Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Measurement of Empowerment: Critiques and Innovation from Development Economics

0 views

Published on

Amber Peterman's (UNICEF) presentation at Sickkids Global Health Research Center workshop in Toronto, April 11 2019.

Published in: Government & Nonprofit
  • If you want to enjoy the Good Life: making money in the comfort of your own home with just your laptop, then this is for YOU... ◆◆◆ http://ishbv.com/goldops777/pdf
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • To learn more about the Fibroids Miracle system and to find out how YOU can start re-balancing your body today and start the path to lasting freedom from Uterine Fibroids, visit the Fibroids Miracle Website at.. ●●● http://t.cn/Aig7bySW
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Holistic Uterine Fibroids Secrets, Eliminate Uterine Fibroids Fast, Natural cure e-book reveals all.. ♥♥♥ http://t.cn/Aig7bySW
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Be the first to like this

Measurement of Empowerment: Critiques and Innovation from Development Economics

  1. 1. Amber Peterman Empowerment Workshop April 17-18th 2019: Toronto MEASUREMENT OF EMPOWERMENT: Critiques & Innovation from Development Economics
  2. 2. MEASURING ‘EMPOWERMENT’: HOW FAR HAVE WE COME? Malhortra, Schuler, Boender (2002): “Measuring Women’s Empowerment as a Variable in International Development” “Vast and interconnected” . . . “To date, neither the World Bank nor any other major development agency has developed a rigorous method for measuring and tracking changes in levels of empowerment”. . . Economic Socio-cultural Familial/ interpersonal Legal Political Psychological Household Community Broader Arenas
  3. 3. THE CONCEPTUAL CHALLENGE: ARE WE REALLY MEASURING EMPOWERMENT?  “Expansion in people’s ability to make strategic life choices in a context where this was previously denied” (Kabeer 2001)  Should be distinct from gender equality, equity and status  Should operate at different levels: 1) power within (intrinsic agency), 2) power to (instrumental agency), 3) power with (collective agency) RESOURCES AGENCY ACHIEVEMENTS
  4. 4. HOW DO WE OPERATIONALIZE AGENCY? (Donald et al. 2017) • Intra-household decision-making (e.g. DHS) • Autonomy; Relative autonomy index (RAI) • Self-efficacy • Confidence • Capacity to set & achieve goals • Locus of control • Self-assessed life freedom & control (e.g. WVS) • Voice (individual & collective) & participation
  5. 5. DECIDING OVER WHAT? 1. What type of decisions are ‘strategic’ life choices in different settings? • Are purchases for household daily needs strategic? • Is visiting family or friends strategic? • Are decisions across domains appropriately captured (social, economic, political, etc.?) 2. Are decisions specific enough? • Instead of asking “Who usually makes decisions about healthcare for yourself?” • Consider asking: “If you ever need medicine for yourself (for a headache, for example), could you go buy it yourself? An evaluation in Bangladesh found different responses to general vs. specific question; suggests specific questions are easier to accurately answer (Glennerster et al. 2017).
  6. 6. HOW DO WE INTERPRET JOINTNESS?  Is joint decision-making “better” or “worse” than sole decision-making? How do we minimize implicit judgement about what is preferred?  Analysis shows that women and men (in Ghana & Bangladesh) associate different domains more and less strongly with autonomous motivation  Sole DM matters for women in Ghana select domains; Women in Bangladesh prefer joint DM Women in Ghana (N=1785)
  7. 7. • Should we be measuring ‘how much’ input, rather than ‘with whom’ (by whom)? • Alternative from the WEAI: How much input do you have into decision around [X]? • Response options: • (a) no input or input into a few decisions, • (b) input into some decisions, • (c) input into most decisions, • (d) input into all decisions, • (e) no decision made. • (e) allows respondents to report (opt out) if a decision in that particular domain has not been made recently or is not relevant to them. DO RESPONSE OPTION CONSTRAIN (MISLEAD) ANALYSIS?
  8. 8. DECISION-MAKING: FROM WHO’s PERSPECTIVE? • Couples agree 6-64% of the time (Bangladesh) & 67- 82% of the time (Ghana) • Women tend to report decisions as joint, men tend to report as sole Couples in Bangladesh (2011-2012)
  9. 9. WHY ARE DECISIONS MADE? The Self-determination continuum (Seymour & Peterman 2018)
  10. 10. ASK ME WHY? VINETTES TO UNDERSTAND DECISION-MAKING MOTIVATION (Bernard et al. 2018) • Vignettes around production of dairy & consumption of dairy in Senegal = 5 typologies of households. • Men most likely to be deciding in dictator households; Women most likely in separate sphere households. • WHO decides does not affect production/consumption outcomes, but WHY they decide does matter (norms worst off, informed best off).
