Moderator
- Elana Berger, BIC
Panelists
- Elaine Zuckerman, Gender Action
- Kathleen Beegle, Research Manager and Lead Economist in the Human Development Team, World Bank Group
- Laura Rawlings, Lead Economist in the World Bank’s Gender Group, World Bank Group
Elana: I have worked a lot on the impact of World Bank projects, especially on GBV. The other thing is women’s labour force participation. One thing I’m really hoping to discuss today is the impacts of the Bank’s broader policies on women, but also men and gender-nonconforming people, looking at the wide impacts. We often think about gender in a siloed way – the number of women consulted, projects aimed at women, very discrete ways of looking at gender at the Bank. Need to commend the Bank even on that, some years ago not even that.
We really need to look at mainstreaming gender and how the Bank impacts economic structures in borrowing countries in ways that have disparate impacts on gender. One obvious example is DPFs; development policy loans, the ways the Bank invests and lends has gendered impacts. If we are changing regulations, education and health systems, there are often unintended gendered consequences.
One thing I particularly want to flag is the critical importance of care. This is not about how many women do we employ, how many jobs do we create through this WB funded project. This is about how countries’ economic systems are structured so that women take on the large majority of unpaid care work. How dopes the WB engage around this topic?
Country partnership frameworks, systematic country diagnostics, these are the tools the Bank uses to set the agenda for lending to countries. How is the Bank looking into that? Especially SCDs, they are WB documents – not developed in collaboration with authorities – to decide what are the main issues in a country. What are the support systems in place, what public services? These need to be considered as part of the SCDs.
Every single project should be considered on their gender impact, there is no such thing as a project that doesn’t impact gender. We hear about gender tags etc., not sure what that even means. Needs to be done across the portfolio, not only in specific sectors.
One pet peeve I have is the phrase “women and children” – what women need out of WB projects is NOT connected to what children need. Women have as much in common with children as men.
Elaine: I have been so inspired by Elana, who took a complained on GBV to the WB accountability mechanism and revolutionised the way this is treated. While many of us have pushed the Bank to enhance its attention to gender issues for decades, can’t lose sight of the bigger picture. Since the Bank was founded in 1944 with a neoliberal paradigm, reflecting a huge power imbalance between richer and poorer countries. The push for privatisation continues to this day, often accompanied by debt and an austerity framework.
The Bank’s privatisation mania began about 40 years ago, was epitomised when Jim Yong Kim set the Billions to Trillions agenda. But privatisation continues to squeeze poor people, majority are women, their access to public services, housing, etc. There are only 2 strategies now at the Bank: Gender and fragile. There used to be so much more.
Kathleen: I wish we had 5 hours, so will try to cover a number of things with less depth and am happy to follow up in more detail after the event. Let me work backwards from the many interesting points that Elaine has raised.
First, privatisation. Not having systematically looked at this, it tends to be big on enterprises and energy utilities, but in health and education there is very limited privatisation efforts. Especially in education we had ongoing discussion on Bridge Academies. In West African context at least, there is not an agenda to privatise health services.
On austerity: We are not the IMF, but there is an integral link. In Ghana, debt relief measures were introduced through IMF program that conditioned support on expansion of social protection through WB cash transfer program. Close connection between IMF reforms and ensuring that those don’t infringe on social services for poor and vulnerable groups and women among those groups.
Roadmap: True it doesn’t have much on gender. On climate, which it heavily talks about, there is a lot being done at the Bank to think about the intersection of gender and climate. Thinking how we frame the climate agenda, what it means to have mitigation and adaptation and policy change for green economies and how it intersects with gender. That may not be in the public domain, this is where the Bank may be lagging in communicating what we do. Not siloed in the gender group, includes the climate team.
On macro, I want to go through four issues to update you on past seven years. First, on the idea of the gender tag, this is the approach the Bank has taken on gender: Being intentional and strategic on closing gender gaps through WB portfolio. We are reviewing every project from design to implementation: Where does it address a gap through the four pillars of the strategy, what actions, are we tracking results… Not every project closes gaps. There are ongoing discussion on how we can ensure all projects contribute.
Second, important point of the role of SCDs and DPFs and framing country program vision. Every SCD is reviewed for how does it address gender (again around the four pillars of the strategy). Monitor over time how SCDs respond to comments submitted by gender experts, have seen a sharp increase in coverage of gender in SCD over past eight years, a lot of colleagues are receptive. The same is true on DPFs. SCDs are all in the public domain. We did a review of gender coverage, which we can share.
