At the end of the line: Women and united states foreign aid in Asia, 1978-1980

Abstract

Addressing how seriously are being considered in recent US assistance projects and the evaluations made of those projects this discussion contends that the issue of women in development may be usefully conceptualized as having several distinct stages and argues that continuing problems remain in translating concern into action. The data base for the main project consisted of a nonrandom sample of 49 in-depth evaluations and special studies of US foreign aid projects in Asia. All had been conducted in the fiscal years 1978-80 for the Agency for International Developments (AID) Asia Bureau. The projects evaluated ranged in size from several million dollars to several hundred million dollars each and covered the entire spectrum of assistance. Women were not mentioned in the majority of evaluations and special studies surveyed. Using the most liberal coding scheme possible there is some mentionof -- sometimes only a phrase or 2 -- in 15 of the 49 evaluation reports (31%). 7 of the 15 teams with female members mentioned (47%). This contrasts with 8 mentions in the remaining 34 reports made presumably by all-male teams (24%). In 4 of the 49 reports were to be important (family planning programs which focus on only as acceptors) are not considered in this category. The 4 projects in which were to be prime beneficiaries were examined. 2 of the projects 1 in Korea and 1 in Bangladesh are Community Based Integrated Rural Development (cBIRD) projects under the auspices of the Save the Children Organization. The 3rd project a sericulture (silkworm raising) project in Thailand had originally been intended as a women in development effort but seems to have been translated into a help the whole family focus. The 4th project a survey research effort in the Southern Philippines considers the impact of infrastructure on an all-female sample. If are supposed to be principal beneficiaries of a project the question is whether they are receiving the principal proportion of project resources such as money training and credit. For example it is clear in both CBIRD projects that regardless of the intentions of their formulators are neither controlling a significant proportion of project resources nor reaping a significatn proportion of project benefits. If cumulative self-corrective knowledge about what helps and what hurts in various efforts is to be compiled and communicated a more insitiutionalized system of project evaluation is necessary. It is important ot consider at both the beginning and the end of projects.