Are Conditional Cash Transfers (CCTs) really providing long-term empowerment to women? If CCTs do little to promote the empowerment of women might they even be making things worse? This review of CCTs, particularly of PROGRESA in Mexico, argues that although these programmes are widely replicated due to their perceived positive impact in reducing poverty, they reinforce asymmetric gender roles. Women involved in the programmes report that, in general, they experience greater self-esteem, well being and autonomy. However, the programmes’ gender bias reinforces the position of women as mothers, tying them more closely to the home.
CCTs provide mothers of school age children with a cash subsidy conditional on children’s attendance at school and health clinics. The programmes are based on the assumptions that: (i) poor households do not invest in human capital; and that (ii) mothers are key to improving the life chances of their children. The programmes’ human development outcomes are usually positive, improving children’s school attendance, nutrition and health (including of female children).
The PROGRESA CCT programme includes stated principles of: gender equality, the importance of improving daughters and mothers’ educational levels, and of women’s personal development, leadership and citizenship. Only two programme evaluations have sought to understand gender impacts on all household members, rather than focusing specifically on the children. These found more positive attitudes amongst mothers (and to some extent) fathers towards the need for girls to be educated. Women report that participation in the programme is positive – that they have increased self-confidence and self-esteem as a result of control of the cash subsidy.
A more complex view of empowerment is defined as the acquisition of capabilities that can assist women to achieve legal and material autonomy, social and personal equality and voice and influence over the decisions that affect their lives. In relation to this definition, CCTs have some worrying impacts:
- Women are tied to the household and the role of primary caregiver; they continue to spend substantial (increased) amounts of time in ‘invisible’ work, whilst the help provided by daughters is removed
- Control of the cash subsidy may not really alter gender relations; this may simply substitute for money previously provided by the husband
- The giving of the subsidy to women may lead to conflict within the household and violence towards women, both due to a change in control over resources but also as a result of the woman’s increased autonomy
- Women may become creditworthy and hence more vulnerable to getting into debt, and a subsidy increases their dependence rather than promoting a livelihood
- Women’s access to job markets is reduced and men are absolved of responsibility towards childcare and household management.
In designing future programmes donors should build equality principles into programme design and allocate training and resources to enhance women’s capabilities. They should also:
- Include social and economic empowerment of women as an explicit goal with definable impact
- Promote family-friendly policies and acknowledge the time required for caregiving and childcare
- Aim to transform gender relations as a central feature of the programme, involving men where appropriate
- Involve participants in programme aims, design, evaluation and management.
See also this paper’s policy brief. In addition, an ‘Annotated Bibliography on Conditional Cash Transfers and Women’s Empowerment’ (Molyneux and Tabbush, 2008) covers many evaluations that are only available in Spanish.
