How to promote Women's Agency

I agree with Sen’s thesis that “women’s agency” rather than women’s well-being is a prerequisite of development. Sen emphasizes that women need to be active agents of change instead of simply being patients. Kris explained this by writing “While being female "patients" has brought a certain amount of rights to women and attention to the broad feminist movement, society has reached a point where that is no longer adequate for the further advancement of women -- and society as a whole. Women and men need to actively participate in the advancement of themselves and others for the agency of women to grow.” The growth of this agency will allow the improvements of the developing countries to increase. The benefits of increased equality for women are obvious. How to increase the equality isn’t as straightforward because of “deep-seated gender stereotypes”, as Brianna put it, that are firmly in place in developing countries. Evan Linn wisely suggested that institutions are necessary to change these cultural and social views. Page 182 states “societal institutions have their own inertia and can be slow and difficult to change - but they are far from static.” With time, gender stereotypes can change. There can be a shift in the paradigm. On page 179 of the reader it uses Uganda as an example of institutions that can promote change. The Ugandan government has opened parliamentary seats to women setting a good example for the rest of the country. This gesture hasn’t eliminated gender inequality, but it is a step in the right direction. With encouragement and support from developed nations, similar institutions could be put in place in other countries. Women in underdeveloped countries can and should be the agents for this change. Institutions incentivizing the education of women could also be put in place. Sen writes “Similarly, women’s education strengthens women’s agency and also tends to make it more informed and skilled” (186). I believe that encouraging women in underdeveloped society to be agents of change can help promote development.

However, I did not agree with the section titled Governance on page 181. It states “Greater women’s rights and more equal participation in public life by women and men are associated with cleaner business and government and better governance.” I agree that the representation of women in government is a great thing but not that it will lead to less corruption and “cleaner business.” This is saying that women are morally superior to men. Isn’t that going completely against the idea of equality? Women are just as capable of taking bribes and becoming corrupt as men are. Including women would reduce prejudice and inspire unity, which is a great thing, but it will not eliminate greediness and corruption.

Women's agency

Both "women's agency" as well as "women's well-being", as Sen clearly pointed out, must coexist in order for any social or economic development to proceed. Sen emphasized women's agency, however, because it provides a proactive venue through which women can ameliorate their living standards and overall well-being.
For example, if you increase women's participation in the labor force you also increase women's perceived value in the household and, in turn, their status in the general community. Furthermore, as others have already pointed out, "women's education and literacy tend to reduce mortality rates of children." (Sen 188). Women undoubtedly, if given political, social and economic opportunities, will contribute to development.
My question is, how do you implement or rather, initiate these agencies(namely, women's education and participation in the work force) within a community that is so gender biased? How do you override deep-seated gender stereotypes? Does it require outside influences (like in the Grameen Bank and microcredit example)?

Mary, I agree with you that it is very difficult to break the social and economic standards in these poor countries and to actually empower their women. However, I don't think Sen is "discrediting the importance of being a 'patient.'" He states, in the same section you drew your quotes from on p. 185, "The fact that the agent may have to see herself as a patient as well does not alter the additional modalities and responsibilities that are inescapably associated with the agency of a person." He does recognize that being a "patient" is crucial to women's advancement, but he is saying that being a "patient" alone is not nearly enough.

I believe what Sen is calling for is accountability for the human race as a whole. On that same page, he says, "we -- women and men -- must take responsibility for doing things or not doing them." While being female "patients" has brought a certain amount of rights to women and attention to the broad feminist movement, society has reached a point where that is no longer adequate for the further advancement of women -- and society as a whole. Women and men need to actively participate in the advancement of themselves and others for the agency of women to grow. Of course, cultural stereotypes and taboos will not change overnight, but the more women that act as agents, and who hold relative positions of power, the easier it will be for other women to do the same. In this sense, equality exponentially increases. Also, if more women are in positions of power, particularly governmental positions, the accountability of officials will increase by necessity. If societal mindsets shift to consider all to be equal, then all should be held equally accountable.

