Women in wage labour: A systematic review of the Effectiveness and Design Features of Interventions Supporting Women’s Participation in Wage Labour in Higher-growth and/or Male-dominated Sectors in Low- and Middle-income Countries

In low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), women’s participation in wage labour is significantly lower than that of men. In addition, women’s participation is often clustered in particular sectors of the economy that are not well-remunerated and have lower prestige. Higher growth economic sectors such as ICT and finance are dominated by men, excluding women from lucrative opportunities for social and economic development. Even where women have equal access to wage labour opportunities, they often suffer from vertical occupational segregation, earning significantly less than men and being less likely to be promoted. This horizontal and vertical occupational segregation of wage labour markets in LMICs for women hinders both economic and social development. In response to this challenging gendered nature of wage labour markets in LMICs, a range of interventions and policies have been proposed to increase women’s employment. These interventions aim to overcome a range of barriers to women’s wage labour employment in highergrowth/male-dominated sectors, such as discrimination against women by markets and work institutions, or a lack of access to credit and assets and of technical and soft skills. However, these labour market programmes to increase women’s wage employment vary greatly, as do the barriers to women’s wage labour participation. Different programme designs assume different pathways to support women’s employment and it is not clear what programme approaches and design features are most effective

Intersectionality and gender mainstreaming in international health: Using a feminist participatory action research process to analyse voices and debates from the global south and north

Critiques of gender mainstreaming (GM) as the officially agreed strategy to promote gender equity in health internationally have reached a critical mass. There has been a notable lack of dialogue between gender advocates in the global north and south, from policy and practice, governments and nongovernmental organisations (NGOs). This paper contributes to the debate on the shape of future action for gender equity in health, by uniquely bringing together the voices of disparate actors, first heard in a series of four seminars held during 2008 and 2009, involving almost 200 participants from 15 different country contexts. The series used (Feminist) Participatory Action Research (FPAR) methodology to create a productive dialogue on the developing theory around GM and the at times disconnected empirical experience of policy and practice. We analyse the debates and experiences shared at the seminar series using concrete, context specific examples from research, advocacy, policy and programme development perspectives, as presented by participants from southern and northern settings, including Kenya, Mozambique, India, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Canada and Australia. Focussing on key discussions around sexualities and (dis)ability and their interactions with gender, we explore issues around intersectionality across the five key themes for research and action identified by participants: 1) Addressing the disconnect between gender mainstreaming praxis and contemporary feminist theory; 2) Developing appropriate analysis methodologies; 3) Developing a coherent theory of change; 4) Seeking resolution to the dilemmas and uncertainties around the ‘place’ of men and boys in GM as a feminist project; and 5) Developing a politics of intersectionality. We conclude that there needs to be a coherent and inclusive strategic direction to improve policy and practice for promoting gender equity in health which requires the full and equal participation of practitioners and policy makers working alongside their academic partners

Intersectionality and gender mainstreaming in international health: Using a feminist participatory action research process to analyse voices and debates from the global south and north

a b s t r a c t Critiques of gender mainstreaming (GM) as the officially agreed strategy to promote gender equity in health internationally have reached a critical mass. There has been a notable lack of dialogue between gender advocates in the global north and south, from policy and practice, governments and nongovernmental organisations (NGOs). This paper contributes to the debate on the shape of future action for gender equity in health, by uniquely bringing together the voices of disparate actors, first heard in a series of four seminars held during 2008 and 2009, involving almost 200 participants from 15 different country contexts. The series used (Feminist) Participatory Action Research (FPAR) methodology to create a productive dialogue on the developing theory around GM and the at times disconnected empirical experience of policy and practice. We analyse the debates and experiences shared at the seminar series using concrete, context specific examples from research, advocacy, policy and programme development perspectives, as presented by participants from southern and northern settings, including Kenya, Mozambique, India, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Canada and Australia. Focussing on key discussions around sexualities and (dis)ability and their interactions with gender, we explore issues around intersectionality across the five key themes for research and action identified by participants: 1) Addressing the disconnect between gender mainstreaming praxis and contemporary feminist theory; 2) Developing appropriate analysis methodologies; 3) Developing a coherent theory of change; 4) Seeking resolution to the dilemmas and uncertainties around the 'place' of men and boys in GM as a feminist project; and 5) Developing a politics of intersectionality. We conclude that there needs to be a coherent and inclusive strategic direction to improve policy and practice for promoting gender equity in health which requires the full and equal participation of practitioners and policy makers working alongside their academic partners