Practice What You Preach?
Testing for a Possible Divergence Between the Normative Stances and the Policy Practices of Global Development Institutions.
Student: Leonie Truijens Student number: 10387021 University of Amsterdam
Supervisor: Dr. R. Van der Veen Second reader: Dr. E. Rossi
Master thesis Political Science: International Relations Word count: 18975
2 Table of contents
1. Introduction
1.1 Fukuda-Parr’s theory 1.2 Research design
1.3 Data selection and overview of arguments to be tested
3 6 7
2. From general theory to development theory 2.1 Neo-liberalism
2.2 Neoliberal development theory 2.3 The Capabilities approach
2.4 Capabilities-inspired development theory
9 11 13 15
3. From development theory to gender policies 3.1 Gender defined
3.2 Neo-liberal gender development policies
3.3 Capabilities-inspired gender development policies
20 20 25
4. Analysis
4.1 Gender Equality as Smart Economics: A World Bank Group Gender Action Plan (Fiscal years 2007–10)
4.2 World Development Report 2012 (World Bank) 4.3 UNDP Gender Equality Strategy 2008-2011 4.4 UNDP Gender Equality Strategy 2014-2017 4.5 Discussion 32 34 39 44 46 5. Conclusion 49 6. References 52
3 1. Introduction
It is the objective of this thesis to test Sakiko Fukuda-Parr’s statement about a divergence between the normative stances and the policy practices of global development institutions. Fukuda-Parr is a renowned development economist and an authority in the framework of the Capabilities Approach and Human Development, having been the lead author and director of the Human Development Reports from 1995 until 2004 (Fukuda-Parr n.d.). After many years of working for the UNDP she made the transfer from practice to theory: she is now Professor of International Affairs at the New School University (Fukuda-Parr n.d.).
In 2011, Fukuda-Parr wrote an article in which she argued that there exists a divergence between the normative stances and the policy practices of today’s global development institutions. In this article she argues that normatively these institutions have adopted the capabilities approach, but in practice their policies are still based on neo-liberal theory. It is quite remarkable that it was Fukuda-Parr who wrote this article because, as director of the UNDP’s Human Development Report, she herself was intimately involved with the policies of one of the world’s major global development institutions. Fukuda-Parr’s background makes this statement very interesting to take a closer look at.
This thesis can be seen as an attempt to further examine Fukuda-Parrs provocative statement. This is where its scientific relevance lies. The thesis’ social relevance lies in the fact that it is an attempt to create more clarity in global development strategies, in terms of both their content and their justification. In doing so, it could serve as a check on global development institutions to see if they actually practice what they preach.
In order to test Fukuda-Parr’s argument, a short summary of her argument and article is required. This can be found in section 1.1. After that, a short overview of the research design will follow, including a schematic representation of the two versions of the argument that will be examined.
1.1 Fukuda-Parr’s theory
In 2011, Fukuda-Parr wrote an article called “Theory and Policy in International Development: Human Development and Capability Approach and the Millennium
Development Goals” in which she analyzed the influence of Sen’s Capabilities Approach on the recent evolution of policy agendas in international development. Fukuda-Parr presents an overview of the competing development theories that have emerged since the 1950s. She
4
appoints the liberal view of development as the mainstream theory of development, starting with the classical liberal view of development as “a linear process of economic transformation, social modernization, and technological progress” (Fukuda-Parr 2011 p. 124). This was
followed by a shift in ideas in the 1980s through which a different kind of liberalism became the mainstream development theory: neo-liberalism. There are many different interpretations of what neo-liberalism entails, but Fukuda-Parr takes it to mean a view of development which is “characterized by an emphasis on macro-economic stability, privatization and liberalization” (Fukuda-Parr 2011 p.124). The set of policies that is associated with this view of development is usually referred to as the Washington Consensus (Williamson 1990). During the 1990s the Washington Consensus became heavily criticized, leading some to argue that the Washington Consensus was dead.
The neo-liberalism that spawned the Washington Consensus was not the first liberal development theory to attract criticism. Fukuda-Parr identifies two kinds of criticism that have been applied to the mainstream liberal theories of development through the years. The first type she refers to as the heterodox economic theories of development. This strand of literature focuses on “the unequal power relationship between developed and developing countries in the global economic system as a major obstacle to development” (Fukuda-Parr 2011 p. 125). It contains theories such as structuralism and dependencia, that argue that the colonial economic system is the cause of the South’s underdevelopment and that a reform of the global economic system and its institutions is needed to end this inequality.
The second body of literature that Fukuda-Parr (2011) identifies as a critical, competing theory to the mainstream liberal view are the human-centered theories. The Capabilities Approach is probably the most important theory within this strand of literature. Another, older, human-centered theory is the Basic Needs theory. According to this theory “the objective of development should be to meet basic needs of people, such as, primary education, healthcare, clean water, nutrition, food and housing” (Fukuda-Parr 2011 p. 125-126). A more detailed account of the Capabilities Approach will follow in the next chapter. For now it suffices to say that this strand of literature emphasizes “a different
conceptualization of poverty that deviates from the standard income definition and instead focuses on multidimensional human suffering” (Fukuda-Parr 2011p. 126).
Fukuda-Parr emphasizes that the flourishing of the human-centered theories should not be seen as a consequence of the complete rejection of the policies central to the
Washington Consensus. The main problem with the Washington Consensus was not what its policies included, the problem was what they left out. Policies were solely aimed at creating a
5
stable macro-economic environment and fostering economic growth, leaving out issues such as human well-being, poverty and inequality. Furthermore, in some cases the growth-oriented policies even exacerbated the problems of the people that were supposed to reap the benefits of development, for instance when they advocated cuts in social expenditure. The fact that human well–being did not seem to be a high priority under the policies of the Washington Consensus led to the rise of a new paradigm in development thinking that sought to
compensate this neglect by putting humans first: human-centered development theories. As Fukuda-Parr puts it: “the controversies surrounding the lack of attention for the human impact of the neo-liberal development policies opened up a window of opportunity for the Human Development theories to flourish” (2011 p.126).
Whether this flourishing has actually led to a shift in policy-objectives is now contested. Fukuda-Parr argues that the influence of the Capabilities Approach is overestimated. In assessing the influence of the human-centered theories, mainly the Capabilities Approach, she differentiates between two types of influence. The first is the normative influence, which in this case focuses on the purpose of development. The second type is causative influence, meaning that causal relationships that are identified by a theory are accepted. In this case it means that the causes of poverty that a theory identifies are accepted. When a theory’s causative ideas are accepted its influence will extend to the policy-making process. Fukuda Parr (2011) argues that the normative ideas of the Capabilities Approach have been accepted and have influenced the normative development framework. However, the causative ideas about what causes poverty and how we can best eradicate it have not been accepted. Therefore, the influence of the Capabilities Approach has not extended to development policies.
