The Disciplinary
Power of Micro Credit: Examples from Kenya and Cameroon
“As we have seen, micro credit has received wide acceptance because of its assumed empowerment impact on women. This is based on the belief that credit not only enables women to enjoy economic autonomy, but also provides social and political empowerment” (Laira-Fonderson, 2002, p. 192). When it comes to women’s empowerment, the aforementioned statement reminded me of the quixotic desire of curing a cancer with bandage.
After reading the assigned articles
for this course, especially those discussing “empowerment,” and doing some independent
readings, just to satisfy my curiosity, I came to believe that “empowerment” is
far more complex and difficult to be merely achieved through micro finance or credit
assistance. However, my point here is not to downplay the role of micro credit
in improving women’s financial status by enabling them, to some extent, to
enjoy financial autonomy and to (re)negotiate their basic rights. All I mean is
that since the factors governing women’s needs for empowerment differs from person
to person, society to society, and nation to nation, micro finance/credit
cannot be assumed as a solid or governing factor to empowerment.
Furthermore, as some of our readings
indicate, micro credit has not necessary provided women with decision-making
power nor has it enhanced women’s active participation in social and political
domains, where women, especially those living in the “Third World” are left
either outside or in the margins. I agree that micro credit provides women with
financial ability, yet not necessarily empowerment, because, as most of the
readings state, empowerment needs decision-making power, which
most of the women, including those with access to micro credit, lack. With
respect to this reality, I personally do not agree with the belief and/or
assumption that micro credit empowers women both socially and politically.
Moreover, many established scholars of GAD
including Naila Kabeer, Jane L Parpart, Shirin M. Rai, and
Kathleen Staudt not only have different definitions of empowerment, but they
also believe in distinguished approaches to women’s empowerment. In addition,
according to these scholars, as the marginalized, deprived, and poor nations
are mostly vulnerable to the forces derived from local, national, and global
levels, the concept of empowerment needs to be “analyzed in local, national,
and global terms” (Parpart, Rai, & Staudt , 2002).
I recommend the following readings for those of
you who may wish to deepen their understanding of empowerment:
·
“Gender
Equality and Women’s Empowerment: A Critical Analysis of the Third Millennium
Development Goal” by Kabeer
·
“Rethinking
Em(power)ment, Gender and Development: An Introduction” chapter from Rethinking empowerment: gender and development in a global/local world
book by Parpar, Rai, and Staudt
·
“Choosing
Silence: Rethinking Voice, Agency and Women’s Empowerment” commentary and
critical communication between Parpart and Kabeer
Thank you Khatera for raising in your blog entry the question of what is empowerment because I think last class we had inconsistency among us when we were discussing or referring to women's empowerment. I agree with you that women's access to micro credit not necessarily led them to empowerment. In her article, Pearson (2007) assures that "earning money may extend women’s options, but may also intensify their workload and responsibilities without necessarily increasing their money” (p.207). This confirms that empowerment is a buzzword that is used and repurposed by different scholars and development organizations to mean different things. I think the best way to use this term “empowerment” is to state at the beginning of our writings or discussions our definition of empowerment and how we are using this term in our study. You mentioned the importance of considering empowerment in relation to the decision-making power. Here, I think Kabeer’s (1999) definition of women's empowerment addresses that efficiently. Kabeer’s (1999) defines empowerment as “the process by which those who have been denied the ability to make strategic life choices acquire such an ability.” However, Kabeer’s perspective helps us to measure individual empowerment more than collective empowerment. Measuring collective empowerment still much complex and challenging than measuring and studying individual empowerment, especially at larger scales such as the global scale.
ReplyDeleteI agree that empowerment was a tricky word for us during the discussion about the readings on gender and restructuring. Its very nature is intangible and can mean many different things to many different people. I also agree though that decision-making is an important aspect of it that can be qualitatively measured. Empowerment can thus be measured by the degree of autonomy in decision-making. A woman who holds no formal work and spends her time maintaining the house and caring for the children and spouse in the house can be an empowered woman if it is truly her choice to pursue these activities at the exclusion of other opportunities rather than forced by outside factors, such as the will of the spouse, expectations of society, economic conditions etc. Therefore, one question to measure female empowerment can be “where is the locus of control for the decisions she makes?”
ReplyDeleteAnalyzing the case of micro-credit through this perspective can provide mixed results depending on the situation. In many cases, micro-credit gives women access to credit that they wouldn’t otherwise have, and thus the opportunity to use these funds in financial activities of their choice. However, as shown in the argument that micro-credit has “disciplinary power”, the women must form their decisions to involve activities that will pay back the loans, and they also do not decide how they pay back the loans, the loans’ interest, or other factors. For example in Lairap-Fonderson’s article, women have to prove themselves able to save according to the micro-credit association’s standards before they are eligible to receive loans and their use of loans is often influenced by the association’s expectations of where they should be invested (192). In many cases the decision is already made for the women to adopt a modern, liberal business model, or other type of model that is deemed adequate to an exterior association, rather than the women themselves. In contrast to this, the author shows the ROSCAs as being potentially more empowering. While the funds that they deal with may be limited to what they are able to access, by making their own decisions with regards to all aspects of loans being given to members, they determine not only the nature of their activities, but also the nature of their structure; it can be as much a structure of community support as it is a tool for business opportunities. Therefore, regardless of whether the women participating in the ROSCAs are better or worse off than those who participate in micro-credit schemes, those in the ROSCAs have the locus of control for more of the decisions they make, thus making them more empowered.