Literature Review

“ENGENDERING MACROECONOMIC POLICY” 1
Engendering Macroeconomic Policy:
Neoliberalism, Women, and Poverty Reduction Strategies
Gabriella Runnels
Newcomb Scholars

Introduction and History
Poverty and economic development are complex, multi-faceted issues that have long concerned
national governments, international institutions and, of course, the poor themselves. Although poverty
is clearly an economic issue, many economists today acknowledge that poverty has many social causes
and impacts as well. However, this relationship between the social and the economic has not been
consistently reflected in large-scale economic policies, such as those crafted and implemented by
international financial institutions like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
According to the IMF's website, the IMF and the World Bank institutions are both part of the United
Nations, and their ultimate goal is to improve living standards and reduce poverty in their member
countries. These two institutions have distinct but complementary functions, with the IMF working
primarily on “macroeconomic issues” and the World Bank focusing on “long-term economic
development and poverty reduction” (International Monetary Fund, 2013). While these groups have
been involved in providing some form of economic assistance to the world's poorest countries for
several decades, many scholars criticize their development strategies for not considering social issues
in their policies. In particular, scholars argue that the lack of gender awareness in World Bank and IMF
policies has not only been harmful to women in their member countries, but it has hindered the overall
economic development goals of these countries as well.
The World Bank and IMF's Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs), introduced in the 1980s as
conditions for heavily-indebted poor countries (HIPCs) to be granted debt relief and further loans, have
been a target of widespread criticism from economists to feminists to the governments and citizens of
the poor countries themselves (Ali & Mujahid-Mukhtar, 2003). Although these programs have been
condemned for many reasons, one particularly important criticism that scholars and activists in the
international community have raised about SAPs is the absence of gender mainstreaming. Defined by
the United Nations Economic and Social Council in 1997, “gender mainstreaming”—also referred to as

“engendering”—means, in development terms, considering and addressing the different impacts on
both men and women “of any planned action, including legislation, policies or programmes, in any area
and at all level” (Schech & Vas Dev, 2007, p. 24). In 1999, as a response to this criticism, the World
Bank and IMF launched a new development program entitled “Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers,” or
PRSPs. (Ali & Mujahid-Mukhtar, 2003; Gender Action, 2003; Ibnouf, 2008; Blackmon, 2009).
The World Bank and IMF's overall poverty reduction strategy is still based on concessional
lending by these international financial institutions, as it had been with SAPs (van Staveren, 2010a).
However, there are some important differences between the SAPs of the late twentieth century and the
PRSPs of the early twenty-first. First and perhaps most significantly, PRSPs are intended to be
“country-owned” (UK Gender and Development Network, 2003). Although PRSPs ultimately need the
approval of the IMF and the World Bank, the governments of the HIPCs themselves are now
responsible for writing the papers, which should outline their country-specific poverty reduction goals
and propose strategies to achieve them (Ali & Mujahid-Mukhtar, 2003; UK Gender and Development
Network, 2003; Institute of Development Studies, 2001). In addition, under the new structure of the
programs, input from civil society organizations (CSOs) and other stakeholders is encouraged and even
required through a “participatory” policy formulation process (UK Gender and Development Network,
2003; Blackmon, 2009). Therefore, many scholars and activists in the field were hopeful that this new
approach to poverty reduction would provide an opportunity for gender mainstreaming in economic
policy (Gender Action, 2003; van Staveren, 2008; Blackmon, 2009; van Staveren, 2010b). However,
gender-based studies of PRSPs since 1999 have overwhelming shown that these supposedly improved
programs have mostly failed to account for gender. Feminist economists in the last decade agree that
although addressing gender issues is essential in formulating strategies to reduce poverty, PRSPs have
been largely unengendered in their poverty analyses, participatory processes, and policy measures.

