WUNRN
This article has a focus on India,
but the theme of Gender Budgeting has global implications and relevance.
Also Via Women’s Livelihoods –
PWESCR
Translate Gender Budgeting into Outcomes
Aasha Kapur Mehta
The Union Budget is not just an annual statement of receipts and
expenditures. It is an instrument for fulfilling the obligations of the state
and a political statement of the priorities set by the government in allocating
resources. As Elson1 explains:
‘The budget reflects the values of a country – who it values, whose work it
values and who it rewards…and who and what and whose work it doesn’t’.
Gender Budgets are not separate budgets for women or for men. The purpose is
to monitor expenditure, public service delivery and taxation from a gender
perspective.2
Gender budgeting is a tool that can be used to ensure that the aggregate
national, state, sector, departmental, programme, corporate or any budget is
gender sensitive. It is an approach to developing plans in a participatory way,
based on identifying priority needs of women as well as men and not just of
those with voice. The purpose of Gender Budgeting is to achieve gender-just
allocations and outcomes of all public expenditure. This requires
identification of needs and priorities of women, especially those who are poor;
examination of existing policies, programmes and schemes to determine whether
or not they meet these priority needs; corrective reprioritisation of budgetary
allocations so that they are adequate for meeting those needs; and taking
requisite follow-up actions to ensure that desired outcomes are attained.3
What are women’s priorities in allocating the Household Budget given a
budget constraint: Gender Budgeting at the micro or household level4–
Routinely, when women decide how to spend the household budget, however small
or large it may be, they give the highest priority to providing nutritious food
for the family; health care for family members who are ill; expenditure on education
and skills for children; followed by expenditure on necessary clothing,
transport etc. Purchasing the essential quantities of food and other
necessities requires access to money or purchasing power. This in turn depends
on earned income or borrowing or wealth.
Most of us do not have wealth and would prefer not to borrow. In theory, income
is a function of returns to the factors of production, land, labour, capital
and entrepreneurship or in other words, rent, interest on savings, dividends,
profits, etc. However, the income earned by most Indians depends primarily on:
a) availability of work or employment opportunities for the able bodied;
and,
b) remuneration or wages/salaries received for work.
Good health and low mortality rates in turn depend on a large number of
factors that include :
a) consumption of nutritious food;
b) access to safe drinking water for drinking, cooking and washing;
c) safe disposal of sewage to ensure no contamination of drinking water
sources and spread of disease;
d) reduction in levels of drudgery in work; and,
e) access to inexpensive but quality medical care and medication in
times of ill health.
Budget priorities at the Macro or National Level viewed through a Gender and
Poverty Sensitive Lens given a Budget Constraint: Women’s Priorities in Budget
Allocation – Women constitute almost 50 per cent of the population and as
equal citizens, women have a right to stake a claim to their entitlements under
all categories of public spending and not just token women’s programmes.
As described above, in any budget, however small, women give the highest
priority to nutritious food for the family. The objective is good health.
Purchasing power is needed to buy food. Purchasing power depends primarily on
availability of work or employment opportunities for the able bodied and
remuneration or wage or salary for work. Therefore if we determine budget
priorities at the macro or national level on the basis of micro household
priorities in budget allocation, or if we build macro budget priorities from a
gender and poverty sensitive lens, then national priorities must include :
> the eradication of hunger and poverty;
> opportunities for “an adequate means of livelihood” through work
for all those who are able bodied;
> access to safe drinking water;
> access to quality and affordable health care;
> safety nets for the old who are poor and for the poor who are
disabled;
> access to education and skills; and,
> correcting the statistical invisibility of the paid and unpaid work
contributed by women that contributes significantly to Gross Domestic Product.
What are the tools that can be used for Gender Budgeting?
Gender Budgeting in any area requires firstly, participatory assessment of the
needs of women and men and the extent to which they remain unmet; analysis of
sex disaggregated data pertaining to the relevant indicators; gender appraisal
of legislation, policies, programmes and expenditure. Where gender-based gaps
exist these need to be identified and rectified. Second, the adequacy of the
budget allocated to each component of the programme needs to be checked.