Social change on a scale as grand as what Sen is proposing is difficult to comprehend in its preliminary stages, but gender equality could have benefits beyond what he has explained as well. One in particular is a stronger tie between governments and their citizens, which goes along with accountability. Since the progression towards equality inherently requires the unification of all, or at least most, men and women, it follows that governments would be more willing to work with its citizens for positive change. Greediness and prejudice would be decreased in governments.

Why Women Matter in Development

What struck me most about the women's agency readings is just how significant these variables were. I suppose I had a tendency to understate the importance of "social norms" because of how fluid and vague it is as a concept to measure, but it turns out to be the most, if not important, one. This is true for fertility rates, child mortality and gender-biased mortality, health, education, and nutrition.

For example, Sen writes on p. 190 of the DER that "the only ones that had a statistically significant effect on fertility are female literacy and female labor force participation [italics in original]" and on p. 189 that reducing gender-biased mortality "seems to work mainly through variables that are directly related to women's agency."

This makes Sen's case that development economists ought to engage more directly with women's agency, rather than "beating around the bush" with programs to address welfare, very strong. It also fits in with the development strategy of Muhammad Yunus and the Grameen bank (p. 192), which made "a special effort to provide credit to women borrowers."

The Economic Aspect of Women's Agency

One key aspect of the reading that stood out to me was the relationship between economic growth and the development of women's agency. As Pierce and Evan wrote, cultural and social institutions are critical in creating an environment where women can contribute successfully. These institutions include more than just a paradigm shift in which men treat women better and allow them their own freedoms; merely having women contribute to the income of the family and the financial well-being of herself and others around her is instrumental in securing a place for women in the society. I think this notion is integral in thinking about how women's agency enables women to be, as Sen describes, "the dynamic promoters of social transformations that can alter the lives of both women and men" (184). What I found most interesting about the relationship between economic contributions to the society and women's agency was the nuances involved in the instutions to which Pierce and Evan referred. As Sen says, "how 'contributions' and 'productivity' are to be assessed may rarely be discussed explicitly," yet "the perception of who is doing how much 'productive' work, or who is 'contributing' how much to the family's prosperity, can be very influential" (186). This begs the question: how can we develop these perceptions when they are rarely discussed? I think that this is where the paradox of social change resides; in order to acknowledge the financial contributions of women, the sexist biases of society must change. However, as Sen says, "this antifemale bias seems to be influenced by the social standing and economic power of women in general" (187). I think solving this paradox is the key to spurring social change in these societies.

Keeping in mind that the advancement of women is the advancement of all people, it is still important to keep in mind that over the course of classical Western history women's rights were in constant fluctuation. When we take a look around us, here at Exeter, we see the equality and freedom for women. But while there are many female role models in America, men still make up the majority of politicians and business leaders, and the objectification of women is still pervasive in mainstream society. Expecting Africa to change their expectations of women as "patients" to "agents" is great, but as Mary brought up, plans for how exactly this is to be done were not fully addressed in the reading. While improving women's agency will better the general well-being of women, how can women even have a voice if they are dying, or need intense medical care? It's a cycle. Women don't have the agency for adequate health care or food, and their children become orphans, and if those orphans are female, the same then happens to them. Many are simply trying to survive. Perhaps having women-specific healthcare programs funded by foreign aid (assuming the money is properly allocated) is what this situation calls for, and women-specific programs to improve their social conditions and empower them, such as through literacy. The positive effects of women empowerment seems obvious, but the actual way to go about them seems a bit more complicated, especially when the idea of woman as something that is acted upon, rather than a human being with deliberate choice, is culturally embedded.

