The Co$t of Development

Even if you do not follow the news carefully, you have probably heard of Malala Yousafzai, the Pakistani girl who was shot in the head in late 2012 by members of the Taliban in response to her advocacy for girls’ access to education.  Though her activism nearly cost her life, Malala has risen to international prominence and received many accolades, including a nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize and a book deal. Her story is admirable and inspiring, but it is also an exception:  many young girls who dare to go to school risk bodily harm, verbal abuse, or worse, death (Bisika, Ntata, & Konyani, 2009; Chisamya, DeJaeghere, Kendall, & Khan, 2012; Sharkey, 2008) – and they don’t get to meet the queen of England.  

Malala was brave, and so are the many women and young girls around the world who are ambitious enough to demand that their rights be taken seriously. Who demand that they should have access to education, contraceptives, and paid work. Who demand that they should be treated as equal partners in the development process. But what are the costs of these “gains” for women? What price do they pay for “empowerment”?

In a recent article assigned for another class, Staudt (2011) describes the prevalence of male violence against women in Ciudad Juárez, Mexico, where several transnational corporations have established maquiladoras, resulting in more women earning wages. Staudt suggests that this violence, which has increased since the stationing of the maquiladoras, is men’s resistance to economic restructuring, which has weakened men’s control over women as more women enter the workforce. Although I take issue with Staudt use of the term “resistance” to describe the violence against Mexican women, this example, taken together with the examples of violence against young girls who pursue education, illustrates some of the consequences of shifting gender dynamics, particularly under conditions of economic or political distress.

Though none of these examples is necessarily the result of development projects per se, they are representative of some of the changes that occur as the result of development. I do not want to suggest that development always or necessarily has negative consequences for young girls and women. Certainly, there are plenty of positives: more women going to school, more women getting jobs, more women having a voice in politics. Yet, one important caveat I took from this course in general and the Guide to Gender-Analysis Frameworks in particular, is that grassroots, community-based participation in development is necessary for long-term, sustainable, and productive change. As March, Smyth, and Mukhopadhyay caution in the introduction to the text, activists and development agents must find ways of “devising and implementing policies and programmes which do not exclude or harm women, which take their needs and perspective into account, and which may help redress some of the existing gender imbalances” (p. 14). Important, too, is the need to prepare for backlash, to consider the repercussions of changing gender and family dynamics for both men and women (and young girls).

As a final aside, in my research on the costs of development for women, I came across this article on the United Nations Development Programme website. The title, “Violence Against Women Also Hurts Business and Development,” is an interesting one. Does violence against women take on more urgency when it has economic ramifications?

References: 
Bisika, T., Ntata, P., & Konyani, S. (2009). Gender-violence and education in Malawi: A study of violence against girls as an obstruction to universal primary school education. Journal of Gender Studies, 18(3), 287-294. doi: 10.1080/09589230903057183

Chisaya, G., DeJaeghere, J., Kendall, N., & Khan, M.A. (2012). Gender and education for all: Progress and problems in achieving gender equity. International Journal of Educational Development, 32, 743-755. doi: 10.1016/j.ijedudev.2011.10.004

Sharkey, D. (2008). Contradictiosn in girls' education in a post-conflict setting. Compare, 38(5), 569-579.
doi: 10.1080/03057920802351333