocacy training for local community groups. Its application above the project level, however, seems limited. What both these training frameworks share is a concern for participatory planning. While past experience has brought home the shortcomings of 'top-down' planning, participatory methodologies are not without limitations. Questions must be asked about whose perceptions and representations are being taken as 'women's voices'. How far can the women participants claim to represent all the women of their community, etc.? How far are women constrained by cultural norms and patterns of behaviour from articulating their concerns or interests? And how far can planned interventions be expected to overcome effectively the existing power relations (class, gender, etc.) in any given context? Similarly, as Jackson (1996:500) observes in her analysis of Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA), 'gender interests cannot be entirely equated with the articulated views of women'. Research has shown that women themselves can be implicated in female foeticide and infanticide, in food and health biases within households, in dowry deaths and in exploitative relations with other women. Rather than abandon participatory approaches, Kabeer concludes that participatory methods are as gender-blind or as gender-aware as the practitioner using them (a point that the UNIFEM approach does not explore). If such approaches are informed by an understanding of the different forms that gender power and inequality takes in different contexts and are critical in challenging assumptions about gender, they can help us to analyse the meanings of women's 'choices' (Kabeer 1996:19). When women's choices or behaviour seem to reflect a denial of 'agency', participatory methods facilitate an understanding of this lack of agency as a produc t of 'internalized ideologies' or 'external constraints' and hence provide clues as to how development interventions should be prioritized. UNDP Training for Gender Mainstreaming Like most of the other training packages, the UNDP materials are drawn from several different sources and reflect several different approaches to gender analysis. Indeed, one of the aims of the training is to offer an overview of different approaches, in an effort to uncover the different conceptualizations that underlie them. However, picking up on some of the insights of the social relations framework as well as by feminist economics, UNDP is moving towards a training framework which emphasizes an understanding of gender relations as relations of power which are constructed and perpetuated through the range of social institutions that comprise society. The conceptualization of the interdependence of the productive economy and reproductive economy developed by feminist economics is prioritized. An understanding of the gendered nature of development organizations themselves is also implicit in the approach. The main thrust of the training approach is to provide practical tools that will enable UNDP staff and its development partners to mainstream an understanding of gender relations into all professional activities (policy, programme, project and administrative). In so doing the approach also seeks to contribute to the overall organizational change process at UNDP and in the broader United Nations system. Organizational change is embraced as a key component of gender mainstreaming, which is explicitly seen to include bringing the outcomes of gender-informed socio-economic and policy analysis into all the decision-making processes of an organization. Thus training focuses primarily on capacity building, placing as much emphasis on procedures and professional skills for promoting organizational change as on skills for gender analysis. For example, training in negotiation, advocacy, public speaking, and leadership skills are seen as crucial tools for bringing about the changes in individual and organizational capacity (gender mainstreaming) that are necessary for the attainment of gender equality goals. The capacity-building support strategy for gender mainstreaming is now a sub-programme in the Global Gender Programme at UNDP, managed through the Gender in Development Programme. The concern to train staff (particularly gender focal points and managers) as effective advocates for gender issues within the organization (and vis-à-vis partners) suggests parallels with the UNICEF empowerment framework described above. It also draws on the growing body of research on gender and organizational change, of which the work by Aruna Rao is best known (see Kelleher, et al. 1996), which examines how organizations reproduce gender and social inequities in their work practices and values and on the basis of this knowledge, develops strategies for promoting organizational change. In terms of 'institutional scope', therefore, the strength of this approach lies in its focus on overcoming gender bias within development organizations themselves. In prioritizing the skills necessary for promoting internal organizational change, the approach seems to consider that different frameworks can be adapted by different institutions, so long as the underlying premises of different conceptualizations are clearly understood. In retaining this degree of flexibility, the approach does not focus on further developing the conceptual and practical tools needed to foster change in other institutional contexts (households, markets, states, community). Socio-Economic and Gender Analysis (SEAGA) Approach Over the past few years, FAO, ILO, and