Fukuda-Parr does not argue that the (causative) ideas of the Capabilities Approach have not been implemented at all. Rather, she argues that the implementation of the ideas of the Capabilities Approach has been very selective, “leaving behind elements of participation, equality, and empowerment, which are essential to the Human Development and Capabilities Approach and other human-centered perspectives” (Fukuda- Parr 2011 p.130). “The
approach’s causative ideas—about the role of empowerment and human agency, and the need for pro-poor growth—made little headway in the policy world. They did not become part of the standard economic analysis, nor did they challenge or replace standard policy
prescriptions and analyses” (Fukuda-Parr 2011 p.130).
Instead the neo-liberal policies of the Washington Consensus have remained intact. “The ‘‘Washington Consensus’’ may be ‘dead’, the basic macro-economic policy
6
prescriptions for macro-economic stability and privatization of economic activity remain at the core of both World Bank and IMF lending operations and conditions” (Fukuda-Parr 2011 p.129). The mainstream causative ideas remain based on neo-liberal theory, therefore
development policies also continue to be based on neo-liberal theory: “prioritizing objectives of macro-economic stability and economic growth, justified by the theory that growth is not only a necessary but also a sufficient condition for reducing poverty” (Fukuda-Parr 2011 p.128).
1.2 Research Design
The argument outlined above concerns development theory and policies in general. This thesis will focus specifically on gender equality. This was decided because the difference between neo-liberal and Capabilities inspired development policies should be very clear with this type of policies. However, Washington Consensus policies are macro-economic policies, whereas gender policies play out on a much lower level. Therefore one must first determine what Washington Consensus policies look like at a lower level. This can be done as follows: Fukuda-Parr writes about the dominance of the Washington Consensus, which she seems to equate to neo-liberalism. Though it was not meant as such, the term Washington Consensus has become an ideological position: it is now most often used as a synonym for market fundamentalism and neoliberalism (Williamson 2000 p.256). According to the Washington Consensus ‘development was to be achieved through adherence to the norms of a liberal international economic order (LIEO), which involved a commitment to free markets, private property and individual incentives and a diminished role for governments’ (Gore 2000 p.792). According to the norms of a liberal international economic order, promoting the national interest is equated with promoting economic growth and increasing living standards. Policies are assessed based on their impact on the efficiency of resource allocation and, through it, on their impact on a country’s economic growth (Gore 2000 p.793). The development policies of the Washington Consensus, which are based on the LIEO norms, can therefore be described as growth-oriented.
Since Fukuda-Parr seems to equate adherence to the Washington Consensus to neo-liberalism and neo-neo-liberalism can be classified as growth–oriented, one could simplify
Fukuda-Parr’s argument as stating that development policies are still growth-oriented. Having applied this simplification we can test the argument at the level of gender policies, by testing whether they fit into the neo-liberal or Capabilities framework.
7
To be able to test whether gender policies fit into the neo-liberal or the Capabilities framework, both theories must be outlined. Three steps are required to translate the general theories into specific gender policies. The first two steps are needed to build the theoretical framework that is needed to test the policies’ theoretical base. We must first identify what neo-liberalism and the Capabilities Approach entail and determine how the general theories translate into development theories. The second step is to identify the gender policies that result from each development theory. After this is done, we will have a clear picture of what neo-liberal, gender development policies entail and what Capabilities inspired, gender development policies entail. Lastly, we can take the last step which consists of analyzing policy reports, using discourse analysis to test for similarities with both types of gender policies.
The discourse analysis simply entails a thorough reading of each report. In doing so we look for those quotes that seem to fit into one of the theoretical frameworks, based on the discussion of both theories in chapters two and three. This approach is supplemented by a directed search focusing on the occurrence of a few key terms for each theory, which could be considered each theory’s operationalization. For neo-liberalism, those key terms consisted of concepts such as ‘growth’, ‘human capital’ and ‘efficiency’ and for the Capabilities Approach the key terms consisted of concepts such as ‘intrinsic’, ‘agency’, ‘capability’ and ‘empower’. These concepts will be discussed in further detail in chapters two and three.
1.3 Data selection and overview of arguments to be tested
Since Fukuda-Parr does not specify which global development institutions she is talking about, this thesis will focus on two of today’s most important global development institutions: the World Bank and the UNDP. The four most recent, gender-related reports have been selected on a paired basis. One UNDP report and one World Bank report, published around 2007, and one UNDP report and one World Bank report, published around 2013. This way there is a counter report of the World Bank for each of the UNDP reports. More specifically, for the UNDP two Gender Equality Strategy Papers have been selected. These reports were published in 2008 and 2014. For the World Bank, one Gender Action Plan, published in 2006 and a World Development Report, published in 2012, have been selected. The 2012 World
Development Report is a lot longer than the other three reports, but this should not have any consequences for the results since this can be attributed to the fact that the report contains a lot of information that is not directly relevant for our analysis.
8
The fact that we test for a possible divergence between the normative stance and the policy practices of both the UNDP and the World Bank separately, means that we can get four possible outcomes: both institutions diverge in terms of normative stance and policy practices, neither one shows this divergence, only the World Bank shows this divergence or only the UNDP does. The respective backgrounds of each institution make it so that we argue that there is a strong version of Fukuda-Parr’s argument and a weaker one. Since the World Bank is widely known for its history with neo-liberalism, it might not surprise many if the Bank has not yet let go of its theoretical grounds. Therefore, if the World Bank’s policies turn out to be neo-liberal we can say that the weaker version of Fukuda-Parr’s arguments seems valid. Since the UNDP introduced the world to the Human Development Approach, which is based on the Capabilities Approach, it would be remarkable if the UNDP’s policies turn out to be neo-liberal as well. If the analysis finds evidence to support the claim that the UNDP’s policies are also neo-liberal at heart, we can argue that the stronger version of Fukuda-Parr’s argument seems valid. An overview of both versions of the argument can be found in the table below.
After creating the necessary theoretical frameworks and conducting the analysis, the following research question should be answered: Was Fukuda-Parr right in claiming that there exists a divergence between the normative stances and the policy practices of global
development institutions, when specified to gender policies? This research question can be specified even further by distinguishing between the World Bank and the UNDP. In doing so one can also answer a follow up question: is there a difference between the World Bank and the UNDP, with regard to the existence of such a divergence?
Weak version Strong version
World Bank UNDP World Bank UNDP
Normative stance Capabilities Approach/Human Development Capabilities Approach/Human Development Capabilities Approach/Human Development Capabilities Approach/Human Development Policies Neo-liberal Capabilities
Approach/Human Development
Neo-liberal Neo-liberal
9
Fukuda-Parr distinguishes between neo-liberal development theory and the Capabilities Approach. In this chapter both development theories will be discussed. This chapter contains the first step in our roadmap: from general theory to development theory. The second step, from development theory to gender policies, will be undertaken in chapter three.