Third, WB macro portfolio – policy reforms at macro level, DPFs. Since at least 2017, we have been taking a hard look on how to leverage DPOs to address gender gaps/harms: Training macro economists who lead DPLs with academies with special sessions on gender; having a DPO gender dashboard – what are the prior actions, which have a gender focus. Bangladesh DPO had a prior action of the cabinet approving a child daycare act. Madagascar, a prior action to strengthen legal regime to prosecute GBV, and parliament enacting law. In Saint Lucia, climate risk mitigation on fisher folk, targeting women. Uzbekistan, barriers limiting economic participation with legislation guaranteeing non-discrimination in employment. What’s important here is that this didn’t happen organically. This is because the gender group took a very aggressive effort to reach out to the teams and empower them with the resources to think outside their traditional macro box.
Under IDA20, leadership secured commitment requiring at least 10 IDA countries to make their fiscal policy systems more gender inclusive, e.g. removing tax discrimination, monitoring expenditure, fiscal policy incidence analysis.
My pet peeve is female/male headship of households.
Elana: As you mention, maybe transparency is part of the problem, would be useful to see those things in the public domain.
Laura: I very much wanted to come to this panel because we are in the process of updating the gender strategy, looking to release it in early 2024, ask we are keen to receive input. We find ourselves in a very interesting period, there is a sense of urgency around crises and gender. Just wrapping up a 10 year retrospective, since 2012 when we released the WDR on gender. This created the framework.
We see globally that progress has been slow, uneven, even reversed due to crises and backlash. Hard won gains in human capital have stalled, closing gaps in education have not translated in closing gaps in other areas, most importantly in labour market. LFP is 50 per cent for women, 80 per cent for men. In MENA and Asia only 20 per cent of women, 80 per cent men. In fragile states and LICs, there is a disproportionate deprivation for women. GBV is still alarming – one out of three women. Lack of access to key services, assets, decision-making.Young men are rarely seen more progressive than older men (e.g. work of Promundo). Women, Business and the Law tracking reforms at the weakest pace recently since tracking started.
Take-aways: Covid great revealer. Have a lot more data and evidence on the problems and what works, and more cooperation. Recognise that social norms, collective mindsets, behaviours have very strong influence, and women’s empowerment and leadership have an important role.
Retrospective of the Bank’s work, corportate commitments and gender tags, have helped focus on gender gaps at project and investment levels. Also strong expansion of gender staff in WB, IFC and MIGA. There is a virtuous cycle in being able to test innovation, learn from evaluation, adapt to different contexts, scale solutions. Also see country driven / focused approaches are very important, looking to build this out.
Looking ahead in the strategy update, five focus areas:
- Gender dimensions of global development climate, including climate and growth, the macro economic situation, the debt crisis, countries are faced with difficult decisions in periods of austerity
- Gender empowerment as well as equality – not only closing gaps but also leadership
- Marginalised people, ethnicity, intersectionality, sexual orientation and gender identity
- Collective mindsets and norms
- Women’s leadership and synergies across outcomes
Three implications:
- “equality for all” – including men?
- Innovation, finance & collective action
- Strategic country engagement
Three outcome areas:
- Elevate human capital and end GBV: Gender gaps in health, education, social protection. Invest in access to quality (care) services & tech-enabled solutions
- Expanding economic opportunities, building on jobs and assets, emphasize care and natural assets
- Engage women as leaders, participation in decision-making
My pet peeve is women and other vulnerable groups, they are not always vulnerable, they are often a key part of answers and solutions. So, what does this mean: Closing gender gaps, including men and boys, strategic country engagements. Data and evidence, more on innovation, financing and wider stakeholder engagement. Accountability in project design towards accountability for outcomes. Started initiative on thematic policy notes, have many notes already there and coming up including on climate, care, GBV and more.
Questions & answers:
Luiz Vieira, Bretton Woods Project: I want to react to something you said about privatisation, Kathleen. If you look at the IFC portfolio, when Mr Diop came in, we asked him about investing on health and education. He said he believed firmly that the IFC should be investing in for profit health and education. Particularly in light of MFD approach, it’s all over the Roadmap, using public money to catalyse private investment. You also mentioned link with IMF and social protection floors – at country level we see that they are not followed up as closely as the other conditions. At the Bank there is a strong critique of targeted social protection, especially on women. We would expect that you call for universal social protection at the gender team. There is a lot of literature on financialisation, seeing a lot on financial inclusion without an analytical framework taking into account the impacts of financialisation. I find it interesting that there is no mention of human rights here – can you commit to pushing the Bank for a human rights policy? Ex ante impact assessments? Push Banga to commit to developing a human rights policy?
