Gender and Development When we talk about gender equality and international development, it is important to position this empirical domain within the multiple countervailing forces entailed in cross-national connections. Gender orders in all nations are shaped and influenced by international forces, whether they be in the legacy of colonization (Lowe 2015), migration (Kim 2008; Pedraza 1991), state activities (Moghadam 2004; Parreñas 2015), globalized economies (Guevarra 2014), or development initiatives. Some of these cross-national connections create new forms of gender inequality, others further entrench existing gender regimes, and others act as progressive forces promoting equality between men and women. Furthermore, some global processes encompass contradictory processes, reproducing gender inequality in certain ways while challenging it in others. Our study focuses on the realm of international development as a cross-national dynamic that influences local gender regimes. Like many cross-national forces implicated in processes of gender inequality, international development initiatives bridge the industrialized nations of the West, which act as major sources of funding and administration of these projects, to underdeveloped nations of the global South, where the development programs are implemented on the ground and the effects of these initiatives are most strongly felt.
Gender Structure Theory Gender structure theory posits that gender is structured at three dimensions of social organization: the individual, the interactional, and the macro. At the individual level, the focus is on the processes by which gendered identities becomes internalized. Cultural forces are paramount through inscribing a worldview that reinforces gender difference and inequality. According to Bem (1993), when individuals grow up in a culture with a polarized notion of masculinity and femininity that privileges the position of men, people internalize cultural outlooks that tend to legitimize and thereby bolster gender inequality. Such cultural norms play a role in forming women’s traditional proclivities for subsistence farming in contrast to men’s interest in commercial farming, trends that become problematic when commercial activities are privileged in development initiatives (Rocheleau, Ross, and Morrobel 1996). Gender identities and norms also play a role in the development of individuals’ human capital, shaping the opportunities and interests men and women have in education, for example.
The Gender Asset Gap If economic empowerment is the “magic potion” for development (Blumberg 2005), then women’s access to assets and resources is a key ingredient. Gender asset gaps are not uniquely a problem of developing societies, but they most assuredly do exist in many of the societies in which development policies are targeted. Gender asset gaps are present when men (and it is almost always men) own a larger share of household assets than their wives and/or other women in the household (Deere and Doss 2006). MeinzenDick et al. (2011) show convincingly that patterns in ownership of household assets plays a considerable role in women’s equality and children’s well-being. When women increase their share of assets within and beyond their households, benefits accrue to their children, especially girls. Their research suggests that women seem to have less bias toward expending assets disproportionately on sons, as is often the case among men in instances in which large gender asset gaps exist. In addition, Meinzen-Dick et al. argued that when women’s assets increase, so does their bargaining power and their ability to control what they produce. Indeed, the benefits of women’s increased ownership of assets has been found in number of studies taking place in a variety of international settings.
Women’s Group–Based Fish Polyculture Program in Bangladesh From 1994 to 1995, Banchte Shekha, an NGO, started a program that provided training in fish polyculture to women in the Jessore District of Bangladesh. Fish polyculture is a type of agricultural technology designed to increase fish farming yields by including species of fish whose feeding practices are complementary. The polyculture introduced by Banchte Shekha was developed by the International Center for Living Aquatic Resource Management (ICLARM) and was designed so that fishponds would contain both bottom and surface feeders. Extension workers with Banchte Shekha were trained by ICLARM and the Fisheries Research Institute of Bangladesh in the practices and management involved in this form of polyculture. Banchte Shekha targeted poor households, those owning less than 0.5 acres of land, for adoption of the fishpond technology. With the two goals of improving fish farming yields for poor households and empowering women in those households, the introduction of the fish polyculture technology was performed through a women-only, group-based program in which Banchte Shekha trained women on the practices of fish polyculture and then provided long-term pond leases for groups of women. When needed, Banchte Shekha also provided credit. The aquaculture project did not include a savings program pertaining directly to fish production and sale, although such initiatives had been offered separately from the aquaculture program in the past by Banchte Shekha.
The adoption of fish polyculture through women’s groups was intended to supplement the income and nutritional status of poor households in addition to empowering women through facilitating their participation in the productive group-based activity. However, various outcomes are possible in such a project. By introducing a technology designed to increase fish farming yields, households that adopt polyculture may experience greater income (if fish are sold) and/or improved nutrition in cases in which fish are used to supplement diets. An increase in material goods resulting from women’s productive labor can also have cultural implications for family life. As a result of generating income, women’s status in the family may improve, they may have greater decision-making power, and they may be treated better by their husbands. Yet women’s ability to generate income may also produce a negative reaction by husbands who feel challenged by their wives increased bargaining power and their participation in new market-based economic activities. In these circumstances, it is possible that husbands can become abusive and even steal or assume control over the resources brought into the household by women (as was seen by Koenig et al. 2003 in the case of women’s participation in credit groups). Even if fish polyculture is relatively unsuccessful in generating income, women’s participation in group fishponds may be beneficial because their interaction with other women in productive capacities increases their social capital (Kumar and Quisumbing 2010).
Data and Sample To test these hypotheses, we draw data from the Chronic Poverty and Long Term Impact Study in Bangladesh (Quisumbing and Baulch 2010), which explored the long-term impact of several development programs throughout Bangladesh. For the purposes of this study, we use data that pertain to the group-based fish polyculture program in the Jessore District. Two rounds of surveys were conducted on this program, one in 1996 and then follow-ups in 2006 and 2007. Follow-up surveys were conducted with the same households surveyed in 1996 as well as split-off households in cases in which adults had moved out of the original households and established their own. The initial surveys in 1996 took place only three years after the fish polyculture program began. Because it takes some time for program participants to receive the training in fish polyculture and establish their ponds, the 1996 round of surveys describe household characteristics prior to the time when we would expect the agricultural technology to have a major influence. Data collected in this initial round included a wide array of variables measuring agricultural output, ownership of assets, and health-related characteristics. Surveys conducted in 2006 and 2007 focused on evaluating the effects of agricultural technology adoption, collecting information on assets, income, health, and household ability to meet basic needs.