You are here

Home » Content

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

Journal Name:

  • Ege Akademik Bakış Dergisi

Publication Year:

  • 2003
Author NameUniversity of AuthorFaculty of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
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.
Bookmark/Search this post with
Abstract (Original Language): 
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.
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon arastirmax-gender-economics-debate-over-gender-inequality-and-human-poverty-during-1990s.pdf
  • 1
16-23
  • Turkish

REFERENCES

References: 

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.
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.
23
FUWA, N. (2000): “The Poverty and Heterogeneity
Among Female-Headed Households Revisited: The
Case of Panama,” World Development, Vol: 28,
1515-42.
GROWN, C., ELSON, D., and CAGATAY, N.
(1995): “Introduction,” World Development, Vol:
23, 1827-36.
JACKSON, C. (1996): “Rescuing Gender From the
Poverty Trap,” World Development, Vol: 24, 489-
504.
JACKSON, C. and PALMER-JONES, R. (1999):
“Rethinking Gendered Poverty and Work,”
Development and Change, Vol: 30, 557-83.
KABEER, N. (1999): “Resources, Agency,
Achievements: Reflections on the Measurement of
Women’s Empowerment,” Development and
Change, Vol: 30, 435-64.
KLASEN, S. 1999: Does Gender Inequality Reduce
Growth and Development?Evidence from Cross-
Country Regressions, Washington, World Bank.
LIPTON, M. (1997): “Editorial: Poverty-Are There
Holes in the Consensus?” World Development,
Vol: 25, 1003-7.
MOSER, C. O. (1998): “The Asset Vulnerability
Framework: Reassessing Urban Poverty Reduction
Strategies,” World Development, Vol: 26, 1-19.
RAZAVI, S. (1999a): “Gendered Poverty and Wellbeing:
Introduction,” Development and Change,
Vol: 30, 409-33.
(1999b): “Export-Oriented Employment, Poverty
and Gender: Contested Accounts,” Development
and Change, Vol: 30, 653-83.
(1997): “Fitting Gender into Development
Institutions,” World Development, Vol: 25, 1111-
25.
SAITH, R. and HARRIS-WHITE, B. (1999): “The
Gender Sensitivity of Well-being Indicators,”
Development and Change, Vol: 30, 465-97.
SEN, A. and ANAND, S. (2000): “Human
development and Economic Sustainability,” World
Development, Vol: 28, 2029-49.
SEN, G. (1999): “Engendering Poverty Alleviation:
Challenges and Opportunities,” Development and
Change, Vol: 30, 685-92.
STANDING, G. (1999): “Global Feminization
Through Flexible Labor: A Theme Revisited,”
World Development, Vol: 27, 583-602.
(1989): “Global Feminization Through Flexible
Labor,” World Development, Vol: 17, 1077-95.
UNIFEM 2000: Progress of World’s Women, New
York, UNIFEM.
UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT
PROGRAMME 2004: Human Development
Report: Cultural Liberty in Today‘s Diverse World,
New York, United Nations.
2003: Human Development Report: Millenium
Development Goals, New York, United Nations.
2002: Human Development Report: Deepening
Democracy in a Fragmented World, New York,
United Nations.
2001: Human Development Report: Making New
Technologies Work for Human Development, New
York, United Nations.
1999: Human Development Report, New York,
United Nations.
1997: Human Development Report, New York,
United Nations.
1995: Human Development Report,New York,
United Nations.
WORLD BANK 2001: Engendering Development
Through Gender Equality in RightsResources and
Voice, New York, World Bank

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com