Kathleen: We know the IFC’s mandate is all about catalysing private financing, and it’s true there is a growing discussion on health and education there. There is a compelling case that low cost private provision is worth considering. We are behind in delivering good primary education and health services. Question if the IFC’s agenda links back to the Bank, they are very separate initiatives. In Liberia WB is investing in education and health, working with the minister, not really privatising. If you track IDA resources, you also wouldn’t see the Bank pulling back where the IFC invests, we should monitor that.
Yes, I talked about the IMF social spending. I would be the first to tell you it’s very difficult the timing of projects – in Ghana it’s one thing for the IMF to say expand cash transfers, the other is whether that can be done in the timeframe of the IMF program, there is a time lag. Can improve how IMF and Bank collaborate there. Lot of discussion on universal social protection at the Bank, big thought piece came out, many people support USP. But in a resource constrained world, how do we get there? Don’t know if there’s an official statement on USP, but many countries are growing with the vision to get there eventually. On human rights question, this is way above my paygrade. Please reach out at KBeegle@worldbank.org
Elaine: On the issue that Luiz raised about the IFC’s portfolio in health & education. When I mentioned private sector Bank involvement, in addition to IFC, thought about my colleagues from Oxfam. They have been for years showing data that WBG have been pushing for health & education private sector activities. We have worked with Oxfam on these issues, delivered a letter to the WB president. I was surprised to hear that you didn’t think this was still an issue.
Leanne, Heinrich Boell Foundation: Haven’t really engaged on the WB’s specific frameworks, however, have some questions on the presentation. I have to say, just looking at that slide and hearing you’re talking about human capital and not human rights, and talking about “unleashing the potential of women”, this is horrible private sector terminology. This should be about rights, the right to development, this is part and parcel of a mindset. You are looking at the connection of gender and climate change. I am concerned this thinking is going to be translated into that as well. We are seeing a de-valuation of grant financing, it’s a question on climate justice and reparation, not development aid. Troubling history of the Bank thinking about itself as the biggest climate finance provider, but does it mainly through loans. Even if you’re not talking about it being morally reprehensive to ask the poorest countries to pay with debt for climate action (particularly for adaptation, only 15 per cent of WB financing on this is grants), for me is mind-boggling. If that is not addressed in the WB strategy or in thinking about the gender-climate connections. The WB is known as implementer of climate finance under UNFCCC, GFC, where they are obligated much more to have a human rights focus. That extends to the WB approach in dealing with indigenous peoples where free, prior and informed consultation is not the same as consent.
Christian Donaldson, Oxfam: Need to have specific guardrails on where private sector has the most impact, have a lot of data to show that it does harm in health, e.g. a recent report in India. A woman was arrested because she couldn’t pay her hospital bills. When we worked with Elaine on the ESF, we should have a standalone standard on gender. You don’t have a policy that mandates and requires staff to pay attention to these issues.
Mihaela Siritanu, Bretton Woods Project: Feels like we have 2 separate conversations – one about all the good stuff the Bank is doing, one about all the challenges. I think that no one is diminishing the progress the Bank has made, but there is an urgency and more needs to be addressed, especially after the pandemic.
If the Bank is doing such a good job in mainstreaming gender, how come that doesn’t really translate into practice, where are the success stories?
Laura: Clear commitment from Bank to USP, a lot of dialogue on how to make that happen, missing middle of the informal sector, which was so severely impacted.
Privatisation, thorny subject. We often miss a big part of the picture, which is the legions of volunteers that are the community health workers in many countries, largely women. What can be done about that. Families and the choices they are facing, huge issues around quality of services people have access to. Sometimes it’s very low quality, informal, neither public nor private. This has fiscal, quality, access dimensions.
ESF: A very powerful element in the WB group, sets standards that need to be adhered to. Opportunity for transparency is important.
On human rights, it is important. One success story is gender-based violence, how much more we are paying attention to that in the WBG, supporting countries on that. Happy to share a recent presentation charting on how much we are doing in this area. In IDA20 policy commitments, GBV policy commitments, working with countries to establish systems for prevention and response.
Elana: Huge difference in what the Bank does in DC and what happens on the ground. How much does the gender unit get out actually and monitors what happens? Are you on the ground looking at this?
Laura: ICRs are the mechanism, gender unit not directly. Global gender unit quite small, but have architecture.
Fiana Arbab, Oxfam: Evidence continues to build on how austerity undermines states’ abilities to meet their economic and social rights. Unless the IMF and Bank change their approach on this, their gender and inequality work will be undermined by this.
Laura: We know it’s real, the care economy and occupational segregation. Covid was the great revealer in that respect, there are important reforms in distribution of unpaid care work, access to quality care. With the letter we’d be very happy to meet next week. We really do look forward to your engagement.