2.1 Neo-liberalism The origin of the concept
Neo-liberalism is said to be ‘the dominant ideology shaping our world today’(Thorsen 2010 p.188). Be that as it may, the concept of neo-liberalism remains rather vague and highly contested. In an attempt to get rid of the conceptual vagueness surrounding the term ‘neo-liberalism’, Thorsen (2010) has written an article called “What is Neoliberalism?” in which she tries to deliver a definition/conceptualization of the concept. She notes that the term neo-liberalism has become a ‘catch-all term of abuse’ (Thorsen 2010 p.188), describing ‘what many perceive of as the lamentable spread of capitalism and consumerism, as well as the equally deplorable demolition of the pro-active welfare state’ (Thorsen 2010 p.188). This idea has become so entrenched in political thinking that is even uncommon to write about neo-liberalism in any way other than negatively.
But where does the term ‘neo-liberalism’ come from? Its name hints at a revival of the ‘old’ liberalism, but in order to determine whether this is actually the case one must first establish a definition of liberalism. This is what Thorsen (2010) sets out to do in her article. She argues that liberalism has never ceased to be the dominant political ideology, it has simply been split up into many different varieties, such as classical or economic liberalism, modern liberalism, libertarianism and liberal egalitarianism. Though much more could be said about the different strands within liberal political theory, these strands could be
distinguished by focusing on the role of the state and the emphasis placed on individual and commercial liberty. Whereas classical or economic liberals favor a minimalist state, modern liberals argue that the state should actively intervene in order to realize liberal goals and whereas libertarians favor individual and commercial liberty above all else, liberal
egalitarians consider it just one of many desirable goals (Thorsen 2010 p.193). How does neo-liberalism relate to these various liberal theories?
Neo-liberalism seems most closely related to classical liberalism and libertarianism because of its emphasis on a minimalist state and individual, mercantile liberty (Thorsen 2010). However, despite these similarities, neo-liberalism should not be regarded as a revival of liberalism because it is not a ‘complete’ political ideology. “Neo-liberalism is better
10
described as a theory of political economic practices and should therefore be seen as an economic theory, rather than a political one (Harvey 2005 p.2).
Definitions
Thorsen’s (2010) definition of neo-liberalism is as follows:
“Neo-liberalism is, as I see it, a loosely demarcated set of political beliefs which most prominently and prototypically include the conviction that the only legitimate purpose of the state is to safeguard individual liberty, understood as a sort of mercantile liberty for
individuals and corporations. This conviction usually issues, in turn, in a belief that the state ought to be minimal or at least drastically reduced in strength and size, and that any
transgression by the state beyond its sole legitimate raison d'etre is unacceptable” (2010 p.203).
Another definition of neo-liberalism can be found in the work of Harvey (2005):
“Neoliberalism is in the first instance a theory of political economic practices that proposes that human well-being can best be advanced by liberating individual entrepreneurial
freedoms and skills within an institutional framework characterized by strong private
property rights, free markets and free trade. The role of the state is to create and preserve an institutional framework appropriate to such practices […]. State interventions in markets (once created) must be kept to a bare minimum because, according to the theory, the state cannot possibly possess enough information to secondguess market signals (prices) and because powerful interest groups will inevitably distort and bias state interventions (particularly in democracies) for their own benefit” (Harvey 2005 p.2).
This last definition is found in Harvey’s A brief History of Neoliberalism (2005). To this work we will now turn for a detailed account of the key assumptions and goals on which neo-liberal theory is built. A first key aspect of neo-liberal theory concerns ‘deregulation and privatization’, resulting in ‘a withdrawal of the state from many areas of social provision’ (Harvey 2005 p.64). ‘The institutional arrangements that are considered essential to guarantee individual freedom are private property rights, the rule of law, freely functioning markets and free trade and the key to wealth creation lies in innovation, protection of intellectual property
11
rights and private enterprise’ (Harvey 2005 p.64). Free mobility of capital is deemed crucial and all barriers to it need to be removed.
Individual responsibility and accountability is an important assumption amongst neo-liberals. “A person’s successes or failures are attributed to their own actions, not to any systemic property” (Harvey 2005 p.66). Human capital is a crucial concept in this context. A person’s human capital consists of the skills he or she has accumulated through the years. Investing in one’s human capital, through education, increases one’s chances of success. Failure to invest in one’s human capital will likely lead to other failures. Neo-liberals believe that people who fail in general, fail because of their unwillingness to invest in their own human capital. Therefore their failure is nobody’s fault but their own (Harvey 2005 p.65).
Democracy
The institutional arrangements preferred by neo-liberals do not include democracy. According to Harvey (2005) “neo-liberals are profoundly suspicious of democracy” for two reasons. The first has to do with the majority rule aspect of democracy, which neoliberals fear could threaten individual rights and constitutional liberties. The second reason why neo-liberals do not favor democracy is because democratic transfers of power could lead to political
instability. “Democracy can only work in affluent countries with a strong middle class presence and is therefore seen as a luxury” (Harvey 2005 p.66).
2.2 Neoliberal Development Theory
“Neo-liberals emphasize the primacy of economic growth as a policy objective, believing it to be the most effective way to reduce poverty” (Colclough 1993 p.6). Therefore, in the neo-liberal view, development can be equated to economic growth or capital accumulation. According to neo-liberals, sound development policies are those that are conducive to a country’s economic growth.
Economic goals
Earlier in this chapter, we identified the institutional arrangements that are considered
essential by neo-liberals. From this one can deduce the key aspects of neoliberal development theory: the absence of these key institutions is considered to be the main problem in
developing countries. “The lack of private property rights – as in many developing countries- is seen as one of the greatest of all institutional barriers to economic development and the improvement of human welfare” (Harvey 2005 p.65).
12
Besides the lack of private property rights, neo-liberals believe that a lack of development is caused by excessive economic intervention by governments. These
interventions have led to a situation in which rent-seeking has become a dominant form of bureaucratic activity and have impaired the market in its work to facilitate efficient resource allocation (Colclough 1993 p.6). Neo-liberal development policies therefore aim to eliminate bureaucratic difficulties. They assume that a withdrawal of the state in the form of
privatization and deregulation, is important in achieving this. Lowering the prices and the tax burden is seen as instrumental in increasing competition and reducing costs (Harvey 2005 p.65). This in turn will be conducive to another key aspect of neo-liberal development policies: increasing efficiency, quality and productivity in order to contribute to a country’s growth figures. To achieve this, one must enlarge the workforce and invest in its human capital.
Trickle-down assumption
Neo-liberal development theory is based on the assumption that ‘a rising tide lifts all boats’, also known as the trickle-down assumption. Increased productivity is thought to lead to economic growth and cause a rise in the living standards of all. There are several mechanisms through which wealth is thought to trickle-down to the poor. One example can be found in the work of Kawani and Pernia (2000) who describe how economic growth first benefits the rich and secondarily benefits the poor because they will benefit from the rich’s increased spending. Another way in which economic growth is assumed to trickle-down to the poor is by
increasing the private sector management efficiency, which will generate employment and increased revenues for governments. The poor will profit from the increased employment opportunities and from the increased government revenues once these are redistributed (Haselip and Wilson 2005 p.88).
