The Gendered Impacts of Structural Adjustment Programs in Africa: Discussion

Abstract

Why is the subject of gender and economic reform and adjustment so controversial? We believe the controversy centers on two main points. First, there is a tendency to ignore the reinforcement effect that pre-reform distortions have on culturally based pro-male biases. The inability to collect distortion-enhanced economic rents is linked to an individual's low economic and social status and, therefore, to an individual's gender. Ignoring this point leads many to conclude, erroneously we think, that economic reform and adjustment policies are directly responsible for the low welfare levels of women as producers, consumers, and providers. However, to say that economic reforms and adjustment aim to make economic welfare reflect more accurately the resources an individual commands-rather than an individual's genderprovides little comfort to women; quite the contrary, in the post-reform environment the inequities and the foregone productivity gains are out in the open for all to see. Second, while we have no argument with the fact that gender is a potentially valid dimension along which to examine the equity and efficiency effects of economic reform and adjustment, we would like to see the utility of this approach scrutinized more closely. When is gender the most appropriate first-order disaggregation? Under what circumstances would we better understand the fundamental, structural cause of the problem by examining distributional impacts across size of landholdings, region, tenure status, employment status, or occupational sector? When, for any one of these first-order disaggregations, is gender an important second-order disaggregation? Gender should not be the automatic starting point of an analysis of adjustment, nor should it be ignored as a potential starting point. We encourage the avoidance of approaches that are gender-blinded or gender-blind. In short, we caution against extreme views.