Subsequently, monitoring is required to see that the money gets spent as
intended, in both financial and physical terms. Through impact assessment it is
possible to determine improvements in gender equity in the initial situation
through the interventions that were made.
Why do we need participatory planning and budgeting?
Because this will ensure that women are involved at the initial planning and
decision-making stages of policy formulation and their needs will be taken on
board and will determine the direction taken by policy. When playgrounds are
planned for children, is the planning participatory? Are children asked what
games they would like to play? Are both boys and girls asked this question? Are
the constraints to girls using playgrounds identified and addressed? Are women
asked where street lights should be installed in the village so that their
security concerns are met? Or where the community tubewell or toilet block
should be built?
Why does gender budgeting include appraisal of legislation?
Because even the most poverty sensitive of policies and legislations such as
the Right to Work, can be gender blind or gender inequitable. For instance,
historically, women constituted a large proportion of those who demanded the
right to work under the Maharashtra Employment Guarantee Scheme (MEGS). The
MGNREGS was patterned on the MEGS and many women have worked on MGNREGS
worksites. However, while the MEGS guaranteed the Work on Demand to all adults
willing to do unskilled manual work provided they were above 18 years of age
and this was available round the year (except for the peak agricultural
season), the MGNREGS provides the guarantee at the level of the household and
not that of the individual. Therefore, the rights of women get subsumed under
those of the household. Subsequently, the Ministry of Women and Child
Development intervened and the Act provided that at least one-third of the
beneficiaries should be women. However, if Gender Budgeting was a mandatory
requirement for all new legislation, programmes and schemes, the right may have
been vested in all adult individuals at the time of formulation of the Act.
When monitoring tuberculosis control programmes, is the data that is collected,
disaggregated for men and women? How many men and women are treated? How many
men and women are reported to suffer from TB? Is there a possibility that some
women TB sufferers do not get treated because they do not get tested? Is there
fear of stigma or lack of mobility or difficulty in going to a doctor or
primary health care centre?
In the context of a programme such as the ICDS, Gender Budgeting would firstly
require the identification of the extent of Grade I, II, III and IV
malnutrition among girls and boys. The data available on the website of the
concerned ministry shows that only half the children weighed in anganwadis were
of normal weight. While levels of malnourishment vary between States/UTs,
Uttarakhand recorded a shocking 95.64% of children as malnourished. Therefore
it is not surprising that India is one of the four countries with the highest
prevalence of underweight in children under five. With 42% of the world’s underweight
children and 31% of its stunted children living in India according to IFPRI,
2010, this is now a global concern.
In “Government is committed to universalisation of the Integrated Child Development However, juxtaposed against the reality of massive malnutrition, the |
Gender Budgeting in the context of the ICDS would require that the Budget takes
cognisance of each of these factors and ensure corrective mechanisms to
translate the phrases such as “inclusion” and “Government is committed to universalisation”
that are used by the Finance Minister in his Budget Speech, into outcomes.
Monitoring, evaluation and corrective action based on follow up and feedback
would be needed across spatial units to determine changes in malnourishment
levels for both girls and boys on a regular basis. l
1 Diane Elson, 1999. Gender Budget Initiative: Background Papers.
Commonwealth Secretariat.
2 Simel Esim, 2000.Gender Sensitive Budget Initiatives for Latin American and
the Caribbean: A Tool For Improving Accountability and Achieving Effective
Policy Implementation. United Nations Development Fund for Women, February.
(http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/Organizations/healthnet/gender/docs/esim.htm).
3 Aasha Kapur Mehta, (2007). Gender Budgeting, Alternative Economic Survey, Daanish
Books, Delhi.
4 This section and the one that follow it are based on Aasha Kapur Mehta,,
Samik Chowdhury,, Subhamoy Baishya, (2004). The Budget: A Gender and Poverty
Sensitive Perspective, National Commission for Women, New Delhi.
5 Aasha Kapur Mehta and Akhtar Ali, (2008) ‘Functioning and Universalisation of
the ICDS in Delhi.’ Report submitted to the Government of NCT Delhi.
Aasha Kapur Mehta is Professor of Economics at the Indian Institute of
Public Administration
Categories: Releases