Women’s economic empowerment: the role of social protection

1. Women’s economic empowerment: the role of social protection Dr. Nicola Jones Research Fellow Overseas Development Institute November 8 2012 Houses of Parliament, London

2. Presentationoverview • Linking economic empowerment and social protection • Gendered poverty and vulnerability – a brief overview • Conceptualising gender-sensitive social protection • Key findings from ODI’s global study on gender-sensitive social protection • Examples of international good practice: • Ethiopia’s Productive Safety Net Programme • Mexico’s Estancias subsidised creche scheme • Peru’s Juntos conditional cash transfer programme • Policy and practice implications • Useful sources, including other relevant ODI work

3. 1. Linking economic empowerment and social protection

4. Social protection and economic empowerment • Social protection contributes to: • Growth with resilience: as recognised by the 2010 G20 Seoul Development Consensus and the 2011 Busan Aid Forum • More equitable growth: as highlighted by growing evidence base on poverty impacts of CTs from Latin American (e.g. World Bank, 2010) and elsewhere (DFID Cash Transfer Evidence Paper, 2011) • MDG achievement: by reducing gendered poverty and inequality (Goals 1,7); strengthening access to quality basic services (Goals 2-7); facilitating better balance between care-giving and productive work responsibilities (Goals 4-6); & promoting women’s role as agents of change (Goals 3, 8). • Realisation of Human rights to basic social security: • “The duty to implement social protection policies to expand the protection available to persons living in extreme poverty flows directly from a number of human rights… Ensuring access to social protection is therefore not a policy option, but a State obligation” (UN Independent Expert on Extreme Poverty, 2010: para 10).

5. 2. Gendered poverty and vulnerability

6. Gendered vulnerabilities: cross-country differences It is often argued women constitute “70% of the world’s poor” but a closer look at individual countries suggests a more complex picture: Ethiopia: early 2000s data suggests that while male hhs have greater consumption expenditure capacity, in terms of per capita food energy consumption, female hhs score more highly Ghana: female hhs (30% of population) have significantly lower poverty levels (19.2% vs 31.4%) Cambodia: on average, men’s wages in 2004 were 3% higher than women’s; but 53% of economically-active women work in unpaid family labour, compared to 32% of men. China:while wages rose significantly between 1990-2000 , gender income gap increased 7.4% India:the proportion of women living below the poverty line is 60% compared to 40% for men (trend data from 1970s to 2000s) Latin America: more women live below the poverty line with an increase in women’s poverty from 108 to 112 vs every 100 men over last 15 years

7. Gendered economic and social risks

8. 3. Conceptualising gender-sensitive social protection

9. Defining social protection • A useful working definition of social protection is: • ‘All interventions from public, private and voluntary organisations and informal networks to support communities, households and individuals in their efforts to prevent, manage and overcome risks and vulnerabilities’ • (Shepherd et al., 2004). • “An expanded view of social protection must incorporate responses to both chronic and structural vulnerability’ • (Sabates-Wheeler and Devereux 2008: 67).

10. Gender-sensitive social protection: conceptualising impact pathways on women’s empowerment

11. 4. Key findings from ODI global study

12. Gender-sensitive programming strengths • Strengths are largely at programme design level • with gender-sensitive vulnerability assessments • underpinning social protection strategy choices: • Women’sunequalwagesrecognised by guaranteeingequalwageswithin public worksschemes • Women’scare workburdenrecognisedthrough provisions in public works for work dispensation duringmaternity/post-partum and flexible work-time; as well as subsidisedcrecheschmes • Women’s and girls’ time povertyrecognisedthroughinvestments in time-savingcommunityassets • Womenrecognised as key facilitators of children’shuman capital development by targeting social transfers to them • Safe motherhood practices promoted through cash transfer conditionalities • Gender-specific health vulnerabilities addressed through social health insurance programmes which include provisions for reproductive and sexual health

13. Gender-sensitive programming challenges Challenges are especially pressing at the implementation and M&E stages: x Frequent disconnect from design; programme implementers’ gender awareness and capacities are weak/ under-invested in Inadequate leadership support and incentive structures for integration of gender dimensions Too often gender is equated with female headed hhs; vulnerabilities of women and girls within male headed hhsoverlooked Insufficient attention to institutionalized linkages with complementary programmes and weak inter-sectoral coordination Limited investment in mechanisms, e.g. mentoring, required for women’s meaningful participation in programme decision-making bodies Gender-sensitive M&E systems universally weak, and very few examples of participatory approaches, e.g. social audits

14. 5. Examples of international good practice

15. Estancias Infantiles: subsidised childcare for Mexican mothers • Estancias provides subsidised childcare to low-income working mothersof children aged 1-4 years. • Reached 1 million children in its first four years. • Care is available to women who are working, looking for work or studying. Single fathers are also eligible. • Enabled 5000 women to become micro-entrepreneurs by opening their own childcare centres. • Been rated satisfactory, safe by 99% of beneficiaries, and enabled 95% of women to raise their incomes. • Limited impacts on child development outcomes, although that is not its primary aim. • Service users are eligible for additional support, including Mexico’s renowned Progresa CCT programme