Why Gender Matters
Why is it important that Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers and other macroeconomic policies
consider gender issues? According to Irene van Staveren, an Associate Professor of Feminist
Development Economics and a Professor of Economics and Christian Ethics, we cannot assume that
simply fostering economic growth will inevitably result in greater gender equality (2010a). Instead, we
must look critically at the link between gender and economic development. Van Staveren, who has
contributed significantly to the literature on gender and economics, bases her arguments for
engendering macroeconomic policy on the central claim that gender and the economy have a “two-way
relationship” (2008, 2010a, 2010b). Although van Staveren notes that “the literature on this two-way
relationship between gender and the economy is still at an early stage of development” (2010a, p. 3),
several other scholars agree that not only does macroeconomic policy impact the situation of women—
especially poor women—but women's labor and gender inequality have significant implications for
economic growth and development as well.
Despite the fact that scholars, activists, and the World Bank itself agree that gender is an
important element of development and economic policies, World Bank and IMF strategies have been
largely unsuccessful in addressing gender issues (van Staveren, 2010b). Structural Adjustment
Programs in particular have been widely criticized by the international community of feminists and
economists alike both for their failure to incorporate gender and their inability to reduce poverty. Both
Ali and Mujahid-Mukhtar (2003) and Blackmon (2009) conducted in-depth reviews of the impacts of
inherent gender biases and the neoliberal framework of SAPs on women in developing countries. Ali
and Mujahid-Mukhtar note that the social implications of World Bank and IMF economic policies
“have rarely been taken into account” (p. 672). In their analysis, they explain that the primary goals of
these neoliberal programs are to make developing economies more market-oriented and to encourage
economic growth, and to do so, the IMF and the World Bank implement policies of devaluation and

trade liberalization, reduced public expenditure and price deregulation. These “pro-growth” policies,
they explain, can have significant harmful effects on women in developing nations. For example, the
scholars note that cuts in public spending on social services—a key component of these neoliberal pro-
growth policies—shifts the burden of many of these services to women's labor, sometimes even forcing
women out of the paid economy to compensate for these lost services with unpaid work. Ali and
Mujahid-Mukhtar's description of these impacts is structured as a review of other scholars' work,
providing a thorough overview of the existing research on the gendered impacts of neoliberal economic
policy. Blackmon, too, draws from others' research in her 2009 review of the impacts of the neoliberal
policies of currency devaluation and user fees on women. Blackmon relies heavily on the findings of
the African Women’s Economic Policy Network (AWEPON), an organization consisting of
representatives from a variety of African's women's groups. This organization found that these policies
had many negative impacts on women; for example, the inflation that resulted from currency
devaluation policies—another important component of the neoliberal economic framework of SAPs—
hindered women's ability to purchase health, food, and other essential goods for their families. A
drawback of this source is that its findings may be specific to a particular region of the world, and not
generalizable to all developing countries. However, the value in having the input of a group directly
affected by the policies is worth noting.
When widespread criticisms of SAPs resulted in the World Bank and IMF shifting to the new
Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs), many civil society organizations (CSOs) such as Gender
Action were hopeful that PRSPs would finally incorporate gender into macroeconomic policy and
would even represent a new era of gender mainstreaming in all World Bank and IMF policies (Gender
Action, 2003; Ali & Mujahid-Mukhtar, 2003; Ibnouf, 2008; Blackmon, 2009; van Staveren, 2010b).
However, the majority of scholars agree that PRSPs have been an overall disappointment in these
regards, for a variety of reasons and in a number of ways.

After the shift from SAPs to PRSPs, the World Bank released its Sourcebook, an online
resource that the governments of HIPCs can access for guidance in writing their PRSPs (UK Gender
and Development Network, 2003). In 2008, van Staveren analyzed the Sourcebook to evaluate how
these guidelines address gender. Although the poverty reduction strategy teams of each country are free
to structure their papers however they want, van Staveren notes that the Sourcebook strongly
recommends certain guidelines for constructing PRSPs. It even includes an entire chapter on the
purpose of and strategies for incorporating gender into the policy formulation section of the PRSP. In
her analysis of the Sourcebook, van Staveren argues that the basis of this lengthy chapter is the concept
that gender and the economy have a two-way relationship—that addressing gender issues is necessary
for economic growth, and that economic policies have serious impacts on women and gender inequality
(2008). Van Staveren also highlights several of the Sourcebook's central points concerning gender and
development policy. For example, the Sourcebook emphasizes the need for the participation of women
in both the poverty analysis and policy formation processes. In addition, empowering women,
increasing gender equality in the household and the labor force, and reducing women's poverty are all
necessary for economic growth and development in poor countries. In order to accomplish these gender
mainstreaming goals, the Sourcebook recommends that each PRSP contain a chapter on gender, that
gender-disaggregated data be used in all steps of the process, that women and CSOs be consulted in
policy formulation and poverty analysis processes, and that follow-up measures, such as monitoring
and evaluation (M&E) indicators and specific funding, include gender in their implementation. Van
Staveren's analysis of the Sourcebook indicates that it contains sufficient recommendations for
mainstreaming gender into economic policy; however, implementation of these measures, according to
many scholars, has been far less satisfactory.

