Social Science Assignment 12

Engendering development and disasters Sarah Bradshaw Principal Lecturer, Development Studies, Department of Law and Politics, University of Middlesex, United Kingdom

Over the last two decades the different impacts of disasters on women and men have been acknowledged, leading to calls to integrate gender into disaster risk reduction and response. This paper explores how evolving understandings of ways of integrating gender into development have influenced this process, critically analysing contemporary initiatives to ‘engender’ development that see the inclusion of women for both efficiency and equality gains. It has been argued that this has resulted in a ‘feminisation of responsibility’ that can reinforce rather than challenge gender relations. The construction of women affected by disasters as both an at-risk group and as a means to reduce risk suggests similar processes of feminisation. The paper argues that if disaster risk reduction initiatives are to reduce women’s vulnerability, they need to focus explicitly on the root causes of this vulnerability and design programmes that specifically focus on reducing gender inequalities by challenging unequal gendered power relations.

Keywords: disasters, feminisation of responsibility, gender, men, poverty, women, vulnerability

Introduction While ‘disaster’ is a contested notion (Cardona, 2004; Oliver-Smith, 2002; Quarantelli, 1998), it is usually understood that one occurs when an individual or group is vul- nerable to the impact of a natural or human-made hazard, i.e. they are unable to ‘anticipate, cope with, resist and recover from’ an event (Blaikie et al., 1994). Being a woman does not in itself lead to greater vulnerability, but women may be more vulnerable to hazards than men, given the unequal gendered power relations that limit women’s access to and control over resources. Vulnerability to an event is not based on sex or biological differences between men and women, but rather due to how society constructs what it means to be a man or a woman—i.e. what roles they should play and how they should behave—and this also influences how risk is per- ceived and responded to, with the concept being understood differently by men and women (Gustafson, 1998). Their lack of information, education and engagement with preparedness activities means that women faced by a perceived risk often do not feel that they can act, do not know when to act or do not know how to act on warnings. Socially constructed roles and norms mean that women cannot leave their homes without male permission, for example, or their roles as carers for children and the elderly slow their escape, meaning more women than men may die in an event. While reliable fatalities data disaggregated by gender and generation is still largely missing (Mazurana et al., 2011), a study by Neumayer and Plümper (2007) concluded that in countries where a disaster has occurred and where the socioeconomic status of women

doi:10.1111/disa.12111

Disasters, 2014, 39(S1): S54−S75. © 2014 The Author(s). Disasters © Overseas Development Institute, 2014 Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA

Engendering development and disasters S55

is low, more women than men die, or they die at a younger age. For those women who do survive there may be longer-term and more intangible ‘secondary’ impacts such as a rise in violence or greater insecurity in employment (Bradshaw and Fordham, 2013). Disasters, then, are gendered events. The last two decades have seen an increased interest in ensuring a gender perspec- tive in post-disaster response efforts, and more recently there have been initiatives to mainstream gender into disaster risk reduction (DRR) initiatives. The Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA), which provides the global framework for DRR, is a good example of how this has been approached. Its opening section states that a gender perspective should be ‘integrated into all disaster risk management policies, plans and decision-making processes, including those related to risk assessment, early warning, information management, and education and training’ (UNISDR, 2005, p. 4). However, while it has been suggested that this provides the ‘most explicit reference to gender of any other international policy frameworks for DRR’ (see UNISDR, 2009), it is not without limitations. Most importantly, its call to integrate gender into all areas of DRR did not result in gender being integrated even into the HFA itself, and in the remainder of the document gender and women are mentioned only twice: once when discussing early-warning systems and once when discussing the need to ensure equal access to appropriate training and educational opportuni- ties. This suggests a lack of real commitment to adopting a gender perspective by the international agencies responsible for DRR. That there is a lack of commitment to integrating gender into DRR was a view shared by participants at the International Conference on Gender and Disaster Risk Reduction in 2009, who noted that gender ‘remains a marginalized issue in the current national and international negotiations around DRR and climate change adaptation’ and that gender considerations have been ‘hardly applied as a fundamental principle in policy and framework development’ (cited in UNISDR, 2009, p. 7). A survey in 2010 by the UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction also suggests that gender is not being prioritised by those working in DRR. The study reviewed over 14,000 diverse pieces of material and classified them into themes and issues. This was followed by a survey of 1,856 DRR professionals to ascer- tain broad acceptance of this categorisation. It also asked them to indicate if these themes and issues were areas of specialisation and which areas needed more expertise (UNISDR, 2011). Analysis of the results shows that the highest number of respond- ents stated that ‘disaster risk management’ was their area of ‘expertise’ (61 per cent), and this also scored highly as an area needing strengthening (36 per cent). Newer areas that are key to disaster ‘risk reduction’ scored lower on both expertise and as areas needing strengthening. For example, 42 per cent of respondents said they had expertise in risk identification and only 28 per cent thought it was an area that needed strengthening, while climate change scored lower still on expertise (20 per cent), but was more readily identified as an area that needed greater expertise (35 per cent). However, the theme that scored lowest on both expertise and recognition of the need to strengthen knowledge of this area was ‘gender’, with only 13 per cent suggesting

Sarah Bradshaw S56

they had expertise in the area and 13 per cent suggesting it was an area that needs more expertise. It seems, therefore, that there is still a long way to go to convince DRR profes- sionals of the importance of adopting a gender perspective. In contrast, development professionals seem to have been more open to incorporating gender into their pro- jects and policies. The ‘success’ of efforts to integrate gender into development is witnessed by the World Bank’s commitment to ‘engender’ development via the adop- tion of a gender mainstreaming strategy in 2001, while even the most male-dominated of all the development agencies, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), proclaimed in 2012 that empowering women is just ‘smart economics’. The evolution of how women and gender have been integrated into the develop- ment process is not only more ‘advanced’ than the same processes in disasters, but also much better documented (see El Bushra, 2000; Kabeer, 1994; Moser, 1993; Ostergaard, 1992; Saunders, 2002; Young, 1993). This paper seeks to begin to redress the balance, exploring how gender has been incorporated into disaster policy and practice to date. It draws on the processes to ‘engender’ development in order to better understand processes to integrate gender into disasters. It begins with a consideration of the early stages of integrating women into development, before exploring the advances made in promoting gender as an issue in disasters. It then examines how gender has been integrated into relief and reconstruction in practice, using the debates within gender and development to problematise this. The next section considers more recent advances in engendering development, examining the notion of gender mainstreaming and how this operates in development policy, using the World Bank as a case study. The final section extends these ideas of engendering development to the disasters field, highlighting lessons to be learned.