Social policies as instruments for growth
Since neo-liberals consider economic growth to be the sole purpose of development policies, any policy measure is valued for its contribution to economic growth figures. Policies that do not contribute to a country’s economic development are not worth pursuing. This stance has a significant effect on social policies in the neo-liberal development framework: it leaves very little room for them. “Prioritizing economic goals, neo-liberals stress the dismantling of welfare and education programs, except those in service of capital” (Hursh 2012 p.101). This means that any value placed on a social policy measure is instrumental. Furthermore, the
13
justification of investments in social policies is made conditional upon their indirect contribution to the economy. An example of this is given by Mkwandawire (2001). She describes how redistributive social expenditures can be justified in terms of their contribution to political stability. “Social policy, as an instrument for ensuring a sense of citizenship, is thus an important instrument of conflict management, which is in turn a prerequisite for sustained economic development”(Mkandawire, 2001 p.12).
Technocracy over democracy
The need for stability in order to create an economically conducive environment also
supersedes any political rights of citizens. Neo-liberals believe democracy to be a luxury-good, that is counterproductive in terms of political stability in the absence of a broad middle class to ensure it (Harvey 2005 p.66). Therefore they do not have a place for democratization in their development theory. In order to achieve economic growth, they prefer government by technocratic elites over democratically chosen representatives of the people (Harvey 2005 p.66). This leaves little room for political rights in neo-liberal development policies.
2.3 The Capabilities Approach
We now turn to the Capabilities Approach. Again, we need to take the first step in our roadmap by distinguishing between the Capabilities Approach as a broad normative framework and the Capabilities Approach as it is applied to international development.
The Capabilities Approach as a broad normative framework
The Capabilities Approach was developed by Amartya Sen. “It is a broad normative framework for the evaluation and assessment of individual well-being and social
arrangements, the design of policies, and proposals about social change in society” (Robeyns 2005 p.94). “Its conceptual foundations lie in Sen’s critique of traditional welfare economics which typically conflate well-being with either opulence (income, commodity command) or utility (happiness, desire fulfilment)” (Clark 2006 p.3). Sen critiques utility-centered theories because they do not discriminate against desires that may harm others and because “happiness or desire fulfilment represents only one aspect of human existence” (Sen 1984 p.512). Sen critiques theories that focus on income accumulation by arguing that they have mixed-up means and ends: “wealth is evidently not the good we are seeking; for it is merely useful and for the sake of something else”(Sen 1990 p.44).
14
These differing visions on well-being also translate into a differing vision on
development: the Capabilities Approach reflects an attempt to broaden the conceptualization of development to something more than utility-based, increased desire fulfilment on the one hand and growth of the gross domestic product, the rise in personal income, industrialization or technological advance on the other hand (Sen 1999 p.3). Instead, the approach’s point of departure lies in its identification of freedom as the main objective of development (Sen p.1999 xii). “Sen argues that our evaluations and policies should focus on what people are able to do and be, on the quality of their life, and on removing obstacles in their lives so that they have more freedom to live the kind of life that they, upon reflection, have reason to value” (Robeyns 2005 p.94).
Functionings and capabilities
A key aspect of the Capabilities Approach is the distinction between “functionings’ and ‘capabilities’. Functionings reflect the things a person may value being or doing. Capabilities refer to the alternative combinations of functionings that are achievable. Capabilities are a kind of freedom: they are the freedom to achieve functionings, i.e. the freedom to be or do what you want to be or do. The extent to which a person enjoys a functioning can be
represented by a number. “When this is done, a person’s actual achievements can be seen as a ‘functioning vector’(Robeyns 2005 p.95). A person’s capabilities set would then consist of the alternative functioning vectors that are available to him or her. “The difference between a person’s functionings and capabilities set is the difference between the realized and the effectively possible (Robeyns 2005 p.95). It is the difference between what is and what could be.
Intrinsic vs. Instrumental value
“A key analytical distinction in the Capabilities Approach is that between the means and ends of well-being” (Robeyns 2005 p.95). This distinction is based on the differentiation between intrinsic value and instrumental value. Whereas means have instrumental value, ends are considered ends because of their intrinsic value. Robeyns (2005 p.95) notes that in practice, “the distinction between means and ends often blur, since some ends are simultaneously also means to other ends”. She illustrates this by using the example of good health, which is an end in itself, but also enables one to work. This point of view, that recognizes the importance of both instrumental and intrinsic value, is a key aspect of the Capabilities Approach.
15 Sen and Nussbaum
Although it was Sen who introduced the Capabilities Approach, Martha Nussbaum is also often associated with it. She built on Sen’s groundwork and approached the matter from a justice-oriented perspective grounded in moral–legal–political philosophy (Robeyns 2005 p.103). Central to Nussbaum’s work is a list of her own creation consisting of ten central capabilities: (1) life, (2) bodily health, (3) bodily integrity, (4) senses, imagination and thought, (5) emotions, (6) practical reason, (7) affiliation, (8) other species, (9) play, and (10) control over one’s political and material environment (Nussbaum 2011 p.40). Both version of the Capabilities Approach differ in terms of their objectives. Nussbaum identifies her version of the Capabilities Approach as a theory of social justice (Nussbaum 2011 p.40) whereas Sen’s version was more about applied work on poverty and destitution in developing countries (Robeyns 2005 p.104).
2.4 Capabilities-inspired development theory
The broad normative framework of the Capabilities Approach can be applied to development issues. As made clear from the naming of his most widely known book, Development as Freedom, Sen equates development to freedom. Therefore, according to the Capabilities Approach, development requires the removal of major sources of unfreedom, one of which is poverty.
Development as Capability expansion
As evident in the naming of this approach, capabilities are central to its conceptualization and its corresponding definition of poverty and development. Poverty is defined as capability-deprivation (Sen 1999 p.20). Development is defined as the expansion of a person’s capabilities i.e. the improvement of people’s opportunities and giving them the freedom to choose their own life. This view is based on the assumption that people act rational, ‘choosing a life one has reason to value’ (Walker 2006 p.165). The combination of a person’s freedom to choose and his rationality in doing so forms his capabilities. Capabilities therefore
encompass much more than a person’s skills. (Walker 2006 p.165).
It is important to note here that the approach focuses on capabilities instead of
functionings i.e. on what could be attained instead of what is in fact attained by a person. The reasoning behind this choice is that it does not always matter whether or not a person actually achieves a functioning. What does always matter is that they are able to do so. To illustrate this statement, Walker (2006 p.165) uses the analogy of literacy: ‘what matters is that a
16
person has the ability to become literate, not that a person actually reads’. This distinction is important because it takes notice of the difference between someone not reading because they do not like to read and a person not reading because he or she is not able to. A person who can read but does not, because he does not like to, is not considered to be deprived of anything.