  11. 11. OTHER CHALLENGES • Capturing preferences  To what extent do you feel you can make your own personal decisions regarding [X] if you want(ed) to? (WEAI) • Social desirability bias  Observational (field experiments) or use indirect methods (list randomization), solicit willingness to pay estimates -- however these methods may be difficult in national surveys • Empowerment as a process  Take measures over time and analyze changes • Disempowerment can heighten data collection challenges  When women face structural inequalities this can compound measurement challenges. Create space for private interviews, same sex/locally recruited to encourage truthful answers (Glennerster et al. 2017).
  12. 12. INDEX EXAMPLES: WOMEN’S EMPOWERMENT IN AGRICULTURE INDEX (WEAI) (Malapit et al. 2019) • Objectives: Developed by USAID, IFPRI, OPHI in 2012 to measure inclusion of women in agriculture sector • Survey based: Constructed using interviews of primary male and female in the same household • Versions & iterations: 1. Abbreviated WEAI (a-WEAI) 2. Project-level WEAI (pro-WEAI)  Health & Nutrition 3. WEAI for Value Chains (WEAI4VC) 4. WE in Livestock Index (WELI) 5. WE in Fish Index (WEFI) 12 indicators of empowerment (equal weighting)
  13. 13. WEAI ADAPTIONS: 53 countries, 86 organizations
  14. 14. WEAI QUALITATIVE WORK: HOW COMMUNITIES UNDERSTAND EMPOWERMENT (Meinzen-Dick et al. 2019)  Synthesis of Pro-WEAI data across 8 projects (SA & SSA)  Empowerment = emancipated, admired, dignified, lift up, enable  Each component of empowerment is relational, not just about the individual (other women as well as men. . . ) RESOURCES AGENCY ACHIEVEMENTS • Economic means • Connections • Confidence • Help with labor • Taking care of oneself • Taking care of family needs • Taking care of others • Active, hard work • Good decisions, joint decisions • Exercising ownership • Following social norms • Financial status • Well dressed • Good appearance • Admired
  15. 15. MACRO-LEVEL INDEX EXAMPLE: SOCIAL INSTITUTIONS & GENDER INDEX (SIGI) (4th edition, 2019: OECD, https://www.genderindex.org/) “Discriminatory social institutions are defined as the formal and informal laws, attitudes and practices that restrict women’s and girls’ access to rights, justice and empowerment opportunities.”
  16. 16. CONCLUSIONS & REFLECTIONS 01. Women’s decision-making often the primary (& only) indicator of women’s agency operationalized—however large gaps in understanding what is being captured & how to interpret measures 02. Women’s & men’s goals/preferences (values) should be reflected (captured) alongside agency to achieve these goals. 03. We should be capturing multiple measures of agency, over different domains to triangulate outcomes
  17. 17. IMPLICATIONS & IDEAS FOR FUTURE RESERCH 01. Measuring empowerment is complex—let’s resist simplification & strive to measure it fully (rather than related concepts, e.g. women’s status or wellbeing) 02. Much to be gained from inter-disciplinary & mixed method work. 03. While seeking to distill commonalities, we cannot ignore context and individual specificity of empowerment across different types of agency—for women and men / girls and boys.
  18. 18. Thank you! amberpeterman@gmail.com apeterman@unicef.org This presentation draws on research of colleagues at IFPRI, including Greg Seymour, Hazel Malapit, Agnes Quisumbing, Ruth Meinzen- Dick and the WEAI team, Cheryl Doss, Melissa Hidrobo and others.
  19. 19. CITATIONS • Bernard T, Doss C, Hidrobo M, Hoel, Kieran C. 2018. Ask me Why: Using vignettes to understand patterns of Intrahousehold Decision-Making in rural Senegal. IFPRI Discussion Paper 01784: http://ebrary.ifpri.org/cdm/ref/collection/p15738coll2/id/133029 • Donald et al. 2017. Measuring Women’s Agency. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 8148: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/333481500385677886/pdf/WPS8148.pdf • Glennerster R, Walsh C and Diaz-Martin L. 2017. A Practical Guide to Measuring Women’s and Girls’ Empowerment in Impact Evaluations. J-PAL. • Malapit, HJ.; Quisumbing, AR.; Meinzen-Dick, RS; Seymour, G; Martinez, EM.; Heckert, J; Rubin, D; Vaz, A; and Yount, KM. 2019. Development of the project-level Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index (pro-WEAI). IFPRI Discussion Paper 1796. Washington, DC: IFPRI. http://ebrary.ifpri.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p15738coll2/id/133061 • Meinzen-Dick, RS; Rubin, D; Elias, M; Mulema, AA and Myers, E. 2019. Women’s empowerment in agriculture: Lessons from qualitative research. IFPRI Discussion Paper 1797. Washington, DC: IFPRI. http://ebrary.ifpri.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p15738coll2/id/133060 • Kabeer, N. (2001). Reflections on the measurement of women’s empowerment. In A. Sisask (Series Ed.), Sida studies no. 3: Discussing women’s empowerment – theory and practice (pp. 17–57). Stockholm, Sweden: Novum Grafiska AB. • Seymour & Peterman. 2018. Context and measurement: An analysis of the relationship between intra-household decision making and autonomy. World Development 111: 97-112: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.06.027 • Slide 1: © FAO/IvanGrifi/19431674444_a702f46a21 • Slide 17: © FAO/IvanGrifi/19431617964_bf1542f18a

×