Integrating women and gender into development Initial theorising around development presented the process as gender neutral. While the two main theories of development—modernisation theory and dependency theory—make no explicit mention of women or gender, the inherent assumption was that policies and projects that help men would also help women. The turning point came in 1970 with the publication of Boserup’s landmark text Women’s Role in Economic Development, which effectively demonstrated that ‘development’—or, rather, processes of modernisation—can harm women. While critiqued in turn (see Saunders, 2002), her work was ground breaking at the time since it illustrated that policies were not gender neutral, but based on gendered assumptions. Boserup’s work made clear the negative impact development could have on women and instigated a movement to integrate women into development. In particular, it is said to have helped inspire the UN Decade for Women (1976–1985) and a series of UN World Conferences on Women starting with a meeting in Mexico in 1975, followed by meetings in Copenhagen (1980) and Nairobi (1985). The fourth and last full meet- ing was held in 1995 in Beijing and the resultant Beijing Platform for Action now acts

Engendering development and disasters S57

as a framework for annual sessions to review progress. The movement to integrate women into development is generally seen to have two key ideological threads— Women in Development (WID) and Gender and Development (GAD). WID emerged in the 1970s and set out to deliberately target more development resources at women. It has its roots in liberal feminism and was and is the acceptable face of engendering development, and, it could be argued, also more recently disas- ters. Women’s subordination was seen to stem from their exclusion from the market sphere, and their limited access to and control over resources. The key to change was seen to be via laws and legislation around education and employment to effectively place women ‘in’ existing processes, i.e. the aim was to maximise women’s access to the ‘modern’ sector. While women’s significant productive contribution was made visible, their reproductive role was downplayed. Women’s ‘problem’ was diagnosed as insufficient participation in a benign development process because of an oversight by policymakers. As the name suggests, WID sought to integrate women into exist- ing development processes. However, this integration did not stretch to integration into development agencies, and instead WID led to the setting up of separate offices and officers (Rathgeber, 1990). For many, while WID interventions have made women more visible in the devel- opment process, the way in which this has taken place is problematic (Bandarage, 1984; Jaquette, 1982; Parpart, 1993). Critics questioned if you could—and, more importantly, should—just try and integrate women, or ‘add women and stir’. Those who questioned the dominant development discourse of modernisation also ques- tioned the benefits for women that being more integrated into this process would bring. There was also a suggestion that the focus on women constructed them as ‘the problem’, rather than locating this in the unequal gender roles and relations that form the basis of gender subordination. While most literature presents GAD as emerging as a counter-movement to WID, it is important to note that one other development occurred before the move from WID to GAD. Women And Development (WAD) saw one very small change lin- guistically, but one very large shift ideologically. It could be suggested that if WID was a reflection of modernisation theory, then WAD is a gendered dependency theory. WAD located gender struggle in the structure of capitalism, so—as with Marxist feminists—it privileged capitalism over patriarchy. For this reason the extent to which it actually had an explicit aim to ‘engender’ development or the extent to which it was ‘properly feminist’ was questioned (Saunders, 2002, p. 7), and while it is part of the WID–GAD progression, it is often overlooked. The more usual counterpoint to the WID school has been GAD. Here two changes may be seen to arise in response to the criticisms levelled at WID above—from ‘in’ to ‘and’, and ‘women’ to ‘gender’. The change to ‘gender’ reflects the fact that it is not women that are the problem, but the unequal power relations between men and women, while ‘and’ suggests the need to explore both gender and development. In other words, it is not sufficient to add women to existing processes of development, but it is also essential to problematise such development. The focus on gender suggests

Sarah Bradshaw S58

that rather than looking at women in isolation, there is a need to address the imbal- ance of power between women and men. The resultant projects are not just about improving women’s access to income generation or girls’ access to education, but are focused on challenging the social norms that keep girls from attending school and the structural inequalities that mean women earn less than men for comparable work, for example. This approach also gives special attention to the oppression of women in the family and highlights the need for policy initiatives to enter the ‘private’ sphere. While attractive in theory, GAD has its origins in academic thinking and may be seen to be a more theoretical understanding than the practically oriented focus of WID. Initially non-governmental organisations (NGOs) embraced GAD, but more recently institutions such as the World Bank have stated that they follow a GAD approach. However, while many say they have a GAD approach, what they often do in practice is WID (Rathgeber, 1990)—a criticism that may also be levelled at recent attempts to gender disasters (see below). Although WID and GAD are the two mainstream approaches to engendering development adopted by both international development agencies and NGOs, other approaches also exist. In particular those working with grass-roots women’s organi- sations and Third World feminists became disillusioned with both WID and GAD. They questioned the extent to which it was possible to generalise about women’s situation and position, suggesting such thinking had led to the construction of Third World women as a homogeneous group of ‘benighted, overburdened beasts, help- lessly entangled in the tentacles of regressive Third World patriarchy’ (Parpart, 1995, p. 254). In contrast, the Third World feminist tradition highlighted diversity and difference (see Mohanty, 1991), emphasising that inequalities of power exist on many levels, not just male/female, but rich/poor and First World/Third World. It suggested the need to recognise that women inhabit multiple sites of oppression and what is seen to be a key issue for a low-income woman may be as much class-based as gender based-discrimination. Just as there are multiple sites of oppression, there is also the need to address multiple inequalities of power. The ‘empowerment approach’ places a consideration of power relations as central (see Rowlands, 1997). The critique from women from the Global South that ‘Third World’ women were being constructed by WID/GAD as a homogeneous group of oppressed ‘others’ (Mohanty, 2003) promoted debate around both approaches, but they were also being questioned by another set of critics. By the end of the 1990s what had variously been defined as ‘men in crisis’ or ‘troubled masculinities’ were recognised (Chant, 2000, p. 7). This supposed crisis arose in part from the success of WID/GAD, which meant that girls were ‘over-achieving’ compared to boys in education, for example, but also processes of globalisation had seen the rise of women’s employment and men’s under- or unemployment and, related to this, women assuming decision-making roles in households. At the same time men had been generalised as lazy in the development discourse (Whitehead, 2000), sitting around talking while women work, and it was suggested that gender discourse had constructed men as ‘lurking’ in the background imagined as ‘powerful and oppositional figures’ (Cornwall, 1998, p. 46), and that

Engendering development and disasters S59

through this ‘gender roles and relations’ had become shorthand for inherently oppo- sitional relations. In practical if not in ideological terms, the case had been presented that men needed to be explicitly included in development. From the start some questioned the exist- ence of this ‘crisis of masculinity’ (see Chant and Gutmann, 2000), not least since problems of ‘masculinity’ might be better read as problems emerging from processes of globalisation and related to a crisis in international capitalism rather than gender. The masculinity projects that sprang up led to more questioning, since many pro- jects focused on male subjectivities—the personal constructions and understandings of ‘maleness’ and the implications of this for relationships with others. The focus reinforced men as self-reflecting subjects and complex individuals, yet the ‘Third World woman’ remained positioned as an object of subordination, not least since women rarely have the luxury to reflect on their ‘femaleness’—a luxury even less accessible when men’s projects compete for limited funding from the gender funding pot. More importantly for some, masculinity projects seemed to forget the vested interest men have in resisting change and the inherent contradiction in the aim to ‘empower men to dis-empower themselves’ (Redman, 1994). Pearson (2000, p. 44) suggests the construction of men as being in crisis at that time might have little to do with any real crisis of masculinity, but rather may be seen ultimately as aiming to dilute the radical women-focused development agenda that had arisen. More generally, by the turn of the millennium the advances made in pro- moting women’s rights were under attack. The 1990s had witnessed the ‘rise of rights’ (Eyben, 2003), with many organisations and international development agencies adopt- ing some form of ‘rights-based approach’ to development (Molyneux and Lazar, 2003; Piron, 2005), and within this the concepts of reproductive health, reproductive rights and sexual rights had become popularised (Petchesky, 2000). While the rights-based approach has not been without its critics (see IDS, 2005; Molyneux and Cornwall, 2008; Tsikata, 2004), the potential of rights for increasing recognition of women’s demands as legitimate claims has made rights particularly attractive to women’s move- ments. Some of the most effective organising over the past two decades has been around rights-related claims (Antrobus, 2004; Ruppert, 2002), including perhaps the greatest achievement—recognition of the fact that women should live free from violence as a ‘right’. Yet despite the agreements made at international conferences on women’s rights and the advances made in including women in development practice, for many gender activists the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) highlighted that a backlash had begun. Launched in 2000, the MDGs were to frame the development agenda until 2015. What was included and excluded has been important in ideological and funding terms. While the MDGs contain a goal focused on gender equality and women’s empower- ment, they make no mention of sexual and reproductive rights, while ending vio- lence against women is also missing. This led some gender activists to declare that the abbreviation MDG is better understood as ‘Most Distracting Gimmick’ (Antrobus, 2004). Since the MDGs were formulated there have been some more positive devel- opments, such as the formation of UN Women in 2010. This merged four key UN