Focusing on functionings or capabilities?
Capabilities theorists do acknowledge that “there are cases and situations where it makes more sense to investigate people’s achieved functionings directly, instead of evaluating their capabilities” (Robeyns 2005 p.101). Robeyns (2005) illustrates this by using the example of protecting oneself from bodily harm. A boxer deliberately risks his own bodily integrity when he chooses to fight. He has the capability of not being harmed, but he chooses to box which can prevent him from achieving the functioning of bodily integrity. In this case it does not make sense to focus on the functioning. A woman who suffers from domestic violence does not have the capability to remain unharmed. As a victim of abuse she has no choice in the matter. In this case it does make sense to focus on the functioning because one can assume that the women is not being harmed by choice i. e. she does not have the capability of preserving her own bodily integrity. The (lack of) freedom to choose is key here. When one can safely assume that someone is deprived of a functioning against their own will, it makes sense to focus on a functioning instead of a capability (Robeyns 2005 p.101). Whether one should focus on capabilities or functionings also depends on whether one is evaluating
achievements or freedoms. Sen’s claim is that well-being achievements should be measured in functionings, whereas well-being freedom is reflected by a person’s capability set” (Robeyns 2005 p. 103).
Economic growth as a means, not an end
The rejection of wealth accumulation as the goal of development marks another important difference between the Capabilities Approach and neo-liberalism. This difference should not be taken to mean that economic growth is considered unimportant by those who support the Capabilities Approach. Economic growth is considered important because it is a means to expanding peoples freedoms and therefore a means to development. However economic growth is not considered an end in itself, neither is it considered the only means to expanding people’s freedom. Other determinants, such as social and economic arrangements and political and civil rights, also affect a person’s freedom. Therefore, those who support the Capabilities Approach see the pursuit of economic growth as one of several ways in which
17
one can expand freedoms and achieve development (Sen 1999 p.3). To explain why economic growth cannot be the objective of development, Sen quotes Aristotle: “the maximization of income or wealth can merely be useful for the sake of something else” (Sen 1999 p.14). “The role of income and wealth – important as it is along with other influences, has to be integrated into a broader and fuller picture of success and deprivation” (Sen 1999 p.20). Sen also
addresses this topic in one of his earlier works:
“The acknowledgement of the role of human qualities in promoting and sustaining economic growth - momentous as it is - tells us nothing about why economic growth is sought in the first place. If, instead, the focus is, ultimately, on the expansion of human freedom to live the kind of lives that people have reason to value, then the role of economic growth in expanding these opportunities has to be integrated into that more foundational understanding of the process of development as the expansion of human capability to lead freer and more worthwhile
lives.” (Sen 1997 p.1960)
The free market
Because both theories differ in terms of the value they attribute to economic growth both theories also differ in terms of the value they place on the free market. Neo-liberals value the free market because it ensures the most efficient allocation of resources and is therefore most conducive to economic growth. In this view, a free market is an instrument to achieve
economic growth. Supporters of the Capabilities Approach value the free market, not for its indirect effect on other objectives but because ‘a denial of opportunities of transaction, through arbitrary controls, can be a source of unfreedom in itself” (Sen 1999 p.25). Both approaches praise the free market mechanism, but their reasons to do so differ substantially.
The instrumental and intrinsic value of freedoms
According to the Capabilities Approach, the abovementioned determinants of development, social and economic arrangements and political and civil rights, are instrumental to human freedom and therefore to development. However, leaving aside their instrumental role, they are also considered important in and of itself. Pursuing these objectives does not need to be justified through their indirect effect on economic growth or any other objective. They are instrumental in achieving other freedoms, but they also constitute a type of freedom in its own right. “The intrinsic importance of human freedom as the preeminent objective of
18
development has to be distinguished from the instrumental effectiveness of freedom of different kinds to promote human freedom” (Sen 1999 p.37).
Freedom and Agency
Sen distinguishes two reasons why freedom is central to the process of development: the evaluative reason and the effectiveness reason (Sen 1999 p.4). The evaluative reason refers to the notion that any evaluation regarding progress must be done based on the question whether or not freedom has been enhanced. The effectiveness reason refers to the notion that any achievement of development is highly dependent upon the free agency of people (Sen 1999 p.4) This brings us to another key element of the Capabilities Approach: agency.
Sen defines agency as “a person’s ability to act and bring about change and to judge his or her achievements in terms of their own values and objectives” (Sen 1999 p.19). Free agency can be constrained by the social, political and economic opportunities that are available to a person (Sen 1999 p.xi-xii). According to Sen, these constrains also form impediments for development because “free agency is not only a ‘constitutive’ part of development, it also strengthens other types of agency” (Sen 1999 p.4). The intrinsic and instrumental aspects of this concept (the evaluative framework and the empowering effect) are clearly present in here.
Political freedoms and civil rights
In contrast to neo-liberal views, Sen argues that in order to achieve development one must not prioritize economic needs over political ones. He emphasizes the importance of political liberty and civil rights and argues that they are interlinked with economic needs in several ways. “Political freedoms are key in the understanding and fulfilment of economic needs” (Sen 1999 p.147). Instead of overlooking political rights because economic needs are more dire, Sen argues that “the intensity of economic needs adds to – rather than subtracts from the urgency of political freedoms” (1999 p.148).
Sen distinguishes three reasons for the preeminence of basic political and civil rights: their direct importance, their instrumental importance and their constructive role. The direct importance of basic political and civil rights refers to their influence on human well-being via their association with basic capabilities. Their instrumental value refers to the fact that
political and civil rights enable people to make their voices be heard and in this way make their needs known to those who might address them. Their constructive role refers to the role
19
played in the conceptualization of people’s needs, including but not limited to economic and political needs (Sen 1999 p.148).
Human Development
Sen’s Capabilities Approach provided the foundation for a new conceptualization of
development that became quite influential in the international development community. This new conceptualization of development, called Human Development, sprung from the
Capabilities Approach inspired Human Development Approach. The Human Development Approach was developed by the economist Mahbub Ul Haq and introduced in the 1990 Human Development Report. It focuses on “expanding the richness of human life, rather than simply the richness of the economy in which human beings live. It is an approach that is focused on people and their opportunities and choices” (UNDP n.d). Human Development constitutes “progress towards conditions that enable, stimulate and entitle people to shape their lives based on their own choices” (Welzel 2006 p.260). “Human Development focuses on improving the lives people lead rather than assuming that economic growth will lead, automatically, to greater wellbeing for all” (UNDP n.d.).
The Human Development Approach accepted the Capabilities Approach’s rivalling conceptualization of development that consisted of more than economic growth. This meant that there was a need for a new way to measure development that would go beyond GDP per capita. This was found in the Human Development Index: ‘a composite measure of health, education and income, the HDI assesses levels and progress using a concept of development much broader than that allowed by income alone’ (UNDP 2010 p.13).
