Gender and Accountability

  • Anne Marie Goetz
  • Rob Jenkins
Part of the International Political Economy Series book series (IPES)

Abstract

Many of the accountability initiatives reviewed in this book are evidence of the frustration of socially excluded groups with the failure of accountability institutions either to answer directly to them, or to include their concerns in the definition of ‘the public interest’. The case of women provides perhaps the clearest illustration how political marginality can become manifested institutionally. For women, being at the margins of political life has translated into being, in many contexts, invisible to accountability institutions. In this chapter we examine gender biases in access to accountability institutions as well as in the procedures and standards of probity they adopt. We also pay attention to outcomes, which as we have seen increasingly dominate performance measures.

Keywords

Europe Income Assure Posit Dition 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    Fear that women might vote as a bloc and differently from men was one of the reasons that political parties in Britain opposed women’s suffrage during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. See Anne Phillips, Engendering Democracy (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1991), p. 78.Google Scholar
  2. In practice, it is not until very recently in the United Kingdom and the United States that a gender gap has emerged in voting, with women appearing more inclined to select liberal or left-of-centre positions. See Carol Mueller, The Politics of the Gender Gap: The Social Construction of Political Influence (London: Sage, 1988).Google Scholar
  3. 2.
    One of the best known and most forceful statements of this comes from Carol Gilligan, In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982), who goes so far as to say that women’s socialization produces an ethical position favouring nurturance and care for particular others, distinct from the remote and abstract impartiality valued in liberal ethical reasoning. But women develop interests based not just on their immediate needs in gender-stereotyped roles (e.g. wives), but also on their need to overcome oppressive gender-based social practices, such as domestic violence or inadequate property rights.Google Scholar
  4. The classic statement of this view is Maxine Molyneux, ‘Mobilisation without Emancipation? Women’s Interests, the State, and Revolution in Nicaragua’, Feminist Studies, vol. 11, no. 2 (1985), pp. 227–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. For a discussion of how these interests are expressed in voting behaviour, policy priorities and leadership styles, see Georgia Duerst-Lahti and Rita Mae Kelly (eds), Gender, Power, Leadership, and Governance (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 1995).Google Scholar
  6. Sue Thomas, How Women Legislate (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994).Google Scholar
  7. 3.
    Anne Phillips, The Politics of Presence (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995), p. 90 (emphasis in original).Google Scholar
  8. 4.
    A statistical review of the impact of government institutions, state policies and demographic characteristics on proportions of women in national office in 190 countries found that variables positively associated with a higher proportion of women holding national office were: (1) the percentage of women in the labour force, (2) the percentage of women in the professions and (3) gross domestic product. The effect of these variables, however, pales in comparison to institutional variables such as an electoral system based on proportional representation, or state responsibility for social welfare. Levels of education and urbanization had no significant statistical correlation with the proportion of elected office-holders who are women. See Eileen McDonagh, ‘Political Citizenship and Democratization: The Gender Paradox’, American Political Science Review vol. 96, no. 3 (2002), pp. 535–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. See also Richard E. Matland, ‘Women’s Representation in National Legislatures: Developed and Developing Countries’, Legislative Studies Quarterly, vol. 3, no. 1 (1998), pp. 109–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 6.
    According to Carole Pateman, ‘Natural sexual dominion is excluded from the conventional relations studied in political theory. Patriarchal government requires no justification’. The Sexual Contract (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1988), p. 11.Google Scholar