UNDP have been collaborating to develop a conceptual framework for socio-economic and gender analysis (SEAGA) that can guide policy, programme and project formulation and implementation. Based on the User's Handbook, which is meant to detail the basic conceptual framework of the programme, the SEAGA approach appears to be eclectic, drawing on elements of the GRF (and the Gender and Adjustment literature), as well as some of the concepts of the DPU approach. And like the SRF, it is a holistic approach, which seeks to locate gender within the broader context of social and economic relations and processes. A central principle of SEAGA is an understanding of the inter-connectedness between gender and other social variables such as age, socioeconomic status or ethnicity. As in the SRF, it is recognized that for any given context, gender may or may not be the key analytical variable. From the SEAGA perspective, therefore, the point is to draw attention to the fact that 'social attributes other than gender...may be equally important in understanding group differences in the distribution of benefits from development' (8). In order to capture the totality of the socio-economic processes through which development occurs and through which resources are allocated to different social groups, SEAGA uses a 'systems theory' approach, a holistic perspective which sees physical and social systems functioning in a dynamic process with positive and negative feedback mechanisms, all of which induce change. The rationale for using this approach is explained as follows: development programmes induce changes that alter the basic functioning of the system and its interaction with its environment. Thus development planning should be based on an understanding of how various levels of systems relate and interact and how they are likely to be involved in, and affected by any planned change. SEAGA uses four elements of analysis: (1) the development context, (2) stakeholders' interests, (3) resources and constraints, and (4) conflict identification. The development context analysis includes gender-sensitive analysis at the individual, household and community level (field), the district and regional level (intermediate), and the national and international policy level (macro). Emphasis is also placed on how these different levels are interlinked.2 As the treatment of development context shows, SEAGA seeks to move beyond a project focus to look at sectoral and macro-level policies. Implicit in the discussion of macro-level policies is the need to understand both gender-related differences in the impact of adjustment policies and the impact of gender bias on the implementation of these policies. Many of the observations concern gender-differentiated allocation of labour, intersectoral mobility, incentive structures, and access to resources. The concern here is with the way in which gender biases produce 'distortions' in labour markets and make it difficult for women to respond to and benefit from market incentives. The remaining discussion focuses on the need to ensure women's access to economic assets and resources, including credit. Although there is no mention of the literature on gender and adjustment described above, the thinking behind the macro-level analysis seems to mirror this approach. The overall framework of market-led development is not examined. The 'context analysis' also involves consideration of intermediate level 'institutions' that link macro-policy to households. The criteria upon which such an analysis should be based are not specified. While the guidelines ask some pertinent questions, there is no analysis of the rules and practices through which institutions control distribution of resources, nor the way in which they reproduce gender disadvantage.3 Moreover, the issue of gender bias within the development institutions, and the work practices and values through which they reproduce gender and social inequalities, is not explored. The field level of context analysis, involving communities and households, in general follows the gender roles approach, but also extends the issue of inequalities in access and control over resources beyond gender to look at inequalities of access in different social groups. The other elements of analysis include 'stakeholders interests', 'resources and constraints' and 'conflict identification and resolution'. The discussion o f stakeholder interests concerns the need to identify and include stakeholders in development planning at all levels. It does not directly address the possibility that women may find it difficult to articulate and mobilize around their interests and concerns and to recognize their roles as 'stakeholders'. The analysis of stakeholders' 'resources and constraints' does move beyond a focus on questions of access and control of resources at the household level to consider how political, legal, and economic systems are implicated (e.g., credit institutions and land ownership). However, apart from a reference to indigenous knowledge, the emphasis is on material resources (e.g. land, labour and capital). There is no real discussion of the importance of 'intangible' resources as in the SRF. Overall, the impact of gender power relations on women's access to and control over resources is underconceptualized (instead, the emphasis is on economic or socio-cultural 'constraints'). Similarly, although reference is made to 'socio-cultural' impediments and legislative obstacles that act as constraints to women's participation in decision-making