PRSPs and Gender
How well have PRSPs followed the gender-mainstreaming recommendations of the
Sourcebook? Gender analyses of Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers since these programs launched in
1999 have shown that PRSPs have insufficiently integrated gender into their participation processes,
policies, and overall framework. Although the Sourcebook, many civil society organizations, gender
experts, and poor people themselves have called for gender mainstreaming in the World Bank and
IMF's new macroeconomic policies, “gender remains largely absent in PRSPs” (van Staveren, 2010b,
p. 237). In fact, many critics of the PRSP framework argue that these new programs are simply a
continuation of the harmful policies of the SAPs of the past (Ibnouf, 2008). Even the United Nations
Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) has asserted that although the process for
producing PRSPs is different now than it was for SAPs, there has been no real change in content.
PRSPs, like SAPs, are still primarily focused on privatization, liberalization, economic growth and low
inflation, which have been shown to have negative impacts on poor women in both the social and the
economic realms (Ali & Mujahid-Mukhtar, 2003; UK Gender and Development Network, 2003;
Blackmon, 2009). Case studies by several different scholars and organizations show that PRSPs have
failed to include gender in their poverty analysis, participatory processes, and policy measures.
As part of a broader report on gender and participation in macroeconomic policy, the Institute of
Development Studies reviewed the 2000 case study of Tanzania's PRSP conducted by representatives
from the Ministry of Community Development and Women’s Affairs in Tanzania (2001). This analysis,
which the Institute conducted relatively shortly after PRSPs were first launched by the IMF and World
Bank, finds that there was neither sufficient gender analysis nor gender-disaggregated data. The
Tanzanian PRSP had not considered the different impacts of poverty on men and women, and it did not
include women or gender issues in proposed poverty reduction strategies. In addition, it did not
acknowledge the importance to the overall economy of women's unpaid labor, including women's roles

of raising children and maintaining households. This report, conducted soon after the release of
Tanzania's 2000 PRSP, is brief and informative, and it is clear from their analysis that, at this point, the
Institute of Development Studies was not optimistic about the future of gender integration in PRSPs.
Two years later, a 2003 report by the UK Gender and Development Network also evaluated
Tanzania's 2000 PRSP, along with those of Bolivia (2001), Malawi (2002), and Yemen (2003-2005).
This report is divided into three main sections. The first looks at how the PRSPs of these four countries
treat the relationship between poverty and gender. The second examines the participatory processes of
each of the PRSPs, analyzing the extent to which women's groups and other interested parties were
consulted and able to contribute to the formulation process. The final section and the primary goal of
this report is to assess whether the case countries' PRSPs address gender in ways that are compatible
with their ultimate poverty reduction goals. These particular countries were selected for evaluation
because they are located in different geographical regions, their PRSPs were in the “implementation
stage” at the time this report was written, and, according to the author, little previous research had been
done on the extent of gender mainstreaming in each of these four PRSPs. (In general, there has not
been extensive research on gender in PRSPs since 1999, and certainly not much before this report was
written in 2003.) In this study, which relied on telephone interviews and analysis of PRSPs and
secondary documents, the UK Gender and Development Network asserts that including gender issues
in economic policy is key to reducing poverty. Despite this, the study finds that the PRSPs of Tanzania,
Bolivia, Malawi, and Yemen were unsuccessful in taking women's input into consideration in both the
poverty analysis and policy formulation processes, leading to a disappointing lack of gender awareness
in the poverty reduction strategies.
In 2009, Blackmon too examined Tanzania's 2000 PRSP, as well as Burkina Faso's,
Mozambique's, Uganda's, and Mauritania's, which are sub-Saharan African nations that were among
the first to adopt these programs in their development strategy. These countries implemented PRSPs in