Since the Capabilities Approach and the Human Development Approach are so closely related, given the fact that one was based on the other, they are sometimes referred to as one approach: the Capabilities and Human Development Approach. However, the Human Development approach does differ from the Capabilities Approach in some ways. Most importantly in the fact that the concept of development is operationalized in terms of
functionings instead of capabilities. For instance the Human Development Index is measured using country averages of what is actually achieved in terms of educational attainment (amongst other indicators) not what could possibly be attained. This makes sense since it is a lot easier to measure what is actually the case than to measure what could possibly be the case. Therefore one could say that the Human Development Approach reflects a practical
20
To conclude, the neo-liberal and the Capabilities-inspired views on how to achieve development differ substantially. This is not surprising given the fact that they do not even agree on the question of how to conceptualize development. Neo-liberals equate development to economic growth. Their view of development is highly economic, focusing on creating the institutions that are growth conducive, ensuring effective resource allocation, promoting the creation of human capital, allowing minimal state-intervention, increasing efficiency and productivity and enabling the free-market mechanism to ‘work its magic’. The Capabilities-inspired view of development encompasses more than just economic development.
Development is viewed as capability-expansion, meaning expanding people’s opportunities and enabling them to choose their own lives. This view of development focuses on the promotion of freedom, which is valued for both its intrinsic and its instrumental value.
Chapter 3 Gender, neoliberal and CA policies
In this chapter we undertake the second step of our roadmap: deducing neo-liberal gender-policies from neo-liberal development theory and deducing Capabilities-inspired gender policies from Capabilities-inspired development theory. However, before these steps can be undertaken, we must first specify what is meant by the term gender. After clarifying what the term gender entails, the next step will be to determine which gender and development related policies fit into the previously discussed neo-liberal and Capabilities inspired takes on
development. Again, we start by discussing neo-liberal gender-related development policies and end with Capabilities-inspired gender-related development policies.
3.1 Gender
Gender cannot be equated to sex. Whereas sex refers to the biological characteristics of male and female, gender refers to much more than that. Besides the biological characteristics associated with male and female, gender also refers to ‘the norms and expectations regarding behavior that are associated with men and women in particular societies at particular times’ (Willis 2005 p.142). In contrast to sex, gender is a socially-constructed category that can change over time and space.
3.2 Neo-liberal gender policies
To determine what qualifies as neo-liberal gender policies we turn to two sources: literature and a World Bank Policy Paper called “Enhancing women’s Participation in Economic
21
Development”. This policy paper was written specifically about the topic of gender and published in the middle of the 1990s. The World Bank was a prime supporter of neo-liberalism in this period of time, as evidenced by the opening statement of the 1990 World Development Report in which the provision of basic social services to the poor is
subordinated to the dominant ‘first’ goal of increasing labour and productivity:
“The evidence in this Report suggests that rapid and politically sustainable progress on poverty has been achieved by pursuing a strategy that has two equally important elements. The first element is to promote the productive use of the poor’s most abundant asset—labor. It calls for policies that harness market incentives, social and political institutions,
infrastructure and technology to that end. The second is to provide basic social services to the poor. Primary health care, family planning, nutrition and primary education are especially important.”(World Bank 1990 p.3).
As one of the most influential (then) neo-liberal development institutions, the World Bank’s gender policies of this period, as described in this World Bank Policy Paper, can be considered a valid account of neo-liberal gender policies in general. In terms of gender policies it is evident that in this report the World Bank considers gender equality and female empowerment important for its instrumental value rather than its intrinsic value. Gender equality is considered important to speed up development and development is conceptualized mainly as economic growth. Though social goals, such as battling infant mortality, are also mentioned briefly, the Bank places emphasis on women’s roles in terms of economic development. This is hardly surprising considering the Bank named the policy paper “Enhancing women’s Participation in Economic Development”. (emphasis added). In a
chapter aptly named “The Payoffs to Investing in Women” the Bank explains how “Investing” in women is beneficial to economic development:
“Investing in women is critical for poverty reduction. It 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
22 The efficiency argument for gender equality
A very important part of the World Bank’s reasoning consists of what Braunstein (2012) has called the efficiency argument for gender equality.
“Increasing the opportunities for women to participate in economically productive formal labor market activities also increases economic efficiency. Reducing wage differences
between men and women-unrelated to their productive attributes contributes to an economy's allocative efficiency” (World Bank 1994 p.25).
Braunstein (2012) identifies two ways in which gender inequality can affect growth. “The first is by causing selection distortion-type effects in education and labor markets. The second is by creating growth-inhibiting incentives for investments in human and physical capital” (Braunstein 2012 p.14). According to this line of reasoning, gender equality will lead to a fertility decline. Having fewer children will lead to higher investments per child, creating more human capital. “Thus gender equality bears instrumental relevance for growth and international institutions and development agencies have a sound empirical basis for promoting gender-aware approaches to growth and development” (Braunstein 2012 p.14).
The need to provide an empirical basis for gender-aware approaches is also mentioned by Chant and Sweetman (2012 p.518) who describe how policymakers and practitioners report that the only way to receive funding for gender equality programs is by pointing out their broader social and economic impact. According to Kardam (2004 p.92), neo-liberal economic institutions search for “business reasons for gender equity”. This means that people are much more comfortable investing in women and providing them with
resources such as education and family planning when they can justify this by claiming that these investments ultimately serve market-based, economic growth and efficiency norms.
Monetary valuation of social investments
The fact that investments in women are often justified by pointing out their positive effects on economic growth figures means that the effects of these investments are often expressed by translating them into monetary value. Examples of this are found in the previously mentioned 1994 World Bank Report chapter “The payoffs of investing in women”. This chapter contains a table in which the payoffs of investing in the human capital of female maize farmers in Kenya are set forth. These payoffs are expressed in terms of their effects on the maize yields in percentages (WorldBank 1994 p.25).
23
The same report contained another table illustrating monetary valuation of social investments. This table was so striking that merely writing about its content did not seem to do its content justice. Therefore the entire table has been copied into table 1:
Item Calculation Cost or benefit
(US Dollars)
Recurrent cost of one year of education for 1,000 women 30.000 Benefits Reduction in child mortality Total averted deaths 60
Set cost (US Dollars) 800 Value of averted deaths 48.000 Reduction in fertility Births averted 500 Set cost (US
Dollars) 65 Value of births averted 32.500 Reduction in maternal mortality Total maternal deaths averted 3
Set cost (US Dollars) 2500 Value of averted maternal deaths 7500
Table 1: "The Social Gains of Investing in Girls are Enormous" (Source: Word Bank 1994 p.43)
24
In table 1 we see how monetary value is attached to averting the deaths of mothers and children in an attempt to justify investments in girls. This policy evaluation forms a very crude example of the neo-liberal preoccupation with economic goals and their prioritization over humane goals that might be valued intrinsically by others.