processes, the actual mechanisms through which women's exclusion occurs receive little attention. Finally, the analysis of 'conflict resolution and consensus building' is pitched at such a general level that it provides little that could sensitize planners to the complex nature of bargaining/conflict at the household level. Moreover, the concept of 'latent conflict', where individuals internalize their subordinate positions to the extent that they do not resist or dissent, is not explored (see Goetz's discussion of dimensions of power in Kelleher et al., 1996). The strength of the SEAGA approach lies in its effort to promote an awareness of the totality and interconnectedness of the social, economic and environmental contexts in which people live their lives. It represents an ambitious project and until the full package is completed, it will be difficult to assess how all the different levels of analysis and components hang together. The issues that the macro-level handbook intends to treat could potentially be crucial contributions to our understanding of the gender dimensions of macro-economic and social policy. However, one of the concerns that arises from SEAGA's attempt to prioritize all socially disadvantaged groups is that the analytical tools it develops appear to be rather blunt instruments for capturing the processes and relations through which gender disadvantage is perpetuated. A related concern is the poverty focus that runs through the framework. While not itself a problem, there is a danger that a socio-economic and gender analysis focusing on poverty alleviation (rather than gender inequalities) might run the risk of collapsing gender and poverty concerns rather than looking specifically at the social forces that create poverty and those that lead to gender inequality (see Jackson 1996). While the SEAGA approach claims to combine an understanding of practical and strategic gender needs, the main emphasis appears to be based on meeting the 'basic needs' of the most disadvantaged. Indeed, a hierarchy of needs is put forward, with the argument that practical needs must be met first. This fails to consider one of the main points regarding the conceptualization of practical gender needs and strategic gender interests: many of women's practical needs are closely enmeshed with their strategic need for structural change (Young 1993:156; see also CIDA 1995). There is little in SEAGA to guide planners on how to enable (or empower) women to identify and mobilize around their strategic gender needs. While 'participation' is a key element of the approach, especially for information gathering, it appears to involve stakeholders primarily in identifying 'priority areas of action' within the context of existing development plans or programmes. Overall, compared to some of the other approaches, SEAGA does not appear to embrace a particularly agenda setting or transformatory approach to gender programming. Endnotes 1. Both economic structure and political and ideological superstructure appear to be seen as basic determinants in the underlying structure of gender inequality, although there is no direct discussion of the gendered nature of markets. In some diagrams 'the economic structure' (lower pay/menial jobs for women) is referred to, but interestingly this category is separated out from 'political and ideological superstructure' (male domination and women's oppression), implying that the same relations of domination and subordination are not operating in the economy. 2. The Users Handbook contains some confusion over what each level of analysis constitutes, which seems to reflect a poor conceptualization of these issues. Recently, a macro-level workbook has been issued, which may deal with them more clearly. 3. The intermediate level handbook, in preparation, may contain more analysis of the mechanisms through which institutions reproduce disadvantage. Training Packages and Materials The British Council. n.d. Gender and Economic Reform Through Women's Eyes. Gender Team, The British Council, Manchester. IDS. n.d. Gender and Third World Development, Modules 1-7, Institute of Development Studies, Sussex. Kelleher, D., A. Rao, R. Stuart, K. Moore. 1996. 'Building a Global Network for Gender and Organisational Change.' Proceedings of a conference on Building a Global Network for Gender Change, Toronto. Norem, R. 1996. 'Socio-economic and Gender Analysis (SEAGA) User's Handbook: a Conceptual approach to Development Planning, Implementation, Monitoring, and Evaluation, for FAO and ILO,' working draft, September. Parker, A.R. 1993. Another Point of View: A Manual on Gender Analysis Training for Grassroots Workers. UNIFEM, Women, Ink. New York. Parker, A.R., I. Lozano, L. Messner. 1995. Gender Relations Analysis: A Guide for Trainers. Save the Children, New York. UNDP. 1997a. 'Guidance Note on Gender Mainstreaming, Senior Management Consultation on Gender Mainstreaming,' New York, 5-7 February. UNDP. 1997. 'Consultation Briefing for Gender Focal Points,' New York, 3-4 February. UNICEF. 1994. Gender Equality and Women's Empowerment: A UNICEF Training Package. UNICEF, New York. USAID. 1994. Gender Analysis Tool Kit. U.S. Agency for International Development, Office of Women in Development, Washington, DC. van Staveren, I. 1995. 'Reader: Gender and Macro Economic Development,' mimeo, Oiklos, Utrecht. Williams, S. 1994. The Oxfam Gender Training Manual, an Oxfam Publication, Oxford. Woroniuk, B. 1995. 'CIDA, WID, and Gender Equity: So What's Leading Edge', Briefing Module, CIDA.