Advocates, practitioners, and scholars: who's behind the WID movement?

First what is the WID movement? It refers to 'Women in development,' and to the first activists and scholars who attempted to point out gender inequities in development, and seek and propose ways to address them. Each of these three groups has differing, sometimes complementary sometimes conflicting, viewpoints about how to advance the field. The movement could not have succeeded without these complementary roles played by different professionals. A the same time, different professional perspectives can create confusion of the abstract ideal with the art of the possible.

I. Advocates' roles

Some history first. The UN declared a Decade of the Woman, which lasted from 1976-85 (next time a conservative politician says the UN is irrelevant, feel free to wonder whether they even know what UNIFEM, WHO, UNDP, FAO, UNESCO, or UNICEF are).

Key events

• Ester Boserup’s 1970 book was discovered—widespread use of scholarly work to promote WID. There was a need for empirical studies of woman's work and its contributions to economies--so much of their work had been 'statistically invisible.'
• USAID (US Agency for International Development, part of the U.S. State Department) was directed to focus on programs likely to lead to economic integration of women. This was referred to as the Women in Development (WID) initiative. They still have an office.
• There was a subtle shift from equity movement (based in U.S.) to economic development as the primary emphasis.

Conferences, gatherings

Movements often gain their strength from efforts to develop networks of professionals, and WID was no exception:

• Mexico City, Copenhagen, Nairobi lent international support (these were all UN conferences for and about women) - -  How did they advance the movement(s)?
• Increased worldwide networking opportunities were available, connecting women from different parts of the globe, from different disciplines, and from different perspectives. There was a great deal of mobilization of women (at non-governmental meetings, often running parallel to 'official' conferences)
• These conferences enhanced the status, visibility of the WID movement
• Increased pressure was put on governments who were ‘statistically exposed’ (that is, had little positive to show in the way of involving women in development or showing that women have made any progress). 

Early conceptions of WID (The five Es)

II. Practitioners' roles

Those working within the system (e.g., NGOs, government agencies), on the ground, in the field, concerned with the practical problems of 'how to reach goals' and achieve development (presumably defined). The focus of the practitioners was on:

• Welfare--poverty alleviation; targeting women-only; exclusion of poorest; welfare agencies were marginal players in development. What's wrong with focusing on welfare programs for women?
• Efficiency--welfare programs focused on women as mothers; economic development and greater equity for women could not be achieved without women's participation in the economy.
• (side note): There are two terms, equity and equality, that get bandied about a lot. In general, equality is the more mechanical of the terms--dealing with groups having identical opportunities. For instance, constitutional law may grant women equality with respect to their right to own private property. But in practice, few would try to exercise such a right. Equity addresses issues of justice, and in this case women's ability to actually exercise rights granted by law. Equity gets more at the idea of fairness.

III. Scholars' roles

• Empirical contributions (research that has documented actual conditions, women's work, gender biases, inequities, etc.).These contributions have provided important documentation of women's work, their contributions. It provides evidence to make the case that bias, inequities exist, and advocates can press for addressing them.
• Theoretical contributions—Proposed frameworks for analyzing, incorporating, mainstreaming gender issues (e.g., WID, GAD), economic policy (e.g., SAL).

How has each group made important contributions to advancing women's interests? Is one more important than the others?

return to top

Simple, right?

Obviously the social movement is more complicated that this. This is just scholar Irene Tinker's attempt to sort out three of the main groups of people, or even functions, if you will, since many within the movement have served as scholar, advocate and practitioner. You should get a sense of what the differences of these are. Scholars are often working in a university setting, but may be working for multilateral organizations (such as UNDP, UNIFEM, FAO, etc.). Advocates may be working more in the political arena, attending/organizing conferences, etc. Practitioners are the ones in the field trying to translate some of the ideas and concepts into practice. They might be extension agents, development workers, people training others in development-related areas. This translation of theory into practice can be difficult. What seems like a great idea at the conceptual level--structural transformation of political power at the household level, for instance--doesn't always give practitioners something they can sink their teeth into. One of the criticisms of the WID movement, by the way, has been that its agendas have been controlled by white, middle class women from industrialized countries, imposing their value systems on others who it is assumed don't have the time or wherewithal to think through many of these abstract issues. In recent years, there has been a movement toward greater representation among women in the developing world, and a recognition of their own indigenous social movements. Even those of us with the greatest intentions can get caught up in the moment, and forget the imortant distinction between 'top-down' and 'bottom-up' or grassroots methods of promoting development and people's participation. It could very well be that practitioners in the field, or those they work with, do not share some of the values of the scholars or practitioners, but since it is their lives, their ownership of ideas and movements that is critical to their success, these individuals' and groups' ideas have to receive more than token consideration.

Trends

• This evolution of the movement has seen a trend toward greater diversity of perspectives in development. This is seen as a strength--why? Wouldn't less diversity lead to greater progress?
• There is a growing awareness of the importance of political power for women, gender issues. The notion that greater economic power would emancipate women hasn't really panned out, and may not change real power structures. Keep in mind, there are differences between men and women's resources, incomes and wealth, but also differences among women in any given locale, whether it represent a village or city, by ethnic group, age, location, income class, etc.)
• Greater protections, recognition by states of women's rights. This doesn't always mean women can exercise these rights, but then again without the constitutional rights, there's nothing to exercise ... It is an important step forward--as economists would say--necessary, but insufficient. For instance, many countries are in the last decade addressing the issue of forced marriages. When I returned to Senegal in 1994, there had been a handful of court cases. I'm not aware of the resolution of them, and while I was in the village there were a couple of cases of forced marriages that ended badly for the women (one tried to leave, was returned to her village and beaten--the elders of the village said she deserved this for 'shaming their families.' There is a saying in Bambara, saya ka fisa malo ye. It means death is better than shame, and it's important to remember, as with subsistence, what constitutes shame is often defined by men in a patriarchal privilege system--beating one's wife may be seen as the proper 'corrective' procedure, not a shameful act, while leaving a forced and possibly violent situation brings shame upon the household). Again, the idea is that while things may change at one level (e.g., constitutionally), cultural changes are often slower, glacial processes (there are other opinions, such as Mackie's).

• Irene Tinker. 1997. The making of a field: Advocates, practitioners and scholars. Pp 33-41 in N. Visvanathan, L. Duggan, L. Nisonoff, N. Wiegersma (eds) The Women, Gender and Development Reader. London: Zed Books.

• Kate Young. 1997. Gender and development. Pp 51-54 in N. Visvanathan, L. Duggan, L. Nisonoff, N. Wiegersma (eds) The Women, Gender and Development Reader. London: Zed Books.