Sarah Bradshaw S60

initiatives promoting the empowerment of women and seeks to hold the UN system accountable for its own commitments on gender equality. UN Women also seek to influence inter-governmental bodies in their formulation of policies, global standards and norms, including, as the MDGs come to an end, the ongoing process to formu- late a post-2015 development agenda and a new set of ‘Sustainable Development Goals’ (SDGs). The illustrative goals presented to the UN by the High Level Panel in June 2013 suggests advances from the MDGs, with violence against women proposed as a specific target and the explicit mention of sexual and reproductive health and rights. However, it is the Open Working Group of the General Assembly that has the ultimate responsibility for agreeing on a proposal on the SDGs, and a communiqué in February 2014 at the conclusion of the ‘stocktaking phase’ of the process suggests that the inclusion of sexual rights in any new set of goals is far from agreed. While the ‘exclusion’ of gendered rights from initiatives such as the MDGs has been a focus for gender activists of feminists over the decades, more recently the inclusion of gender has been problematised, and nowhere more so than in the poli- cies and projects of the World Bank and its plan to engender development through gender mainstreaming. Before considering the contemporary development land- scape further, an examination of processes to date to integrate gender into disasters is first needed.

The road to gendering disasters While Boserup’s work has been identified as the moment when a movement toward integrating gender into development emerged, no such defined movement to integrate gender into disasters in global agencies and agendas or official disaster discourse exists. Outside of the formal processes such as UN initiatives, perhaps the most coherent ‘movement’ in the gender and disasters field is the Gender and Disasters Network (GDN). This being said, many people working in the field of gender and disasters remain unaware of this organisation and its work. Conceptualised in 1997 as a re- sponse to a gender gap in disaster analysis and practice, it is presented as unique in its ‘strategy of engendering Disaster Risk Reduction by taking advantage of the virtual space created by the World Wide Web’ and it has become a ‘legitimate and respected voice for gender and disasters issues’ (Sanz et al., 2009, p. 15). Just as research was a key factor in initiating the WID movement and as the basis of the GAD approach, the importance of promoting and disseminating quality research has not been lost on the founders and members of the GDN, and it has become a repository for gender and disaster knowledge. Tierney (2012, p. 245) suggests that the field of disaster research has been charac- terised by a series of ‘critical disjunctures’, with discontinuities in research and the systematic neglect of some topics, and even collective resistance to the introduction of new ideas. In the field of disaster studies gender might be seen to be one such topic, and it has suffered from ‘periodic lapses of attention’ (Anderson, 2012). In 1982 Rivers published a key paper exploring gender differences and discrimination in disasters,

Engendering development and disasters S61

and since then the production of gendered disasters knowledge has made large advances. The end of the 1990s saw one of the main disasters journals, the International Socio- logical Association’s International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, publish its first special edition dedicated to women and disasters, and in the interim decade a number of edited texts have focused on gender and disasters, starting with The Gendered Terrain of Disasters (Enarson and Morrow, 1998). In 2009 Fordham edited a special edition of the journal Regional Development Dialogue dedicated to ‘Gender and Disas- ter Management’, and in the same year an edited collection on Women, Gender and Disasters (Enarson and Chakrabarti, 2009) was published. These texts include con- tributions from a wide range of scholars and practitioners from a variety of countries, including scholars from the Third World, demonstrating how the field has expanded. While texts have considered disasters and development (see, for example, Pelling, 2003), it was not until 2013 that the first text dedicated to better understanding gen- der and disasters in the developing-world context was published (Bradshaw, 2013). Towards the end of the 20th century events such as Hurricane Mitch in Central America saw advances in terms of understanding how gender roles, relations, and identities are constructed and reconstructed in the context of disasters (see, for exam- ple, Bradshaw, 2001; Cupples, 2007). High-profile events during the early part of the new millennium, including the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, meant an upsurge in case studies and survivor narratives (see, for example, Oxfam International, 2009) and accounts from field workers that focused on both women and men (see, for exam- ple, Clarke and Murray, 2010). Research after Hurricane Katrina allowed new voices to be heard (see, for example, David and Enarson, 2012) and brought new directions in gendered research (see, for example, D’Ooge, 2008; Fothergill and Peek, 2008; Gault et al., 2005), and advances in the theoretical discussions on the meaning of disasters (see, for example, Brunsma, Overfelt and Picou, 2007). The GDN Gender and Disasters Sourcebook (2006) initiative has sought to disseminate existing studies such as these and to publicise good practice by making resources available via the internet to academics and practitioners. Although such virtual forums are important, a number of conferences have also brought together those working in the field, illustrating how thinking around gender in the disaster context has evolved. The 1998 ‘Women and Disaster’ conference in Vancouver was followed in 2000 by the meeting in Miami with the theme ‘Reaching Women and Children in Disasters’. In 2004 about a hundred women and men met to discuss ‘Gender Equality and Disaster Risk Reduction’. The change in titles from ‘Reaching Women and Children’ at the 2000 conference to ‘Gender Equality’ at the 2004 conference parallels the shift in language witnessed in the gender and develop- ment field. For the first time, during the 2004 meeting a breakaway discussion was held largely consisting of men. It identified the current practice of focusing discus- sions on identifying and mitigating women’s vulnerabilities as ‘limiting in the long run’ and called for engaging with ‘men and boys in equal measure’ (Mishra, 2009, p. 35). This move toward reasserting masculinities also demonstrates parallels with the changing and contested gender and development discourse.

Sarah Bradshaw S62

The 2004 conference led to the Honolulu Call to Action (see Anderson, 2009), which calls for disaster risk, gender, social equity, and environmental issues to be considered in an integrated way and highlights the gaps in the MDGs in terms of DRR and gender. The GDN has since gone on to seek to influence the interna- tional policy dialogue, with a delegation being invited to make an oral and written statement at the 2007 ‘Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction’ in Geneva, for example, and through involvement in the discussions around the development of the second phase of the HFA post-2015. Some progress has therefore been made since the late1990s, when Fordham (1998) noted that the incorporation of a gender focus into disaster work had still not advanced much further than revealing the situation of women, and that—if addressed at all— gender had been integrated into disaster practice as a demographic variable or per- sonality trait and not as the basis for a complex and dynamic set of social relations (Enarson, 2000). Yet as late as Hurricane Katrina in 2005 the ‘not noticing’ (Saeger, 2012) of the gendered dimension of the disaster by the media and expert responders alike was highlighted, and despite the advances made by those working in the field, it seems that gender is yet to be fully mainstreamed in humanitarian relief, integrated into research and field projects undertaken by the major disaster centres, and included in disaster training courses (Enarson and Meyreles, 2004). The gendering of the dominant disasters discourse has advanced slowly. Where the most rapid advances have been made is not in the integration of women into DRR, but the inclusion of women in post-disaster reconstruction activities.

Women in development and disasters in practice In the contemporary post-disaster context, studies suggest that women are included in the reconstruction projects, and are targeted as beneficiaries and participants. For example, as far back as 1998 an evaluation of projects post-Hurricane Mitch financed with funds through the Disasters Emergency Committee (ECA, 2000) concluded that the projects ‘tended to favour women and children in the distribution of products and services’ and that women were included as:

• beneficiaries of the self-construction of houses with the title issued in the woman’s name;

• participants in construction projects (roads, houses, bridges), which helped break certain stereotypes regarding their capacity to work; and

• beneficiaries of productive programmes in order to reduce their economic vulner- ability. These included chicken rearing, agricultural projects, the manufacturing of cement blocks for construction, and agricultural aid.