Social policies as instruments for growth
Table 1 exemplifies how monetary value is attached to social investments, but it also shows how social investments are only valued for their economic effects. These investments are considered instruments to achieve a higher goal: economic growth. Table 1 shows how the provision of health services is valued for its contribution to the economy, not for the intrinsic value of saving a life (in the cases of mortality reduction measures) or enhancing women’s freedom of choices through family-planning services (in the case of fertility reduction measures).
Another example can be found in policies concerning women’s education. Educational equality is a key element of gender equality. Neo-liberals do advocate women’s educational opportunities, but not for reasons of equality. Educational opportunities for women are treated not as primarily for the poor women receiving the education, but for the general enrichment of society, through industrialization and economic growth (Unterhalter 2007 p.43). Women’s education is treated as an instrument, as a means to an end. This instrumentalist view is highly visible in the World Bank’s publications from the beginning of the 1990s, stressing women’s education as instrumental for women’s’ ability to contribute to the economy and their ability to take care of their children:
“Education offers favorable private returns to the individual and has a long-term and
sustainable effect on women's productivity and, thus, on the growth of the sector they work in.” […] Improving women's educational attainments contributes to their mobility from
low-paying, low-productivity activities to activities of higher economic value” (World Bank 1994 p.22).
“Parents, especially mothers, with more education provide better nutrition to their children, have healthier children, are less fertile, and are more concerned that their children be educated. Education-in particular, female education-is key to reducing poverty and must be considered as much a part of a Country's health strategy as say, programs of immunization and access to health clinics” (World Bank 1994 p.92).
25
Women In Development: Adapting to the neo-liberal world
“Women in Development” (WID) is a term related to a wide range of activities concerning women in the development domain (Razavi and Miller 1995 p.1). It is best described as a movement that emerged in the 1970s, demanding justice and equity for women. The rise of neo-liberalism also affected WID. WID adopted to the winds of change by adopting the discourse of economic rationality and efficiency considerations: gender had to be factored into development programs to ensure maximal returns (Kabeer and Humphrey 1993 p.83).
Because of the dominance of neo-liberalism in the field of development, WID set out to emphasize the relevance of women’s issues “by showing the positive synergies between investing in women and reaping benefits in terms of economic growth” (Razavi and Miller 1995 p.1). This led to a situation in which “what development needed from women was prioritized over what women need from development” (Razavi and Miller 1995 p.1) and in which “women’s contributions to development where emphasized while their demands for equity were made conditional upon showing positive growth synergies” (Razavi and Miller 1995 p.i). Despite these unintended consequences, factoring gender into development marked an important change in the sense that women were no longer seen as mere recipients of social provisions but instead were seen as contributors to the economy (Kabeer and Humphrey 1993 p.85).
To summarize, neo-liberal gender-development policies are (socio-)economic policies that value gender equality for its instrumental value, rather than its intrinsic value. Gender equality is not considered a goal in itself. Instead, it is to be pursued because it can contribute to the realization of other things that are considered goals in themselves. These goals are first and foremost economic goals, such as increasing productivity and efficiency, which
contribute directly to a country’s economy. To a lesser extent they also encompass social goals, such as reducing infant mortality, in so far as they contribute to a country’s economy indirectly.
3.3 Capabilities Approach and gender policies
One important way in which the Capabilities Approach can be distinguished from neo-liberal theory in terms of the way they approach gender equality is by focusing on intrinsic versus instrumental value. Whereas neo-liberals focus solely on the instrumental value, the
Capabilities Approach focuses on what matters intrinsically. This is also evident in the way the Approach handles issues of gender equality. According to Sen, ‘‘the question of gender inequality […] can be understood much better by comparing those things that intrinsically
26
matter (such as functionings and capabilities), rather than just the means [to achieve them] like […] resources (Robeyns 2006 p.62). Policies built on the Capabilities Approach do not deny the instrumental role of gender equality. Instead they acknowledge the instrumental importance, whilst emphasizing the intrinsic importance. “Capabilities matter intrinsically, whether or not they matter instrumentally” (Unterhalter 2007 p.87). Therefore removing the inequities that suppress the well-being of the women themselves should be considered one very important reason for pursuing gender equality (Sen 1999 p.191), regardless of the instrumental value it brings with it.
Development as Equality
Though the Capabilities Approach does not consider gender equality as a goal in itself,
building on the theory one could go so far as to argue that, under certain conditions, achieving gender equality could be seen as development. This reasoning would go as follows: In terms of the means and ends of development, neo-liberals see gender equality as the means and economic growth as the end, whereas the Capabilities Approach stresses the reversed: economic growth is a means and gender equality, in the sense that it entails expanding women’s capabilities up to the level of men’s, is considered an end. It is important to note however, that this last argument only applies when gender equality is conceptualized as leveling up women’s capabilities. If gender equality were to be conceptualized as scaling men’s capabilities down to the level of women’s (which could technically be understood as gender equality as well), than the argument does not hold because that would be capability deprivation.
Socio-economic policies
Since the Human Development Approach was coined by the UNDP in its Human Development Reports, this is where we turn to in order to identify the characteristics of Capabilities-inspired policies. The 1995 Human Development Report, Gender and Human Development, seems like the best place to identify Capabilities–inspired gender policies. Since neo-liberal policies are limited to socio-economic policies, we will first discuss Capabilities-inspired gender development policies of a socio-economic type. The 1995 Human Development Report opens with a statement from which the approach’s disenchantment with the prioritization of economic growth can easily be derived:
27
“The purpose of development is to create an enabling environment for people to enjoy long, healthy and creative lives. This simple but powerful truth is too often forgotten in the pursuit of material and financial wealth. […] The purpose of development is to enlarge all human choices, not just income. […] Human resource development treats human beings primarily as an input in the production process-a means rather than an end. Welfare approaches look at human beings as beneficiaries and not as agents of change in the development. The purpose of development is to enlarge all human choices, not just income.” (UNDP 1995 p.11).
Capabilities-inspired policies must set objectives that are related to capability-expansion, not to increasing income, which is only a means to development, not an end. An example of this is found in the 1995 Human Development Report:
“The ultimate aim is to increase women's autonomy through greater control over material and non-material resources and thus to influence the choices and directions of their lives” (UNDP 1995 p.101)
Increased autonomy can here be taken as a form of capability-expansion for it increases women’s possibilities in choosing how to give shape to their own lives. Increased welfare, in the sense of greater control over material resources, is clearly taken to be a means to achieve this, nothing more than that.
Monetary valuation
This de-emphasis of the role of economics and the importance of material gains is also evident in the way Capabilities-inspired policies attach value to unpaid work. Whereas we have seen that neo-liberals express the value of investments in women in terms of their effects on economic growth, Capabilities-inspired policies recognize that there are other ways to value these investments. When it comes to women’s contribution to the household income, for example, it is noted that:
“A monetary value is imputed to unpaid work to make economic valuation more accurate and comprehensive, not because this is the only way to value these activities […]the human perspective of valuation should always supersede the economic perspective” (UNDP 1995 p.98).