  11. 7.
    A few studies suggest that women are less inclined than men to engage in corrupt acts. See Anand Swamy, Steve Knack, Young Lee and Omar Azfar, ‘Gender and Corruption’, University of Maryland, The IRIS Centre, mimeo, 1999; and David Dollar, Raymond Fisman and Roberta Gatti, ‘Are Women Really the “Fairer” Sex? Corruption and Women in Government’, Policy Research Report Working Paper Series no. 4 (Washington, DC: World Bank Development Research Group, 1999). These studies measured popular perceptions of propensities for corruption, and therefore tend to reflect essentialist constructions of gender. See Anne Marie Goetz, ‘Political Cleaners: Are Women the New Anti-Corruption Force?’, mimeo, 2003, available at: http://www.siyanda.org.Google Scholar
  12. 8.
    Pippa Norris, ‘Breaking the Barriers: Positive Discrimination Policies for Women’, In J. Klausen and C.S. Maier (eds), Has Liberalism Failed Women? Parity, Quotas and Political Representation (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2000).Google Scholar
  13. For studies showing similar results for different periods and countries, see A. Reynolds, Women in African Legislatures and Executives: The Slow Climb to Power (Cape Town: Electoral Institute of South Africa, 1999).Google Scholar
  14. Judith Squires and M. Wickham-Jones, Women in Parliament: A Comparative Analysis (Manchester: Equal Opportunities Commission, Research Discussion Series, 2001).Google Scholar
  15. 9.
    R. Darcy, Susan Welch and Janet Clark, Women, Elections and Representation (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1994), p. 141.Google Scholar
  16. 10.
    Mi Ming Yoon, ‘Democratization and Women’s Legislative Representation in Sub-Saharan Africa’, Democratization, vol. 8, no. 2 (2001), p. 181. These figures hold for elections in 2000 or the closest election prior to that.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 11.
    P. Norris and J. Lovenduski, Political Recruitment (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995).Google Scholar
  18. Inter-Parliamentary Union, Democracy Still in the Making: Men and Women in Politics (Geneva: Inter-Parliamentary Union, 1997).Google Scholar
  19. 13.
    V. Vijayalakshmi, ‘Gender, Accountability, and Political Representation in Local Government’, Working Paper 102 (Bangalore: Institute for Social and Economic Change, 2002), p. 18.Google Scholar
  20. 14.
    V. Vijayalakshmi and B.K. Chandrashekar, ‘Authority, Powerlessness and Dependence: Women and Political Participation’, Working Paper 106 (Bangalore: Institute for Social and Economic Change, 2001).Google Scholar
  21. 15.
    Jane Mansbridge, ‘Should Blacks Represent Blacks and Women Represent Women? A Contingent “Yes’”, Journal of Politics, vol. 61, no. 3 (1999), p. 21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 16.
    Joni Lovenduski and Pippa Norris (eds), Gender and Party Politics (London: Sage, 1993).Google Scholar
  23. 17.
    Georgina Waylen, ‘Gender and Democratic Politics: A Comparative Analysis of Consolidation in Argentina and Chile’, Journal of Latin American Studies, vol. 32, no. 3 (2000), p. 790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 20.
    Mick Moore, ‘Elites Oppose the Development of Political Parties (Russia)’, Governance and Development Review, January 2002, http://www.ids.ac.uk/gdr/reviews/review-01.html.Google Scholar
  25. 22.
    K. Ilaiah, ‘Andhra Pradesh’s Anti-Liquor Movement’, in B.S. Rao and G. Parthasarathy (eds), Anti-Arrack Movement of Women in Andhra Pradesh and Prohibition Policy (New Delhi: Har-Anand Publications Pvt. Ltd, 1997).Google Scholar
  26. 24.
    Lynn S. Khadiagala, ‘The Failure of Popular Justice in Uganda: Local Councils and Women’s Property Rights’, Development and Change, vol. 32, no. 1 (2001), pp. 55–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 26.
    Margaret Schuler (ed.), Freedom From Violence: Women’s Strategies from Around the Word (New York: UNIFEM, 1982).Google Scholar
  28. Sheelagh Stewart, ‘Women and a Radical Agenda for Change in Zimbabwe — the Musasa Project’, Gender and Development — Oxfam, vol. 3, no. 1 (1995).Google Scholar
  29. 27.
    Francine Pickup, with Suzanne Williams and Caroline Sweetman, Ending Violence Against Women (Oxford: Oxfam, 2001), p. 265.Google Scholar
  30. 28.
    D.Q. Thomas, ‘Comments on Acosta’, in J.E. Mendez, G. O’Donnell and P.S. Pinheiro (eds), The (Un)Rule of Law and the Underprivileged in Latin America (South Bend, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1999), p. 183.Google Scholar
