Illustrating inequality

The 2012 World Bank World Development Report highlights that women represent 40 percent of the world’s labour force, hold 1 percent of the world’s wealth and that women’s earnings vary from 12 cents to the dollar relative to men in developing nation India, to 62 cents to the dollar relative to men in highly developed and westernised Germany. These statistics highlight the weak economic position of women relative to men, or more aptly put, the economic inequality between the genders. Importantly these statistics also touch upon the complexity and variation in gender inequalities, with gender inequality being far more severe in ‘developing nations’. Furthermore, by considering gender, race and class together, it is possible to comprehend the multi-dimensionality of inequality, and within the exceptional wealth divide between the developed and developing nations, we find the poverty of women to be even more greatly exacerbated. An approach that utilises such statistical analysis is valuable for several reasons.

Firstly, statistical analysis brings clarity to the level of relative inequality between the genders, and this can provide substantive support for policy change. Secondly, such an approach can allow for regular and well-defined tracking of progress, whether positive of negative. Policy, cultural, or societal changes can be factored in to view their impact, while budgetary or policy variations can also be considered enabling both a practical and sensitive analysis. Thirdly, the availability of regular and up-to-date data allows for an analysis that is contemporary and relevant.

53

It is clear that economic power influences social standing, and, if women’s economic power is weak, this in turns implies a low value attributed to their work and contribution. In society, perceived value is rewarded whereas dependency is not, and if a woman’s perceived value is less than that of a man, then her standing and societal status will reflect this. As such, it is clear that socially constructed factors also determine and influence the relative socio- economic inequality between the genders. The relative status and inequality between genders can be explored through the concept of access points to resources. From a socio- economic perspective, these access points can be expressed succinctly as:

1. Control of resources 2. Access to resources

It is essential to point out that there is an important distinction between control and access. For example, an individual, a group, class or a gender may have control of resources which enable that individual, group, class or gender to determine how these resources are allocated. They may be able to allocate resources as a whole, favouring certain interest groups or supporter bases, or perhaps the allocation is focused upon the re-distribution of surplus resources within a community or state. Again, by being in control of the allocation and re- distribution, this puts the group in control, in a position of power and influence thereby confirming their stratification level. From a gender perspective, this is an important point as in many cases control of resources most often resides with male leaders.

Alternatively, the individual, group, class or gender may not have control of resources but only access to resources. From a gender perspective, this is highly important, as women may not have control of resources but may have access to resources. Women’s access to the resources can be determined by government policy (local or national) which may determine the distribution of resources. Alternatively, women’s access may be through their class, with more affluent classes possibly having greater influence in the redistributive process of resources. On a micro level in the home or small community women’s access to resources may be determined by their relationship to men such as father, brother or husband. It is possible at this home or community level that women may have some control over resources, however control at this micro level is very limited in comparison to having macro level control of resources. Expanding outwards, this may also imply that without a male relationship, women may not even have access to resources. India provides a good example where widows are referred to as ‘untouchables’ and rejected by society. The societal pressure in India is intense on unmarried, divorced or widowed women, where women without a male live a life of utter poverty, abuse and destitution.17

17 “In our country, when women become widows, they cease to exist,” says Winnie Singh, executive

director and co-founder of Maitri. “It is a failure not only of the government but of society at large.”

http://world.time.com/2013/10/07/if-youre-an-indian-widow-your-children-could-kick-you- out-and-take-everything/

54

The tension between control and access is an important point. The lack of control of resources facilitates structures that at least maintain, but possibly strengthen, a dependency relationship between women and men. This contributes to an ever-increasing devaluing of the female status as measured by societal and economic barometers of value. Acknowledging the nuance between control of, and access to, resources, reveals another layer of the socio- economic inequality between men and women within a structural context. To rebalance inequalities between the genders, it is clear that the disparity between control of resources and access to resources needs to be resolved.

However, while the concept of control and access to resources can contribute to explaining variation between the socio-economic status of women and men, it is a difficult concept to use as a dependent variable. Firstly, and most significantly, there are severe limitations around data. There is little, or no data recorded on a cross-country basis over time that captures either control of or access to resources by genders. Without data, it becomes impossible to measure changes or developments and importantly for this thesis, it is also extremely difficult to quantitatively explore any interaction between this concept of the socio-economic status of women and IMF programmes. Secondly, this contextualization does not provide enough clarity from a gender perspective. Control and access to resources may depend on the individual, group, class or gender. While women represent a large portion of the world’s poorest people, this is not to say that wealthy women do not have control over or access to resources. Where race is involved, again the position of a white middle-class woman may be very different to that of a black working-class woman. There is a need for clarity and specificity that such a context does not facilitate.