On page 185, Sen makes the distinction of women who are "agents" of change, rather than women who are "patients", and then goes on throughout the rest of the piece to discuss the benefits of agency. It does make sense that women must be agents of change for any change in their status to occur. Sen went into great deal describing what women have done in poor countries as agents, such as acquiring jobs and getting a more complete education. However Sen failed to address how to go about doing this. As Evan mentioned, it is exceedingly important for the institutions of a country to want women to advance for women to actually advance. But if a country doesn't have these institutions in place, what can be done? Sen provides quite a bit of evidence as to why it makes sense for women to be empowered, and explains the benefits for both the men and women of society. But a paper explaining these benefits will not reverse years of societal repression of women. This evidence will not take away the fear women have of their husbands and the male community, nor will it change the view points of men overnight. If it were so simple to get women's rights in the countries Sen is talking about, it would have happened already. This is why I think Sen is wrong in discrediting the importance of being a "patient". In the Lewis piece we read for Monday, Lewis talks about the need to get women involved in government, so that institutional change can take place at a governmental level. I agree that this is a great way to start the process of empowerment for women. But for this to happen, as he explains, men in many international organizations like the UN need to start appointing women into more powerful positions. Women need to first be treated as patients until they have enough of a voice to become agents. So while I agree with Sen, that the agency of women will be necessary for both equal rights and the development of a country, it must first be recognized that this cannot be done unless the women of underdeveloped countries are given help by the international community. Women need to see a clear way to become agents of change before they will actually become them.

Women's Agency/Social Progress

--I agree with Evan's conclusion about the "strong social and cultural" components of development. It is important to recognize that developing nations that achieve rapid GDP growth must also address the issue of women's agency, in addition to the issue of economic output. Likewise, countries that are crippled by stagnant growth can jump start development with social and cultural progress by empowering women.
--The notions of female "agency" and "empowerment" were pervasive in Sen's piece. However, I did not fully understand Sen's distinction between "well-being" and "agency." How would women in underdeveloped nations be "recipients of welfare-enhancing help"? What does this "welfare" look like when compared to "empowerment" through education, employment, and social status? Would a strict "well-being" policy approach emphasize health care while ignoring education and family dynamics/outdated norms? Sen does note that his thinking about "women's movement" is "a crucial addition to previous concerns," and not "a rejection of those concerns." What does this mean, precisely? If Sen is simply adding onto prior conclusions on gender equality in development, what did the "pre-Sen" doctrine look like? It seems to me as if nearly anything that raises the status of women relative to men should be considered empowerment. And this empowerment leads to a dynamic participation of women in development. How would "better treatment" or "a squarer deal" not address the issue of agency?

Social institutions and household success

Sen's description of the evidence on page 190 seemed quite significant to me: " ... some variables relating to women's agency," he says, "... often play a much more important role in promoting social well-being ... than variables relating to the general level of opulence in society." Going back to one reading from a while ago (also by Sen), we can see that economic growth undoubtedly improved health outcomes (as measured by life expectancy), but—as the comparison with India shows—they also could have been much better had the political system redistributed those benefits more equally using social programs (pp. 38–39 in the reader). Similarly, holding constant the social and cultural factors that influence the share of resources and freedoms that women hold, we could expect that a household would become healthier if its income increased. Yet, as Sen notes, fertility rates and child mortality are much more strongly influenced by measures of female empowerment or agency such as education than by the "general level of opulence." This means a household would be better off if its female caregiver were educated or participated in the labor force than if each working member received a raise. To me, such a conclusion suggests that development requires a strong social and cultural component that ensures more equitable opportunities for women, at least at the level of families. This seems analogous to the tremendous importance of institutions to development at the macro-level: countries only experience real and lasting increases in GDP if they have the institutions that allow people to participate equally in markets and benefit from them. Similarly, families experience significant increases in well-being—not to mention the more intangible personal benefits of the increased freedom that constitutes women's agency—if their institutions (the social and cultural determinants of the roles of women and men) allow for greater efficiency, opportunity, and participation by women.