28 Recognizing the intrinsic value of social policies
Social policies, related to issues such as provision of health services and making education accessible to all, are deemed important for both intrinsic and instrumental reasons. Whereas neo-liberals consider reproductive health important solely because it contributes to human capital (by lowering the birth rate thereby increasing the investments per child) the
Capabilities view of reproductive health concentrates on the benefits it creates for women by enhancing their freedom:
[Reproductive health and rights] signify a state of physical, mental and social wellbeing linked to the functions and processes of reproduction. Effective reproductive health services must combine the prevention and cure of health problems while enhancing personal relations and choices” (UNDP 1995 p.111)
Gender inequality in education affects the capability set in the sense that it can impede girls from achieving certain capabilities. Gender equality in education is intrinsically important because ‘it expands human freedom to live the kind of lives that people have reason to value” (Sen 1997 p.1960). “Though women’s education may yield important social benefits, it also matters intrinsically by helping woman achieve their own aspirations and securing a better quality of life for themselves” (Subrahmanian 2002 p.215). This view, in which the benefits of educating girls span first the girls themselves (through its intrinsic value) and, secondly, others (through its instrumental value) can be recognized in the following statement from the 1995 Human Development Report:
“The returns from educating girls have few parallels in any other type of social investment. There are measurable benefits for women, for their families and for the community” (UNDP 1995 p. 9).
Political policies
In contrast to neo-liberal views of development, Capabilities theorists emphasize the role of agency and political rights in achieving development. With regard to gender, this results in an emphasis on female empowerment, increased female political participation and more political opportunities for women. In the 1995 HDR several statements can be found in which
29
“It is precisely the participation of women at the highest decision-making levels in political and economic life that can drive the change for greater equality between men and women” (UNDP 1995 p.6)
“Key programmes should embrace universal female education, improved reproductive health and more credit for women. These programmes can make a decisive difference in enabling women to gain more equitable access to economic and political opportunities” (UNDP 1995p.9)
Changing the world
In “The New Prophets of Capital” Nicole Asschof (2015) dubs Oprah Winfrey to be one of the best neo-liberal thinkers because she encourages people to adapt themselves to the changing world, not to change the world they live in. Instead of adapting to the world as it is, by framing women to fit into the neo-liberal paradigm, Capabilities-inspired policies aim to change the paradigm itself. Agency plays an important part here, as it is argued that women should no longer be seen as ‘the passive recipients of welfare enhancing help’, but rather as ‘active agents of change’ (Sen 1999 p.189). This view is expressed in the 1995 Human Development Report as well:
“Women must be regarded as agents and beneficiaries of change” (UNDP 1995 p.103).
To summarize, Capabilities-inspired gender development policies encompass both socio-economic and political policies. They emphasize the intrinsic value of investments over their instrumental value. They prioritize the human aspects of development over the economic aspects of development. Capability-expansion is the end rather than the means of
development and economic progress and welfare enhancement is the means rather than the end of development.
To conclude, the best way to structure and differentiate between neo-liberal gender development policies and Capabilities-inspired gender development policies is by dividing policies into two categories: socio-economic policies and political/civil rights policies. Neo-liberal gender development policies and Capabilities-inspired gender development policies are similar in terms of socio-economic policies. Both types of policies aim at achieving economic growth, increasing female employment, educating women and girls and providing women
30
with reproductive health. However, although the policies themselves may be similar, they differ substantially in terms of their justification.
Whereas neo-liberals want to pursue economic growth because it is the ultimate goal of development, Capabilities supporters pursue economic growth for its instrumental value in achieving capability expansion. What is considered an end by neo-liberals is considered a means by Capabilities theorists. The reversed is also possible. Neo-liberals want to educate women and girls and provide women with reproductive health services in order to increase human capital and in doing so contribute to economic growth. Capabilities supporters acknowledge the instrumental value of education and health services in achieving other functionings but they emphasize that educating women and girls and providing women with reproductive health services matters in its own right because they are functionings themselves. In this case, what is considered the end by Capabilities theorists is considered the means by neo-liberals. In other words, when it comes to socio-economic policies, neo-liberals and Capabilities-supporters pursue similar policies for different reasons. Neo-liberals base their justification on a policy’s instrumental value whereas Capabilities theorists base their justification on a policy’s intrinsic value.
The other type of policies, political/civil rights policies, are only emphasized by Capabilities supporters. Political and civil rights do not seem to play a role in development as conceptualized by neo-liberals. Capabilities-inspired gender and development policies that fall into the political rights category emphasize women’s empowerment and enhancement of their agency by promoting female political participation and by creating political
opportunities for women.
4. Analysis
Before we turn to the analysis of the four reports a short recap of both theoretical frameworks might come in handy, so that it is clear what we are looking for in the reports that are to be analyzed. Neo-liberal development policies are recognizable by the fact that they equate development with economic growth and therefore they are of a highly economic nature. Concepts such as human capital creation, efficiency, productivity and market access take center stage in neo-liberal theory. In terms of gender policies, neo-liberals focus on the female aspect of the abovementioned economic concepts. Their development policies are socio-economic policies that focus on the instrumental value of gender equality for the achievement of economic goals.
31
Capabilities development policies equate development to capability expansion, which means that the objective of development is to expand one’s opportunities and choices in life. This view of development focuses on the promotion of freedoms of any kind, be it economic, political or social. Capabilities-inspired development policies recognize the instrumental value of gender equality but emphasize its intrinsic value first and foremost. In contrast to neo-liberals, Capabilities development policies also include political objectives that
encompass political rights. In terms of socio-economic policies, Capabilities-inspired policies are similar to neo-liberal policies, but they differ with regard to the justification of the policy objectives: their socio-economic policies are advocated for intrinsic reasons first and
foremost.
Building on each theory’s gender and development policies that were distinguished in chapter 3, we will now turn to a number of reports that focus on gender and development, published by the World Bank and the UN. These reports will be analyzed to see to what extent they fit into the theoretical framework of the Capabilities Approach or neo-liberal theory. In doing so we can check to see if we find evidence that supports either one of the versions of Fukuda-Parr’s argument about a divergence between the normative stances and the policy practices of the World Bank and the UNDP. For reasons of clarity, it might be helpful to repeat the schematic representation of the two versions of Fukuda-Parr’s argument here, so as to ensure that the purpose of this thesis remains clear.
Weak version Strong version
World Bank UNDP World Bank UNDP
Normative stance Capabilities Approach/Human Development Capabilities Approach/Human Development Capabilities Approach/Human Development Capabilities Approach/Human Development Policies Neoliberal Capabilities
Approach/Human Development