2000 and 2001, shortly after the World Bank and IMF launched these programs in 1999. Blackmon's
report analyzes the extent to which the PRSPs of these case study countries were successful in
incorporating gender into their policies. Her findings “showed mixed results” about the success of the
Papers in integrating gender into their policy measures (p. 229). In their PRSPs, Burkina Faso and
Uganda acknowledged both the relationship between gender and economic development and the
importance of addressing gender inequality, but there was no discussion of gender in the PRSPs of
Mauritania, Tanzania, or Mozambique. Blackmon asserts that the participation of CSOs and other
stakeholders in the formulation processes explains the decent integration of gender in Burkina Faso and
Uganda's Papers. She points out that PRSPs were meant to allow for and even demand the input of civil
society groups and other stakeholders, but in practice, they have been ignored and the participation of
women in design of policies has not been achieved. She also notes that PRSPs were meant to be more
“country-owned,” written by the governments of the countries themselves rather than the World Bank
or IMF. As for the World Bank and the IMF, Blackmon claims that it is necessary for these institutions,
which are the most important in terms of advancing economic development policies, to address the
important link between gender and growth (and they have—on paper, at least). However, she argues
that the real “future challenge” is convincing the HIPC governments to mainstream gender in their
PRSP policies and framework (p. 232). In this way, Blackmon is acknowledging that the large
international financial institutions are the ones who hold the power and influence, but she is still putting
the impetus for engendering macroeconomic policies on the governments of poor countries.
Van Staveren's in-depth 2008 study analyzes gender mainstreaming in the 2001 PRSPs of five
countries (Albania, Bolivia, Honduras, Mozambique and Nicaragua) and those of nine different
countries (Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Djibouti, Kenya, Lao,
Moldova, and Serbia and Montenegro) in 2004. Her analysis looked at four areas in which PRSPs
might have mainstreamed gender: whether or not they contained a chapter on gender, the “Gender in

poverty analysis,” the “Gender in priority public actions,” and the “Gender in JSA” (JSAs are “Joint
Staff Assessments” of PRSPs conducted by groups from the IMF and World Bank) (p. 293). She
organized her findings into two tables and compared the results. Because countries do not generally
write a new PRSP each year, this study was not comparing the PRSPs of the same countries over time,
but rather the overall gender climate of the PRSPs in 2001 compared to 2004. Her studies found that
none of the 2001 PRSPs contained a chapter on gender, despite the Sourcebook's recommendation, and
only one addressed gender in the poverty analysis. She mentions that some of the countries in 2001 had
mainstreamed gender in priority public actions for reducing poverty and encouraging economic growth
while others had not, and none included gender in the actual macroeconomic framework. In conclusion,
the 2001 PRSPs of these countries paid little attention to gender, and when they did, they only
acknowledged gender as a matter of “equity ” and not “efficiency” (p. 294). In this way, van Staveren
is emphasizing that it is not enough to approach gender as a social issue—PRSPs must address gender
as an economic concern as well.
Van Staveren noted a somewhat encouraging improvement in gender mainstreaming of PRSPs
in 2004. Almost half of them did a decent job of incorporating gender in the poverty analysis, and
although none of the 2004 PRSPs contained a chapter on gender, two of the nine had “a comprehensive
section or annex” on gender issues (p. 292). However, the majority of the 2004 PRSPs had “no gender-
aware priority public actions, targets and M&E indicators at all,” and a minority of them contained
“some gender-aware social targets as well as some targets for the reduction of gender biases in
economic variables” (p. 294). In addition, most of the 2004 JSAs did not mention the lack of a gender
chapter. However, van Staveren was, on the whole, encouraged by the results, arguing that these
findings indicate that PRSPs are starting to understand the importance of the relationship between
gender and economic issues.
In 2007, Schech and Vas Dev examined case studies of the 2002 PRSPs from Cambodia and

Vietnam to evaluate the extent to which gender was incorporated into the poverty reduction policies of
these two countries. This study is important because while there has been a sizable amount of research
conducted on the PRSPs of countries in the African region, far fewer scholars have examined the
PRSPs of East Asian countries, “where women's role in the economy has traditionally been strong” (p.
20). These scholars explain that Vietnam's PRSP, like most others, focuses on economic growth as the
primary solution to poverty. Gender is ignored in the sections on macroeconomic issues, such as
poverty reduction and economic development goals, but it is acknowledged to a limited extent in
discussions of social issues, including urbanization, hunger and nutrition, and population planning. The
PRSP also includes women's issues as they relation to “job creation, education, health, and political
representation” (p. 21) The scholars make note of an important fact that is not mentioned in other case
studies: they point out that Vietnam's PRSP claims that cultural and traditional practices rather than
national or international policies are the source of gender inequalities in Vietnam, a claim with which
many scholars today would disagree. Overall, this report finds Vietnam's PRSP lacking sufficient
gender awareness in its analysis and strategies.
Schech and Vas Dev find more encouraging results in Cambodia's PRSP, which addresses the
link between gender and poverty, acknowledges women as economic agents rather than vulnerable or
powerless victims, and, unlike Vietnam's, it does not blame culture or tradition for gender inequity.
However, it still emphasizes economic growth in matters of poverty reduction, and does not adequately
incorporate gender into proposed actions for addressing poverty. The PRSP states that the need to
service their debt to the IMF and World Bank hinders Cambodia's ability to fund poverty-reduction
measures in the areas of education, health, infrastructure, agriculture, and others, which have more
direct impacts on the poor women and men themselves. In this case study, Schech and Vas Dev argue
that while the government of Cambodia recognizes the need for greater gender mainstreaming in future
poverty reduction strategies, for now, gender issues are only given specific policy targets in social

policies, such as those that address health, reproduction, and girls' eduction. They explain that although
Cambodia's PRSP appears “more gender-sensitive” than Vietnam's, “neither has analyzed economic
policies for their gender content” (p. 22). In conclusion, they argue, “poverty and gender inequality
remain much as before, and the links between them as intractable as before" (p. 22).
No literature review on gender mainstreaming in Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers would be
complete without mentioning Gender Action's in-depth 2003 study of gender in PRSPs. Gender Action,
a non-profit organization that advocates for gender equality in large-scale financial institutions and
policies, produced this highly-referenced study to evaluate gender in the participatory processes,
poverty analyses, economic strategies, and social policies in the thirteen 2002 PRSPs. The majority of
the countries studied are in the African region, though the study includes PRSPs from Asian, Latin
American and Middle Eastern countries as well. In its analysis of the participatory processes, Gender
Action finds that the majority of the papers claim to have had women's participation in formulating
policy, but none of the PRSPs actually give the specific breakdown of how many men and women were
consulted in the process “or indicate whether their surveys included gender related questions” (p. 2). In
the sections on poverty and gender analysis, the organization notes that many of the PRSPs contained
gender-disaggregated data in indicators such as school enrollment, health risks, and literacy, but not
enough of them included such data on poverty. In many cases, this data was collected but not ultimately
used. In evaluating the incorporation of gender in macroeconomic strategies, Gender Action explains
that while some of the countries mentioned gender in budgets and economic policies, overall,
engendering of economic policies is poor, and where it is even mentioned, it is rarely accompanied by
specific plans to follow through or monitor outcomes. Finally, this study acknowledges that gender was
integrated to a decent extent in social policies. While other scholars also note this finding in their
studies, they tend to present this idea as policies paying inadequate attention to gender. Gender Action,
on the other hand, makes a point to acknowledge that, historically, incorporating gender anywhere in

poverty reduction policies—even if only in the social realm—is a victory. Overall, although there are
several instances of gender integration in the thirteen 2002 PRSPs, Gender Action argues that “there is
still a long way to go” before gender is truly mainstreamed in poverty reduction strategies and
macroeconomic policy.
Conclusion
A review of the studies by various scholars on the inclusion of gender in the framework and
content of PRSPs demonstrates that these Papers are not adequately incorporating gender issues in all
parts of the process and all sections of the paper. All of the reviewed studies note the poor gender and
poverty analysis in many PRSPs, including a lack of gender-disaggregated data and insufficient
attention to the relationship between gender issues and the economy. Studies by the Institute of
Development Studies (2001), the UK Gender and Development Network (2003), Gender Action (2003)
and Blackmon (2009) all emphasize the importance of consulting women and CSOs in the poverty
analysis and policy formulation processes of the PRSPs, and argue that, overall, countries were not
successful in involving these stakeholder groups in the participatory process, or, if they were involved,
they did not actually take their input into account. Due to the poor gender and poverty analyses and
lack of participation by women and CSOs, many scholars and activist groups agree that gender
awareness was not incorporated into poverty reduction strategies for these countries, which hurts not
only women, but the economic development and growth outcomes of these countries as well.
Despite their extensive analyses and evaluations of the lack of gender mainstreaming in Poverty
Reduction Strategy Papers, few of the scholars reviewed in this paper attempt to explain why gender is
continuously left out of macroeconomic policies and development strategies. It seems as though every
necessary incentive for mainstreaming gender exists: the World Bank acknowledges the importance of
gender awareness, the relationship between gender and the economy is well-documented, and

numerous scholars have argued that the failure to engender economic development and poverty
reduction strategies is harmful for both women and the economy. Some of the scholars reviewed here
attribute this failure to international financial institutions like the World Bank and the IMF, and others
claim that the responsibility for mainstreaming gender now lies with the governments of the heavily-
indebted poor countries themselves. However, there is no real explanation of why either of these
institutions would ignore gender in the face of existing evidence—that is, until 2006, when Gender
Action released a statement that they would no longer be involved in the gender mainstreaming
processes of PRSPs. They announced that “it has become crystal clear that PRSPs are instruments for
rich countries that dominate the World Bank and IMF to force poor countries to embrace reforms which
reduce government economic interventions in favor of free-market approaches” (2007, p. 1). Several
scholars hint at this concept of the World Bank and IMF's international macroeconomic policies often
doing more damage than good. In Gender Action's 2006 opinion, the primary motivation of the World
Bank and the IMF is to exploit poor countries for the profit of rich countries. Although many scholars
argue that in the long run, gender equality will lead to an overall healthier economy, in the short run,
gender inequality allows for the exploitation of women's cheaper labor, as well as the unpaid labor
women perform in the domestic or informal sector of the economy. Therefore, if Gender Action's claim
is true, it would surely explain why these institutions would be uninterested in improving gender
inequality, which may be economically beneficial for the groups in power—in this case, the parties
who profit off of the labor of poor countries (van Staveren, 2010a).
Whether or not this explanation is true, further research into the underlying causes behind the
exclusion of gender in macroeconomic policy is key to engendering poverty reduction strategies in the
future. Until we know why international financial institutions and the governments of poor countries
are continuing to leave gender out of the participatory processes, poverty analyses, and policy actions
of poverty reduction strategies, poverty and inequality will plague the world for years to come.

References
Ali, K., & Mujahid-Mukhtar, E. (2003). Gender exploitation: From Structural Adjustment Policies to
Poverty Reduction Strategies. The Pakistan Development Review, 42(4), 669-694.
Blackmon, P. (2009). Factoring gender into economic development: Changing the policies of the
International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. Women's Studies: An Inter-Disciplinary
Journal, 38(2), 213-237.
Gender Action. (2003). Do Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs) address gender? A gender
audit of 2002 PRSPs. Washington, D.C.: Zuckerman, E. & Garrett, A.
Gender Action. (2007). Brief review of PRSP collaborations by country. Washington, D.C.
Ibnouf, F. (2008). Impact of the World Bank and IMF policies on rural women's human rights in Sub-
Saharan Africa. Agenda: Empowering women for gender equity, 78(22), 28-41.
International Monetary Fund. (2013). The IMF and the World Bank. Retrieved from
http://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/facts/imfwb.htm
Institute of Development Studies. (2001). Gender and participation overview report. University of
Sussex: Akerkar, S.
Schech, S., & Vas Dev, S. (2007). Gender justice: The World Bank's new approach to the poor?
Development in Practice, 17(1), 14-26.
UK Gender and Development Network. (2003). Failing women, sustaining poverty: Gender in Poverty
Reduction Strategy Papers. London: Whitehead, A.
Van Staveren, I. (2008). The gender bias of the poverty reduction strategy framework. Review of
International Political Economy, 15(2), 289-313.
Van Staveren, I. (2010). From gender as an exogenous or impact variable to gender as an endogenous
force in the new economics. Paper presented at the International Conference titled “The New
Economics as Mainstream Economics,” The Cambridge Trust for New Thinking in Economics,

University of Cambridge.
Van Staveren, I. (2010). Gender equity. In International encyclopedia of public policy—Governance
in a global age (Vol. 4: Social, Environmental and Corporate Governance, pp. 230-243). Perth:
GPERU. Retrieved October 27, 2013, from pohara.homestead.com/Encyclopedia/Volume-4.pdf

Literature Review

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Similar to Literature Review

Similar to Literature Review (20)

Literature Review