16. Ethiopia’s Productive Safety Net Programme • PSNP is a public works scheme reaching 7.5 million chronically poor people in rural Ethiopia • Programme design is gender-sensitive in a number of ways: • Guarantees equal participation of men and women; and provides cash transfers for pregnant and lactating mothers • Allows for flexible working hours for mothers, and in principle for free childcare for programme participants during working hours • Invests in gender-sensitive community assets such as water and fuelwood collection points closer to the village to reduce girls’/ women’s time burden; allows for public works labour to support agricultural labour demands of female-headed households • Programme implementation has been weaker to date: • Limited investment in gender awareness strengthening for programme implementers as well as the broader community • Uneven implementation of gender-sensitive provisions across work sites • Relatively weak gender-sensitive M&E

17. Peru’s Juntos conditional cash transfer programme • CCT programme reaching 500,000 extremely poor households by 2011 • Programme design is gender-sensitive in a number of ways: • Recognises women’s “practical gender needs” by paying the transfer to women to support children’s education, health and nutrition-related costs • Facilitates an uptake in pre-/ post-natal services by inclusion in programme conditions • Encourages transformation of intra-household gender relations through behavioural change initiatives with both men and women • Strengthens women’s interactions with authorities by mandating all programme participants have a birth registration certificate and a bank account • Increases women’s community leadership through dedicated programmefaciltiator (all women) to liaise with programme members and service providers • In some localities linkages have been forged with complementary programmes, e.g. gender violence prevention initiatives undertaken by NGOs • Challenges persist however: • Programme conditions can exacerbate women’s time poverty • Limited linkages to alterative income-generating opportunities to promote a sustainable exit from poverty • Limited impacts on intra-household inequalities

18. 6. Policy & practice implications

19. Policy and practice implications 1. Promote leadership and coordination mechanisms for social protection, including gender integration 5. Strengthen gender-sensitive information management, M&E systems 2.Foster decentralised social protection programming and budgeting to better address context-specific gendered vulnerabilities Promoting gender-sensitive social protection 4. Support development of clear gender-sensitive programme implementation guidelines 3. Invest in tailored capacity building – general and gender-specific

20. Further reading on women’s economic empowerment by ODI Espey, J. (2011). “Women exiting chronic poverty: empowerment through equitable control of households’ natural resources “. Chronic Poverty Research Centre Working Paper. No. 184. May. Holmes, R. and Jones, N. (2009) “Putting the social back into social protection: a framework for understanding the linkages between economic and social risks for poverty reduction‟. ODI Background Note, ODI London. Holmes, R. and N. Jones (2010). “How to design and implement gender-sensitive social protection programmes: A Toolkit for Designers and Practitioners”. ODI: London. Holmes, R. and N. Jones (2010). “Rethinking Social Protection Using a Gender Lens”. ODI Working Paper 320. ODI: London. Jones, N. and R. Holmes (2011). “If gender ‘makes development and economic sense’, why is social protection gender-blind? The politics of gender and social protection”. IDS Bulletin. ”Social Protection for Social Justice”. November. . Holmes, R. and N. Jones (2013 forthcoming). Gender and Social Protection in the Developing World: Beyond Mothers and Safety Nets. Zed Books: London. See also: http://www.odi.org.uk/work/projects/details.asp?id=1020&title=gender-vulnerability-social-protection

21. Vulnerability/ Capability Assessment Policy and Programme Design Programme Implementation Holmes, R. and N. Jones (2010). “How to design and implement gender-sensitive social protection programmes: A Toolkit for Designers and Practitioners”. ODI: London Data: Good practice examples; evaluation evidence Data: Programme M and E data Data: household surveys, qualitative research, UN indices Analyse key economic vulnerabilities from a gender and generational lens Analyse key social vulnerabilities from a gender and generational lens • Objective to address gender inequalities • Gender-sensitive benefit type , delivery approach and conditionalities • Linkages to complementary services • Gender equitable decision-making • Gender-sensitive M and E STEPS Awareness raising on gender programme provisions for beneficiaries + implementers Equal participation in decision-making encouraged Gender-sensitive M&E Clear coordination mechanisms Are M&E indicators gender-sensitive? Role of formal and informal institutions? Role of actor interests? Uptake in national develop-ment strategies? Uptake in national social protection strategies? Balanced approach between economic and social risks? Learning from good practice? Sufficient pilot evidence? Role of ideas? QUESTIONS Gender-sensitive design features include... Gender-sensitive implementation entails... Examples of gender-specific vulnerabilities... EXAMPLES Optimal gender-sensitive programme implementation Optimal gender-sensitive vulnerability assessment Optimal gender-sensitive programme design BEAR IN MIND: 1. Innovate 2. Complexity Vs. Simplicity 3. No perfect solutions 4. The importance of context

22. Thank you “If an activity is attended by either men or women, it is decided by just a half of world….” (Commune Poverty Reduction Officer, Lao Va Chai, Ha Giang, Viet Nam).