  31. 29.
    Human Rights Watch, Shattered Lives: Sexual Violence During the Rwandan Genocide and its Aftermath (Human Rights Watch/Africa, September 1996), http://www.hrw.org/reports/1996/Rwanda.htm.Google Scholar
  32. 30.
    P. Gonzalez-Sanchez, ‘Violence and Gender in Colombia: Community Based Options for its Eradication’, paper presented at an Oxfam International Workshop on Violence Against Women, Sarajevo (November 1998).Google Scholar
  33. 32.
    Alison Lochhead, ‘Gender Violence in Pakistan: Breaking the Cycle’, Insights: Development Research (Brighton, UK: Institute of Development Studies, 2002).Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rhadika Coomaraswamy, ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women, its Causes and Consequences’, Commission on Human Rights, 52nd session, item 9, E/CN.4/1996/53, 6 February 1996.Google Scholar
  35. 37.
    D. Thomas, ‘In Search of Solutions: Women’s Police Stations in Brazil’, in M. Davies (ed.), Women and Violence: Realities and Responses Worldwide (London: Zed Books, 1994).Google Scholar
  36. 38.
    S. Chiarotti, ‘Violence Against Women in the Private Sphere in the Latin American and Caribbean Region’, paper presented at an Oxfam International Workshop on Violence Against Women, Sarajevo (November 1998).Google Scholar
  37. 41.
    Rhadkia Coomaraswamy, ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women, its Causes and Consequences’, Commission on Human Rights, 54th session, E/CN.4/1998/54, 26 January 1998, Section C paragraph 4.Google Scholar
  38. 42.
    Iman Bibars, Victims and Heroines: Women, Welfare and the Egyptian State (London: Zed Press, 2001).Google Scholar
  39. 43.
    Gregory S. Thielman and Joseph Stewart Jr., ‘A Demand-Side Perspective on the Importance of Representative Bureaucracy: AIDS, Ethnicity, Gender and Sexual Orientation’, Public Administration Review, vol. 56, no. 2 (1996), pp. 168–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lael R. Keiser, Vicky M. Wilkins, Kenneth J. Meier and Catherine A. Holland, ‘Lipstick and Logarithms: Gender, Institutional Context, and Representative Bureaucracy’, American Political Science Review, vol. 96, no. 3 (2002), p. 553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Anne Marie Goetz, Women Development Workers: Implementing Rural Credit Programmes in Bangladesh (New Delhi: Sage, 2001).Google Scholar
  42. 44.
    Drude Dahlerup, ‘From a Small to a Large Minority: Women in Scandinavian Politics’, Scandinavian Political Studies, vol. 11, no. 4 (1989), pp. 275–93. This effect may depend entirely on incentive systems, however. Some workplaces where women exceed 50 per cent of staff show the opposite effect — extremely antagonistic relationships between women service providers and women clients.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 45.
    World Bank, Gender and Development Group, Gender in the PRSPs: A Stocktaking (Washington, DC, August 2001).Google Scholar
  44. 47.
    Anne Marie Goetz, ‘The Politics of Integrating Gender to State Development Processes: Trends, Opportunities and Constraints in Bangladesh, Chile, Jamaica, Mali, Morocco, and Uganda’, Occasional Paper No. 2 (Geneva: United Nations Research Institute for Social Development, 1995).Google Scholar
  45. 51.
    UNIFEM, Gender Budget Initiatives: Strategies, Concepts, and Experiences (New York: UNIFEM, April 2002).Google Scholar
  46. 52.
    Nilufer Cagatay, Diane Elson and Caren Grown, ‘Introduction’, special issue of World Development on ‘Gender and Macroeconomics’, vol 23, no. 11 (1995), pp. 1827–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Simel Esim, ‘Engendering Macroeconomic Policy in Budgets, Unpaid and Informal Work’, Annex to Gender, Growth, and Poverty Reduction in Sub-Saharan Africa (Washington, DC: World Bank, 1998).Google Scholar
  48. 54.
    Simel Esim, ‘Gender Equity Concerns in Public Expenditure: Methodologies and Country Summaries’, paper prepared for the Annual Meeting of the Special Program of Assistance for Africa (SPA) Working Group on Poverty and Social Policy, Ottawa (1995).Google Scholar
  49. 55.
    Andy Norton and Diane Elson, What’s Behind the Budget? Politics, Rights and Accountability in the Budget Process (London: Overseas Development Institute, June 2001), p. 37; and UNIFEM, Gender Budget Initiatives …, p. 29.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Anne Marie Goetz and Rob Jenkins 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anne Marie Goetz
  • Rob Jenkins

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations