Economic Efficiency or Gender Equality: Conceptualizing an Equitable "Social Framing" for Economic Evaluations to Support Gender Equality in Disaster Risk- and Environmental-Management Decision-Making

Cheney Shreve
2016 Resources  
It is unlikely that cost-benefit approaches will be effective in identifying investments that support gender equality without a relevant "social framing". Criteria for a "social framing" are lacking, yet cost-benefit approaches often guide investment decisions for disaster risk and environmental management. Mainstream approaches typically do a poor job identifying and characterizing costs and benefits, and often fail to address distributive concerns (i.e., how costs and benefits may be
more » ... ed throughout society, to whom, etc.). Gender-blind investments may project responsibility for equality "problems" onto one sex, potentially augmenting gender inequalities and disaster risk. This article examines evidence from the gender, disaster, and development literature to identify distributive concerns and criteria for an equitable "social framing" for economic evaluations. Primary distributive concerns identified regard assumptions of women's homogeneity, agency, "active" participation, and the influence of customary practice and displacement on disaster vulnerability. The need for a "gender-responsive" "social framing" that considers the needs of men and women in relation to one another is evident. Second, cost-benefit studies focused on gender equality concerns are reviewed and the "social framing" is critiqued. Results show most studies are not "gender-responsive". Women's health concerns, often exacerbated by disasters, are sidelined by assumptions regarding distributive concerns and reductive outcome measures. It is unlikely that economic investments or interventions will effectively address gender inequalities unless they: (i) characterize distributive concerns (i.e., how costs and benefits are distributed within a society, to whom, etc.), and (ii) adopt a "gender-responsive" approach. It is widely acknowledged that economic analyses of costs and benefits should be paired with social analyses to understand the potential impacts of activities, however there is no standard guidance for this pairing [6-10]. Nevertheless, cost-benefit approaches often play a critical role in policy and decision-making [10] . Systematic discussion on the "social framing", or substance of an equity analysis for cost-benefit approaches for different sectors is limited [9], including for gender equality. This article asks the following questions: (1) When and how does the "social framing" go wrong? (2) How can it be done better? Fundamental principles identified from 40+ years of gender scholarship at the nexus of gender, development, and disasters, are used to identify primary distributive concerns for cost-benefit assessments, and to recommend a more equitable "social framing" for economic evaluations. Key gender studies are used to illustrate the relevance of these principles for disaster risk-and environmental-management. A selection of economic case studies addressing gender equality concerns, which illustrates a range of traditional and contemporary cost-benefit approaches, is then reviewed. The "social framing" of these studies is critiqued to better understand how (and if) these studies are informed by gender theory, or other sources, and to evaluate potential outcomes. Results recommend that the majority of cost-benefit studies reviewed here, with some notable exceptions, are not "gender-responsive", or well informed by gender theory. The ability of these studies to determine causality, and thus to evaluate the impact of activities on gender equality, should be strongly scrutinized. Key distributive concerns identified in the gender, disaster, and development literature that should inform the "social framing" for economic evaluations pertain to assumptions made regarding people's homogeneity, agency, customary practice, "active" participation, and the impacts of displacement on (disaster) vulnerability. These concerns are often poorly characterized in "social framings" of traditional cost-benefit evaluations, which can mask the heterogeneity of costs and benefits of activities to different groups of people, and potentially augment gender inequalities and disaster risk. "Gender" is frequently equated to "women", who are assumed to be a homogenous group. The impact of activities on gender relations is typically ignored. This poses gender equality "problems" as "women's issues", leading to feminization of responsibility. This may also lead to exploitation of women, or women's groups, by engaging them in activities without consideration of the sacrifices made by them to participate in these activities, and without questioning what alternative activities might be of greater benefit. Assessments are most frequently made from the provider perspective, which masks opportunity costs [11] , with some exceptions. Furthermore, the robustness of outcome measures should be strongly questioned, as women's wellbeing is frequently reduced to income and expenditures. Women's experiences, structural barriers, and less tangible or easily monetized concerns, are overlooked. This is especially worrisome for studies examining women's health issues, as it ignores questions of women's access to resources, and agency to make decisions about their own bodies. Progress is also evident, as modifications to traditional cost-benefit approaches, or other contemporary approaches, provide a more comprehensive picture of the costs and benefits of activities; thus, these methods are better suited to support more gender equitable investment decisions. Modifications to cost-benefit analysis (CBA), as well as other contemporary cost-benefit approaches, demonstrate greater potential to address distributive concerns, and over a longer time frame. Ethnographic assessments of economic activities or interventions identify structural barriers, and provide a more comprehensive understanding of the access to, and outcomes of, activities for different groups of people. Studies reviewed examining "gender-responsive" activities, while in the minority, tend to also be better informed regarding distributive concerns. These activities are therefore more likely to be successful in alleviating gender inequalities over the longer-term, as they address power imbalances between the sexes. Results of this review provide guidance on a more equitable "social framing" for economic investments by characterizing key distributive concerns, and emphasizing the merit of a "gender-responsive" approach. Results of this review can be used
doi:10.3390/resources5030025 fatcat:xzzwjlbknrbnvkumntimbshite