Abstract

Bu makale, 1990’larda iki farklı yaklaşımın, Yetenek-haklar ve Yeni Yoksulluk Gündemi yaklaşımları, cinsiyet ekonomisi üzerine yaptığı tartışmayı analiz etmektedir. Bu makalenin amacı bu tartışmanın iki ana başlığını tartışmaktır: Cinsiyet eşitsizliği ve yoksulluk, ve bu makale iki farklı yaklaşımın bu başlıklar üzerindeki ana faklılıklarını belirlemeyi planlamaktadır. Bunlara ek olarak, bu makale, bu iki yaklaşımın cinsiyet ekonomisiyle ilgili çeşitli başlıklardaki yeniden gözden geçirilmiş tanımlarını tartışmaktadır. Bu makalenin var olan literatüre katkısı 1990’larda cinsiyet ekonomisindeki yeni gelişmelerin neler olduğunu ve bu iki yaklaşımın hangi başlıklarda farklılıkları olduğunu okuyucuya vermektir

THE GENDER ECONOMICS: THE DEBATE OVER GENDER INEQUALITY AND “HUMAN” POVERTY DURING THE 1990s

Abstract

This paper aims to analyze the debate in the 1990s between two main approaches on gender economics, the Capabilities-entitlements and the New Poverty Agenda approaches. The objective of this paper is to discuss the main topics of the debate: the gender inequality and poverty. This paper intends to determine the main differences on those topics between those approaches. In addition to that, this paper discusses the refined definitions of those approaches on various topics of gender economics. The contribution of this paper to the existing literature is to present to the readers what the new developments in gender economics in the 1990s are and is to determine on which topics those main approaches have differences on gender economics In this paper, we present two different perspectives of the Gender economics. Since the globalization dynamics have stimulated poverty of women during the 1990s, many Gender economists ultimately give further emphases to the gender-aware parts of their economic theories. Therefore, the 1990s is the time period when serious debates on Gender issues with its theoretical framework are put forth to the literature. One side of the debate trusts market and its actors to alleviate poverty as a whole, and takes, first, GDP per capita, and then mortality statistics, life expectancy and literacy statistics as poverty indicators. However, the other side focuses more on the variables of the latter indicators above, namely Human Development Index1 , and other variables such as technology achievement index2 and cultural liberty3 in order to measure the poverty of women and to improve the theoretical framework of the Gender economics. It is easy for researchers to find some data like GDP per capita for many countries; however, it is almost impossible to find all data, like mortality statistics, life expectancy, literacy statistics, technology achievement index and cultural liberty, for each of the underdeveloped countries. Although the Human Development Report Office of the United Nations strives to establish data pool and to include as many member countries as possible from the relevant international data agencies, for a significant number of countries data have been still missing for one or more of those components. Since such data are not yet regularly available for a sufficient number of countries, although improving the coverage and quality of such data has been a priority for many international statistical communities for more than one decade, we are not able to make either econometric models or graphical explanations for any underdeveloped countries.4 In other words, such data have been revisited and attempted to improve many times since the early 1990s and still does. Since both the revision and improvement of the data has still continued, we believe that such a few available data has not been reliable, yet. Therefore, we have not prepared an analytical and quantitative study. Instead we prefer to collect, discuss and present the debate with its detailed theoretical framework during the 1990s to the readers of this study. All the definitions we use in our theoretical framework, if it is not indicated otherwise, are borrowed from the Human Development Reports of the United Nations Development Programme. We only present two theories of the Gender economics because the other economic theories, like heterodox economics or conventional economics, ultimately combine their theories with one of the theories above in order to explain the poverty of women in all over the world.

References

1. AGARWAL, B. (1994): “Gender and Command Over Property: A Critical Gap in Economic Analysis and Policy in South Asia,” World Development, Vol: 22, 1455-78.
2. CAGATAY, N. (1998): Engendering Macroeconomics and Macroeconomic Policies, Working Paper: 5, New York, UNDP. DURBIN, E. (1999): “Towards a Gendered Human Poverty Measure,” Feminist Economics, Vol:5, 105-8.
3. FUWA, N. (2000): “The Poverty and Heterogeneity Among Female-Headed Households Revisited: The Case of Panama,” World Development, Vol: 28, 1515-42.
4. GROWN, C., ELSON, D., and CAGATAY, N. (1995): “Introduction,” World Development, Vol: 23, 1827-36.
5. JACKSON, C. (1996): “Rescuing Gender From the Poverty Trap,” World Development, Vol: 24, 489- 504.
6. JACKSON, C. and PALMER-JONES, R. (1999): “Rethinking Gendered Poverty and Work,” Development and Change, Vol: 30, 557-83.
7. KABEER, N. (1999): “Resources, Agency, Achievements: Reflections on the Measurement of Women’s Empowerment,” Development and Change, Vol: 30, 435-64.
8. KLASEN, S. 1999: Does Gender Inequality Reduce Growth and Development?Evidence from CrossCountry Regressions, Washington, World Bank.

9. LIPTON, M. (1997): “Editorial: Poverty-Are There Holes in the Consensus?” World Development, Vol: 25, 1003-7.
10. MOSER, C. O. (1998): “The Asset Vulnerability Framework: Reassessing Urban Poverty Reduction Strategies,” World Development, Vol: 26, 1-19.
11. RAZAVI, S. (1999a): “Gendered Poverty and Wellbeing: Introduction,” Development and Change, Vol: 30, 409-33.
12. (1999b): “Export-Oriented Employment, Poverty and Gender: Contested Accounts,” Development and Change, Vol: 30, 653-83.
13. (1997): “Fitting Gender into Development Institutions,” World Development, Vol: 25, 1111- 25.
14. SAITH, R. and HARRIS-WHITE, B. (1999): “The Gender Sensitivity of Well-being Indicators,” Development and Change, Vol: 30, 465-97.
15. SEN, A. and ANAND, S. (2000): “Human development and Economic Sustainability,” World Development, Vol: 28, 2029-49.
16. SEN, G. (1999): “Engendering Poverty Alleviation: Challenges and Opportunities,” Development and Change, Vol: 30, 685-92.
17. STANDING, G. (1999): “Global Feminization Through Flexible Labor: A Theme Revisited,” World Development, Vol: 27, 583-602.
18. (1989): “Global Feminization Through Flexible Labor,” World Development, Vol: 17, 1077-95. UNIFEM 2000: Progress of World’s Women, New York, UNIFEM.
19. UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME 2004: Human Development Report: Cultural Liberty in Today‘s Diverse World, New York, United Nations.
20. 2003: Human Development Report: Millenium Development Goals, New York, United Nations.
21. 2002: Human Development Report: Deepening Democracy in a Fragmented World, New York, United Nations.
22. 2001: Human Development Report: Making New Technologies Work for Human Development, New York, United Nations.
23. 1999: Human Development Report, New York, United Nations.
24. 1997: Human Development Report, New York, United Nations.
25. 1995: Human Development Report,New York, United Nations.
26. WORLD BANK 2001: Engendering Development Through Gender Equality in RightsResources and Voice, New York, World Bank.