Women were also recipients of direct economic aid when, as part of a packet of cash given to each household, an amount was allocated directly to them. Some evalua- tions mentioned this as marking ‘a step forward’ for women. However, it was also

Engendering development and disasters S63

recognised that such packets of economic aid for women did not help them free them- selves from the ‘oppressive power structures’ in the household and community (ECA, 2000). The way in which these evaluations describe the projects and women’s inclu- sion suggests the focus of reconstruction overall was very much on a WID approach. These projects provided women with access to resources, while the power struc- tures underlying women’s lack of equality of access were not tackled. Dealing with these would have a required a different approach that addressed the more strategic gender interests of women rather than just their practical gender needs (see Molyneux, 1985; Moser 1989). The inclusion of women’s practical needs in reconstruction initiatives is fundamen- tal for post-disaster recovery. Practical needs arise from an immediate perceived need and are formulated from the existing concrete conditions. However, many of the needs defined as basic needs of women are also those of all male and female members of the family, such as the provision of water, health, housing, and basic services and food. They are identified as the practical needs of women because it is they who assume responsibility for them. Women’s practical needs therefore derive from the (unequal) position of women in the gendered division of labour, and responding to these needs may reinforce unequal gender power relations rather than challenge them. In contrast, strategic gender needs are perhaps best thought of as the transforma- tions necessary to change the unequal situation between men and women. Focusing on women’s strategic interests demands the questioning of the nature of the relations between men and women with the aim of overcoming women’s subordination. Addressing strategic needs covers issues like the elimination of institutionalised forms of discrimination such as the right to land ownership, or instituting measures against intra-family violence, for example. Strategic gender needs/interests place the focus on women’s rights rather than their existing responsibilities. Post-disaster there is often the suggestion that there is no space to consider women’s gendered rights, because the more important task of providing material relief takes precedence. Post-event, projects that focus on strategic interests struggle to find fund- ing (Bradshaw, 2004). Moreover, gender training and consciousness-raising activi- ties may not be female participants’ priority when they are trying to find resources to ensure their households’ survival. While for some, practical needs must be met before more strategic concerns can be broached, for others meeting women’s practical needs can only reinforce their sub- ordinate position, not overcome it. For example, even when women’s participation in reconstruction projects provides practical benefits, the resources gained through their participation may be afforded a different and lesser value than resources ‘earned’ through male paid labour (Bradshaw, 2004). Providing resources to women—even non-traditional resources such as housing titles or more livestock—without tackling the household relations that limit women’s ability to enjoy the benefits of these resources will produce no real change. Impact evaluations often see projects as success- ful by calculating the amount of resources allocated and to whom—X number of cows to X number of women. They do not evaluate what difference giving resources to

Sarah Bradshaw S64

women actually makes to their lives or if they do actually benefit from them. As noted of one project that ‘gave’ cows to women, the outcome was that ‘the women have their cows and the men are drinking the milk’ (Bradshaw, 2001). The benefit to the women ‘beneficiaries’ of this project is questionable. As this suggests, projects that address women’s practical needs may change gender roles, but do not necessarily bring changes to gender relations, because the latter changes demand projects that specifically address unequal power relations. The impact of projects such as the one discussed above on household and couple relations is often ignored. Some research suggests that projects with a more ‘strategic’ focus, i.e. those that focus more on training and awareness raising, may provoke greater levels of conflict and arguments in households, but this does not necessarily translate into violence against women (Bradshaw, 2004). In contrast, projects with a more ‘practical’ needs focus may not lead to arguments, but may increase violence against women, because resources may be physically taken from women by men or men may react badly to resources being focused on women. This can be understood in the context in which reconstruction occurs, where any ‘crisis of masculinity’ noted in the development literature may be heightened by an event that reveals men’s ina- bility to fulfil their socially prescribed roles. The losses sustained during a disaster demonstrate that men could not protect their families and goods, and the need for aid demonstrates that they cannot provide for their families. Instead of supporting men to return to their provider role, the focus on women in reconstruction projects may further undermine the male role as aid agencies become the new providers to and protectors of women and children, and indirectly then to men. Not only does this disempower men, but the very nature of the asymmetrical power relationship in which assistance is bestowed from First World to Third World, from male aid work- ers to female ‘beneficiaries’, aims or expects to elicit their gratitude and ‘symbolically disempowers’ women also (Hyndman and de Alwis, 2003, p. 218). For some commentators, the idea that projects that suggest they aim to empower women may actually do the opposite is not a sign of a poorly designed project, but indicative of the nature of contemporary strategies to ‘engender’ development and, more recently, disasters.

Engendering development The latest evolution in how to incorporate gender into development has seen pro- cesses of engendering via gender mainstreaming (see Mukhopadhyay, 2004; Porter and Sweetman, 2005; True and Mintrom, 2001; Walby, 2005; Woodford-Berger, 2004). This includes the World Bank’s adoption of gender mainstreaming in 2001. However, the initial calls to mainstream gender into development had come much earlier from feminists at the Beijing conference in 1995. The call at Beijing was in reac- tion to concerns not only over the lack of progress in the implementation of WID/ GAD, but also that such approaches did not truly deal with the structural issues or

Engendering development and disasters S65

underlying causes of women’s subordination. To address this it was suggested that gender equality concerns needed to be integrated into the analyses and formulation of policies and projects, and initiatives were needed that enabled both women and men to participate in decision-making across all issues, i.e. the need to address both policies and the policymaking processes. This vision of mainstreaming is based on a desire for transformation, not only of women’s lives, but also of the agencies and institutions that make the policies that affect their lives. However, mainstreaming in practice has adopted less a transformative and more an integrationist approach. Walby’s (2005) analysis suggests that three approaches should be adopted for gender to be effectively mainstreamed:

• an inclusion approach that entails the equal treatment of women (and men) in inter- actions with them, including in development projects and programmes;

• a participatory approach that suggests listening to and including women in planning and policy processes and incorporating their perspectives into the products of these processes; and

• a gendered approach that would mean analysing gendered power relations and how these are affected by particular work in particular contexts in order to address gen- der imbalances

In practice the third aspect—the gendered approach—has rarely been part of the process and is most resisted, since it challenges the vested interests of men, who remain the majority of those working in and for development, especially in large and influential institutions such as the World Bank and IMF (Stevens, 2007). It is the approach to mainstreaming adopted by agencies such as the World Bank rather than mainstreaming as such that has been criticised. They have adopted a techni- cal approach that makes gender just another category to be included in policies, with little thought or analysis and often with a focus on providing for practical needs rather than addressing strategic interests. As just another box to be ticked, the inclusion of gender poses little challenge to the status quo. Once mainstreamed, gender becomes the responsibility of all—or the responsibility of no one—and may actually make it more difficult to ensure that women’s concerns are addressed (see Mukhopadhyay, 2004). Moreover, the World Bank’s mainstreaming strategy has been justified on efficiency grounds, promoting mainstreaming to male economists via promises of the economic growth gains it will bring. The bank’s mainstreaming strategy was backed up by a policy research report entitled Engendering Development (World Bank, 2001b) that exam- ined the conceptual and empirical links among gender, public policy and develop- ment outcomes. It had one clear conclusion: societies that discriminate by gender tend to experience less rapid economic growth and poverty reduction than those that treat males and females more equally. This and earlier research was used to highlight that improved gender equity can bring economic growth gains (see Dollar and Gatti, 1999; Klasen, 1999). The World Bank Gender and Development Group highlights in particular the benefits that investment in human capital, especially girls’ and women’s education and health, brings (WBGDG, 2003, p. 6), suggesting that if the countries

Sarah Bradshaw S66

of Africa had closed the gender gap in schooling between 1960 and 1992 as quickly as East Asia did, this would have produced close to a doubling of per capita income growth in the region (WBGDG, 2003, p. 12). The logic is that ‘educated, healthy women are more able to engage in productive activities, find formal sector employ- ment, earn higher incomes and enjoy greater returns to schooling than are uneducated women’ (WBGDG, 2003, p. 6). The continued WID focus is clear from this. While seemingly logical, it ignores the fact that unequal relationships of power in the home and male control may limit women’s ability to engage in productive activities out- side the home or lead to conflict if they do so, especially if they earn higher wages than men. It also ignores the fact that women still tend to be responsible for domestic work in the home and will face a double day of reproductive and productive work. The World Bank’s suggestion that girls’ attendance at school could be enhanced by providing a source of clean water close to school for them to carry home after their school day is over (WBGDG, 2003, p. 12) further demonstrates that this ‘engen- dering’ does not seek to challenge gender roles, let alone gender relations, and may actually reinforce gender stereotypes. Ultimately, women are seen to be an efficient means to achieve wider economic goals. For example, the World Bank has noted that social gender disparities result in a reduced ability among the poor to manage risk (World Bank, 2001a, p. 27) and thus produce economically inefficient outcomes. It has been suggested that improving women’s access to risk management tools will bring efficiency and equity gains (Holzmann and Kozel, 2007). However, the fact that World Bank documentation states that ‘gender-sensitive development strategies contribute significantly to eco- nomic growth as well as to equity objectives’ (World Bank, 2001b, p. 3, emphasis added) suggest that for the bank, gender equity or women’s empowerment is a secondary concern, a byproduct of policies designed to promote economic growth gains. It is this instrumentalist approach to including women in contemporary development pro- cesses that is the target of feminist critiques. The extent to which this approach is mirrored in the disasters discourse will now be explored.

‘Gendering’ disasters From Hurricane Mitch onwards studies suggest evidence for a move towards women becoming key ‘beneficiaries’ of reconstruction and being actively sought out by NGOs and other agencies to be central to the organised response to disasters. What is being questioned here is not if women are being targeted, nor that women should be targeted, but why women are currently being targeted. While, of course, the targeting of resources at women may stem from a moral position to use the often-mentioned ‘window of opportunity’ for transformation opened up by disasters to advance their position and situation, the lack of studies that demonstrate long-term post-event changes in gender relations suggests that a policy assumption is being made that such a window exists. More generally, the focus on

Engendering development and disasters S67

women is justified by highlighting that a disaster has a gendered impact, with women suffering most from such an event. For example, a recent UN initiative suggested that ‘women always tend to suffer most from the impact of disasters’ (UN/ADPC, 2010, p. 8); however, data to support this assertion is largely lacking. While women may face a ‘double disaster’, suffering a post-event deterioration in economic and social well-being, including an increase in violence and sexual violence (Bradshaw and Fordham, 2013), the impact of the event is generally measured in terms of loss of life or material loss. Data on disaster deaths is still often not disaggregated by gender, while material losses tend to be measured at the macro level of infrastructure and productive assets. Even when individual losses are recorded, they are at the level of the household, and any comparison is then between male-headed and female-headed households, not men and women. A review of a report by Britain’s Department for International Development (DFID, 2004, p. 3) highlights that in the absence of data, policy assumptions are being made about who will be impacted and why. The report singles out female household heads, suggesting that ‘female-headed households in developing countries are amongst those most asset-poor and have been found to be among those most affected by natural disasters’. Given that data to support this statement is not provided, it demonstrates that a series of assumptions are being made: it is assumed that female heads are more vulnerable; they are more vulnerable because they are poorer; and because they are poor they suffer more losses. While not to negate the importance of tackling gendered poverties in any way, the assumptions being made by organisations such as DFID can be contested. The construction of female-headed households as the ‘poorest of the poor’ has been contested in itself and as part of a wider critique of the ‘feminisation of poverty’ thesis. It ignores the ‘secondary poverty’ suffered by women and children in male-headed households from male heads withholding income for personal consumption (Chant, 2008a), meaning that while the household is not poor, women and children in the household are. However, even when accepting women’s relative poverty as a fact, while poverty is a key component of vulnerability it is not the only nor necessarily the best component in terms of predicting impact. Using poverty as a proxy for vul- nerability ignores factors such as social norms and relations that inform individual status and individual response. Considering loss of life, while since the Indian Ocean tsunamis it has become something of received wisdom to assert that more women die in such events, care is needed, given men’s socially prescribed riskier behaviour in the face of danger in societies such as those in Latin America, which may put men more at risk. The basis for a feminised loss of life during disasters now seems to rest on an often-cited study of 141 countries which found that where the socioeconomic status of women is low, more women than men die or die at a younger age (Neumayer and Plümper, 2007). While a welcome development, caution is needed, since the study does not analyse gender-disaggregated data on disaster-related deaths, since such data still does not exist. It instead uses a series of data sets to create indicators of disaster strength and women’s

Sarah Bradshaw S68

socioeconomic status, and explores how these relate to the size of the gender gap in life expectancy in the selected countries. What it suggests is that it is not poverty alone that explains this gender gap, questioning the policy assumption that poverty can be taken as a proxy for vulnerability. Moreover, even if this study did provide conclusive proof that more women than men die, it does not provide support for targeting resources at women post-event. In fact, it suggests the opposite policy pre- scription, and that resources should be provided to men, because they are more likely to survive and be left to care for others. If the loss of life cannot justify a policy focus on women, loss of material resources might explain the targeting of resources at women, the assumption then being that women will incur heavier losses than men. Again, a feminised calculation of loss is questionable, especially in absolute terms, as is the extent to which this can be asserted with any certainty, as noted above. It has been suggested that disasters should be understood in terms of the response to them rather than the physical damage they cause, in that they tell us not so much about actual loss, but rather about how loss is understood (Dynes, 1998). What may then explain the post-event targeting of women and especially female heads is not so much the actual situation, but per- ceptions of their situation. Female heads are targeted because they are assumed to be poorer, and as such assumed to be more vulnerable, and as such their loss is assumed to be greater. The constructions of gendered poverty in the development discourse are of impor- tance in understanding these constructions of women and women household heads in this discourse. The notion of a ‘feminisation of poverty’ acquired something of its current status as a global ‘orthodoxy’ in 1995 when the eradication of the ‘persistent and increasing burden of poverty on women’ was adopted as part of the Beijing Platform for Action (Chant, 2008b). The feminisation-of-poverty thesis has over time come to be equated with more women being poor and more women being among the poor, that this is a rising trend, and that it is related to a feminisation of house- hold headship. Underpinning this is the notion of women heads as being the poorest of the poor. However, while these ideas appear to have become received wisdom, there is little research to support claims that women’s relative income poverty is at the suggested scale and is increasing over time. Research also fails to confirm any con- sistent linkage between the ‘feminisation of poverty’ and the ‘feminisation of house- hold headship’ (Chant, 2008a). Jackson (1996) called for a move to ‘rescue’ gender from this ‘poverty trap’, noting that the dangers of equating gender and poverty may mean that policies to address poverty are assumed to automatically address gender inequality or are implemented in the name of women and gender equality. This inclusion of women to address poverty rather than because of their own expe- rience of inequality may help to explain why the UN Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean found that the percentage of women participating in poverty reduction programmes in the region was actually much higher than the percentage of women identified as poor (ECLAC, 2004). This high ‘participation’ of women in poverty reduction programmes has led some to suggest that, rather than

Engendering development and disasters S69

the feminisation of poverty, we should talk of the ‘feminisation of poverty alleviation’ (Chant, 2008b), whereby women are being constructed not as the most poor, but as the most efficient means by which to reduce the number of poor people. While women are expected to take on a new role as the ‘beneficiary’ of projects that provide economic resources for the household, and in particular children, this new role is conceptualised as part of women’s existing gendered roles as mothers and carers. Women, then, are at the service of the new poverty agenda rather than being served by it, and the ‘motherisation’ of the gendered poverty agenda does little to change the situation and position of women (Molyneux, 2006, 2007). This femi- nisation or motherisation is not confined to policies aimed at reducing poverty, nor to development policy more generally, but has been noted in environmental poli- cies also, constructing an ‘ecomaternalism’ that targets women as the victims of environmental degradation, but also as the virtuous protectors of the environment (Arora-Jonsson, 2011). When considering post-disaster relief and reconstruction efforts in this light, the focus on women as beneficiaries of aid becomes clearer, with women being targeted as ‘virtuous victims’. As with recent development initiatives, while policy interven- tions are justified by constructing women as victims, it is their assumed virtuous behaviour that may really explain this targeting: women are targeted not because they need help, but because they are seen as being better at providing help. Women’s inclusion may therefore be less based on a perceived feminised vulnerability, but the opposite: on the understanding that women are better able to distribute resources to vulnerable others (Bradshaw, 2010). Learning from development, resources given to women post-disaster are not ‘wasted’, but rather are used by them for the good of the household. Efficiency rather than vulnerability, then, may be at the heart of gendered reconstruction projects, and not only individual women are targeted. Recent large-scale disasters have highlighted the important role played by women’s networks and women’s groups in the organised response. Post-disaster, many women’s groups and individual women immediately assume the role of carer. The ‘feminist’ response to challenge gender stereotypical roles appears to be overruled—at least in the short term—by a socialised gendered response to care for others. These stereo- typical caring roles that women take on are then further reinforced by international actors and international aid, which seek out women and women’s groups as the ‘beneficiaries’ of projects, thus reinforcing the notion of a feminised responsibility to care (Bradshaw, 2009). Far from challenging women’s stereotypical roles, reconstruction initiatives may instead reinforce them, making response to disasters another element of women’s caring role. Yet while women’s activities expand, this expansion of activities occurs in terms of existing gendered roles and the activities are conceptualised as reproduc- tive rather than productive, i.e. as part of women’s ‘natural’ roles. As such, these new activities are afforded little value, and given that there is no perceived change in gender roles, there may be no associated change in gender relations. The focus on women may therefore bring few benefits to women.

Sarah Bradshaw S70

Conclusion Attempts to ‘engender’ development have been ongoing since the 1970s and are not only more advanced than similar attempts to include a gender perspective in the disaster discourse, but also have received much more scrutiny. Processes to gender disasters have been ongoing for a number of years, yet while there has been some evidence of gender entering the mainstream, it remains rather marginal to central debates. In contrast, while in the 1970s the battle was to ensure that women were included in development, by the mid-2000s this had been achieved and the focus changed to one of questioning that inclusion. The instrumentalist approach to engen- dering development, with its focus on women as the efficient providers of economic growth gains, has led gender activists and feminists to suggest that at times the inclu- sion of women in development processes is as problematic as their exclusion. What a discussion of engendering development illustrates is that how women are included, or gender is mainstreamed, is as important as whether it occurs, and it cannot be assumed that women’s inclusion is necessarily or always a good thing. Over time women have been increasingly constructed as a vulnerable group in the face of natural hazards and they have been included in post-disaster relief and reconstruction. However, targeting resources at women should not be read as neces- sarily addressing women’s vulnerability and poverty, nor should a ‘gendered’ response be seen to be necessarily aimed at improving the situation and position of women. While gendered post-event projects may seek to use the hypothesised ‘window of opportunity’ to address gender inequalities, many projects, rather than addressing women’s strategic interests, actually focus on responding to ‘their’ practical needs. The focus on women post-disaster may therefore be driven less by a desire to chal- lenge gender stereotypical roles than by an understanding of the efficiency gains to be made through utilising existing gendered roles and relations. A key lesson to be learned from the gender and development literature is that why and how women are included do matter, with contemporary processes placing women at the service of the development agenda. Similarly, the current targeting of resources at women as the virtuous victims of disasters brings efficiency gains justified in equal- ity terms. If the disasters agenda is going to serve women, rather than women being at its service, a different approach needs to be adopted that addresses women’s strategic interests rather than just their practical needs. While including women and girls in disaster response may reduce disaster risk overall, unless disaster risk reduction and response activities specifically address gen- der inequalities, they will not change the situation and position of women. They will not therefore address the root causes of women’s vulnerability, but merely better respond to the outcomes of that vulnerability. It is inequities in the everyday, and not just in times of disaster, that create greater risk and reduce life chances for women and girls. If disasters are to learn from development, the key lesson is not that gender matters, but that how gender is addressed matters. The way to reduce disaster risk is through gender equality, and the only way to promote gender equality is through specific programmes and projects that look to address unequal gendered power rela- tions during, after and—most critically—before a disaster.

Engendering development and disasters S71

Acknowledgements My thanks to Brian Linneker for comments on an earlier draft of this paper and to the anonymous peer reviewers.

Correspondence Dr Sarah Bradshaw, Department of Law and Politics, University of Middlesex, London NW4 4BT, United Kingdom. E-mail: [email protected]

References Anderson, C. (2009) ‘Organising for risk reduction: the Honolulu Call for Action’. In E. Enarson and

D. Chakrabarti (eds) Women, Gender and Disaster: Global Issues and Initiatives. Sage, India. pp. 40–56. Anderson, W.A. (2012) ‘Foreword’. In E. David and E. Enarson (eds) The Women of Katrina: How Gender,

Race and Class Matter in an American Disaster. Vanderbilt University Press, Nashville, TN. pp. xi–xiii. Antrobus, P. (2004) The Global Women’s Movement: Origins, Issues and Strategies. Zed Books, London. Arora-Jonsson, S. (2011) ‘Virtue and vulnerability: discourses on women, gender and climate change’.

Global Environmental Change. 21(2). pp. 744–775. Bandarage, A. (1984) ‘Women in development: liberalism, Marxism and Marxist feminism’. Development

and Change. 15. pp. 495–515. Blaikie P., T. Cannon, I. Davis and B. Wisner (1994) At Risk: Natural Hazards, People’s Vulnerability and

Disasters. Routledge, London. Boserup, E. (1970) Woman’s Role in Economic Development. St Martin’s Press, New York. Bradshaw, S. (2001) ‘Reconstructing roles and relations: women’s participation in reconstruction in

post-Mitch Nicaragua’. Gender and Development. 9(3). pp. 79–87. Bradshaw, S. (2004) ‘Socio-economic impacts of natural disasters: a gender analysis’. UN Economic

Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) Serie Manuales 32. http://www.eclac. org/publicaciones/xml/3/15433/lcl2128i.pdf (accessed on 14 August 2012).

Bradshaw, S. (2009) ‘Engendering disasters: feminisation of response or a feminisation of responsibility?’ Regional Development Dialogue. 30(1). pp. 123–131.

Bradshaw, S. (2010) ‘Feminisation or de-feminisation? Gendered experiences of poverty post-disaster’. In Sylvia Chant (ed.) International Handbook on Gender and Poverty. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham/ Northampton. pp. 627–632.

Bradshaw, S. (2013) Gender, Development and Disasters. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham/Northampton. Bradshaw, S. and M. Fordham (2013) Women and Girls in Disasters. Report produced for the Department

for International Development, Britain. Brunsma, D., D. Overfelt and J.S. Picou (eds) (2007) The Sociology of Katrina: Perspectives on a Modern

Catastrophe. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, MD. Cardona, O.D. (2004) ‘The need for rethinking the concepts of vulnerability and risk from a holistic

perspcetive: a necessary review and criticism for effective risk management’. In G. Bankoff, G. Frerks and T. Hilhorst (eds) Mapping Vulnerability: Disasters, Development and People. Earthscan, London. pp. 37–51.

Chant, S. (2000) ‘From “woman-blind” to “man-kind”: should men have more space in gender and development?’ IDS Bulletin. 31(2). pp. 7–17.

Chant, S. (2008a) ‘Dangerous equations? How female-headed households became the poorest of the poor: causes, consequences and cautions’. In J. Momsen (ed.) Gender and Development: Critical Concepts in Development Studies. Routledge, London.

Sarah Bradshaw S72

Chant, S. (2008b) ‘The “feminisation of poverty” and the “feminisation” of anti-poverty programmes: room for revision?’ Journal of Development Studies. 44(2). pp. 165–197.

Chant, S. and M. Gutmann (2000) Mainstreaming Men into Gender and Development: Debates, Reflections and Experiences. Oxfam, Oxford.

Clarke, M. and S. Murray (2010) ‘The voices of international NGO staff ’. In M. Clarke, I. Fanany and S. Kenny (eds) Post-disaster Reconstruction: Lessons from Aceh. Earthscan, London. pp. 155–185.

Cornwall, A. (1998) ‘Gender, participation and the politics of difference’. In I. Guijt and M.K. Shah (eds) The Myth of Community: Gender Issues in Participatory Development. Intermediate Technology, London. pp. 46–57.

Cupples, J. (2007) ‘Gender and Hurricane Mitch: reconstructing subjectivities after disaster’. Disasters: The Journal of Disaster Studies, Policy and Management. 31(2). pp. 155–175.

David, E. and E. Enarson (eds) (2012) The Women of Katrina: How Gender, Race and Class Matter in an American Disaster. Vanderbilt University Press, Nashville, TN.

DFID (Department for International Development) (2004) ‘Adaptation to climate change: making development disaster-proof ’. DFID Key Sheet 06.

Dollar, D. and R. Gatti (1999) ‘Gender inequality, income, and growth: are good times good for women?’ Gender and Development Working Papers 1. World Bank, Washington, DC.

D’Ooge, C. (2008) ‘Queer Katrina: gender and sexual orientation matters in the aftermath of the disaster’. In B. Willinger (ed.) Katrina and the Women of New Orleans: Executive Report and Findings. Newcomb College, Tulane University, New Orleans.

Dynes, R. (1998) ‘Coming to terms with community disaster’. In E. L.Quarantelli (ed.) What is a Disaster? Perspectives on the Question. Routledge, London and New York. pp. 109–126.

ECA (Espacios Consultores Asociados) (2000) Independent Evaluation of Expenditure of DEC Central American Hurricane Appeal Funds. ECA, San José, Costa Rica. http://www.alnap.org/pool/files/ erd-2873-full.pdf (accessed on 14 August 2012).

ECLAC (UN Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean) (2004) ‘Roads towards gender equity in Latin America and the Caribbean’. Paper prepared for the 9th Regional Conference on Women in Latin America and the Caribbean. Mexico City, 10–12 June.

El Bushra, J. (2000) ‘Rethinking gender and development practice for the twenty-first century’. Gender and Development. 8(1). pp. 55–62.

Enarson, E. (2000) ‘Gender issues in natural disasters: talking points and research needs’. ILO Infocus Programme on Crisis Response and Reconstruction Workshop. Geneva, 3–5 May.

Enarson, E. and D. Chakrabarti (eds) (2009) Women, Gender and Disasters: Global Issues and Initiatives. Sage, India.

Enarson, E. and L. Meyreles (2004) ‘International perspectives on gender and disaster: differences and possibilities’. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy. 24(10). pp. 49–93.

Enarson, E. and B. Morrow (eds) (1998) The Gendered Terrain of Disasters. Praeger, Westport, CT and London.

Eyben, R. (2003) ‘The rise of rights: rights-based approaches to international development’. IDS Policy Briefing 17. Institute of Development Studies, Brighton.

Fordham, M. (1998) ‘Making women visible in disasters: problematising the private domain’. Journal of Disaster Studies, Policy and Management. 22(2). pp. 126–43.

Fordham, M. (2009) ‘Editorial introduction’. Regional Development Dialogue. 30(1). pp. iii–xii. Fothergill, A. and L. Peek (2008) ‘Children’s displacement in Louisiana after Katrina’. In L. Peek and

L. Weber (eds) Displaced: Voices from the Katrina Diaspora. Columbia University Press, New York, NY. Gault, B. et al. (2005) The Women of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast: Multiple Disadvantages and Key Assets

for Recovery. Part I: Poverty, Race, Gender and Class. IWPR, Washington, DC. GDN (Gender and Disasters Network) (2006) Gender and Disasters Sourcebook. http://www.gdnonline.

org/sourcebook/ (accessed on 14 August 2012).

Engendering development and disasters S73

Gustafson, E. (1998) ‘Gender differences in risk perception: theoretical and methodological perspectives’. Risk Analysis. 18. p. 6.

Holzmann, R. and V. Kozel (2007) ‘The role of social risk management in development: a World Bank view’. IDS Bulletin. 38(3). pp. 8–13.

Hyndman, J. and M. de Alwis (2003) ‘Beyond gender: towards a feminist analysis of humanitarianism and development in Sri Lanka’. Women’s Studies Quarterly. 31(3–4). pp. 212–226.

IDS (Institute of Development Studies) (2005) IDS Bulletin, Special Edition on Developing Rights. 36(1). Jackson, C. (1996) ‘Rescuing gender from the poverty trap’. World Development. 3. pp. 489–504. Jaquette, J. (1982) ‘Women and modernisation theory’. World Politics. 1. 267–284. Kabeer, N. (1994) Reversed Realities: Gender Hierarchies in Development Thought. Verso, London. Klasen, S. (1999) ‘Does gender inequality reduce growth and development? Evidence from cross-country

regressions’. Gender and Development Working Papers 7. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/ INTGENDER/Resources/wp7.pdf (accessed on 14 August 2012).

Mazurana, D., P. Benelli, H. Gupta and P. Walker (2011) Sex and Age Matter: Improving Humanitarian Response in Emergencies. Feinstein International Center, Tufts University, Medfor/Somerville.

Mishra, P. (2009) ‘Let’s share the stage: involving men in gender equality and disaster risk reduction’. In E. Enarson and D. Chakrabarti (eds) Women, Gender and Disaster: Global Issues and Initiatives. Sage, India. pp. 29–39.

Mohanty, C.T. (1991) ‘Under Western eyes: feminist scholarship and colonial discourses’. In C.T. Mohanty, A. Russo and L. Torres (eds) Third World Women and the Politics of Feminism. Indiana University Press, Bloomington. pp. 51–80.

Mohanty, C.T. (2003) Feminism without Borders: Decolonizing Theory, Practising Solidarity. Duke University Press, Durham, NC and London.

Molyneux, M. (1985) ‘Mobilization without emancipation? Women’s interests, the state, and revo- lution in Nicaragua’. Feminist Studies. 11(2). pp. 227–254.

Molyneux, M. (2006) ‘Mothers at the service of the new poverty agenda: PROGRESA/Oportunidades, Mexico’s Conditional Transfer Programme’. Journal of Social Policy and Administration, Special Issue on Latin America. 40(4). pp. 425–449.

Molyneux, M. (2007) ‘Two cheers for conditional cash transfers’. IDS Bulletin. 38(3). pp. 69–75. Molyneux, M. and A. Cornwall (eds) (2008) The Politics of Rights: Dilemmas for Feminist Praxis. Routledge,

London. Molyneux, M. and S. Lazar (2003) Doing the Rights Thing: Rights-based Development and Latin American

NGOs. Intermediate Technology Development Group, London. Moser, C. (1989) ‘Gender planning in the Third World: meeting practical and strategic gender needs’.

World Development. 17(11). pp. 1799–1825. Moser, C. (1993) Gender and Development Planning. Routledge, London. Mukhopadhyay, M. (2004) ‘Mainstreaming gender or “streaming” gender away: feminists marooned

in the development business’. IDS Bulletin. 35(4). pp. 95–103. Neumayer, E. and T. Plümper (2007) ‘The gendered nature of natural disasters: the impact of cata-

strophic events on the gender gap in life expectancy, 1981–2002’. Annals of the Association of American Geographers. 97(3). pp. 551–566.

Oliver-Smith, A. (2002) ‘Theorizing disasters: nature, power and culture.‘ In S. Hoffman and A. Oliver- Smith (eds) Catastrophe and Culture: The Anthropology of Disaster. School of American Research Press, New Mexico, NM. pp. 23–48.

Ostergaard, L. (ed.) (1992) Gender and Development. Routledge, London. Oxfam International (2009) ‘Collaboration in crises: lessons in community participation from the Oxfam

International Tsunami Research Programme’. http://www.oxfam.org/en/policy/collaboration- crises (accessed on 14 August 2012).

Parpart, J. (1993) ‘Who is the “other”?’ Development and Change. 24. pp. 439–464.

Sarah Bradshaw S74

Parpart, J. (1995) ‘Post-modernism, gender and development’. In J. Crush (ed.) Power of Development. Routledge, New York, NY. pp. 253–265.

Pearson, R. (2000) ‘Which men, why now? Reflections on men and development’. IDS Bulletin. 31(2). pp. 42–48.

Pelling, M. (2003) Natural Disaster and Development in a Globalizing World. Routledge, London. Petchesky, R.P. (2000) ‘Reproductive and sexual rights: charting the course of transnational women’s

NGOs’. Geneva 2000 Occasional Paper 8. UN Research Institute for Social Development, Geneva. Piron, L. (2005) ‘Rights-based approaches and bilateral aid agencies: more than metaphor?’ IDS Bulletin.

36(1). pp. 19–30. Porter, F. and C. Sweetman (2005) Mainstreaming Gender in Development: A Critical Review: Has Gender

Mainstreaming Made a Difference after 10 Years? Oxfam, Oxford. Quarantelli, E.L. (ed.) (1998) What Is a Disaster? Perspectives on the Question. Routledge, London and

New York, NY. Rathgeber, E. (1990) ‘WID, WAD, GAD: trends in research and practice’. Journal of Developing Areas.

24. pp. 489–502. Redman, P. (1996) ‘“Empowering men to disempower themselves”: heterosexual masculinities, HIV

and the contradictions of anti-oppressive education’. In M. Mac an Ghaill (ed.) Understanding Mas- culinities: Social Relations and Cultural Arenas. Open University Press, Buckingham. pp. 168–182.

Rowlands, J. (1997) Questioning Empowerment: Working with Women in Honduras. Oxfam, Oxford. Ruppert, U. (2002) ‘Global women’s politics: towards the “globalising” of women’s human rights’.

In M. Braig and S. Wölte (eds) Common Ground or Mutual Exclusion: Women’s Movements and Interna- tional Relations. Zed Books, London and New York, NY. pp. 147–159.

Saeger, J. ( 2012) ‘Noticing gender (or not) in disasters’. In E. David and E. Enarson (eds) The Women of Katrina: How Gender, Race and Class Matter in an American Disaster. Vanderbilt University Press, Nashville, TN. pp. 7–9.

Sanz, K. et al. (2009) ‘From the inside out: reflections on gendering disaster risk reduction’. Regional Development Dialogue. 30(1). pp. 14–21.

Saunders, K. (2002) ‘Towards a deconstructive post-development criticism’. In K. Saunders (ed.) Feminist Post-development Thought. Zed Books, London and New York, NY. pp. 1–38.

Stevens, A. (2007) ‘World Bank, IMF charged with short-changing women’. 20 November. http:// www.womensenews.org/story/the-world/071120/world-bank-imf-charged-short-changing- women (accessed on 14 August 2012).

Tierney, K. (2012) ‘Critical disjunctures: disaster research, social inequality, gender and Hurricane Katrina’. In E. David and E. Enarson (eds) The Women of Katrina: How Gender, Race and Class Matter in an American Disaster. Vanderbilt University Press, Nashville, TN. pp. 245–258.

True, J. and M. Mintrom (2001) ‘Transnational networks and policy diffusion: the case of gender main- streaming’. International Studies Quarterly. 45. pp. 27–57.

Tsikata, D. (2004) ‘The rights based approach to development: potential for change or more of the same?’ IDS Bulletin. 35(4). pp. 130–133.

UN/ADPC (Asian Disaster Preparedness Centre) (2010) ‘Disaster proofing the Millennium Develop- ment Goals (MDGs)’. http://www.adpc.net/v2007/downloads/2010/oct/mdgproofing.pdf (accessed on 14 August 2012).

UNISDR (UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction) (2005) Hyogo Framework for Action 2005– 2015: Building the Resilience of Nations and Communities to Disasters. UNISDR, New York, NY. http:// www.unisdr.org/files/1037_hyogoframeworkforactionenglish.pdf (accessed on 12 September 2014).

UNISDR (2009) ‘UNISDR’. UNISDR, UNDP and IUCN, Geneva. http://www.preventionweb. net/files/9922_MakingDisasterRiskReductionGenderSe.pdf (accessed on 14 August 2012).

UNISDR (2011) Themes and Issues in Disaster Risk Reduction. http://www.unisdr.org/files/23647_themes andissuesindisasterriskreduct.pdf (accessed on 14 August 2012).

Engendering development and disasters S75

Walby, S. (2005) ‘Gender mainstreaming: productive tensions in theory and practice’. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State and Society. 12(3). pp. 321–343.

WBGDG (World Bank Gender and Development Group) (2003) Gender Equality and the Millennium Development Goals. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTGENDER/Publications/20169280/ gendermdg.pdf (accessed on 14 August 2012).

Whitehead, A. (2000) ‘Continuities and discontinuities in political constructions of the working man in rural sub-Saharan Africa: the “lazy man” in African agriculture’. European Journal of Development Research. 12. pp. 23–52.

Woodford-Berger, P. (2004) ‘Gender mainstreaming: what is it (about) and should we continue doing it?’ IDS Bulletin. 35(4). pp. 65–72.

World Bank (2001a) Social Protection Strategy: From Safety Net to Springboard. World Bank, Washington, DC. World Bank (2001b) Engendering Development through Gender Equality in Rights, Resources, and Voice. Oxford

University Press, New York, NY. Young, K. (1993) Planning Development with Women. Macmillan, Basingstoke.