The Feminization of Poverty

‘Feminisation of Poverty’ in terms of:

(a) What is meant by the term;

(b) The causes thereof;

(c) Crucial key areas and strategic priorities for the alleviation thereof

By: Henry Badenhorst

5 March 2010

Abstract:

Feminization of poverty exists through the song of many academics and development policymakers.  It is caused by gender gaps in education, employment, political participation and access to agricultural assets and inputs.  There is a need for a wide range of policies to address these gender inequalities.

Introduction

“Poverty has a woman’s face of 1.3 billion people living in poverty of which 70 percent are women”, according to the UNDP in 1995 (BRIDGE.2001:109). According to UNICEF: “Women perform 66 percent of the world’s work, produce 50 percent of the food, but earn 10 percent of the income and own 1 percent of the property” (desireeadaway.com) Gender gaps over the last three decades have only widened, giving rise to much discussion and debate of the phenomenon: ‘Feminisation of Poverty’. 

I will attempt to conceptualize this phenomenon and test whether, in fact, it does exist if that is indeed possible from non-agreeable literature on the topic. I will furthermore discuss the causes of the ‘feminisation of poverty’ as it appears in various development literature, within four main areas where gender gaps occur, namely education, employment, political participation and access to agricultural inputs and assets. I will then address the key areas and strategic priorities mentioned in the literature that are crucial for the alleviation of this phenomenon, within these four areas where gender-inequality exists.

Conceptualizing ‘Feminisation of Poverty’

The term ‘Feminisation of Poverty’ originates from U.S debates about single mothers and welfare. (BRIDGE.2001:108). It became widely used as a term as a result of a study done by Diane Pearce where she focussed on gender patterns in the evolution of poverty from the 1950s to 1970s. (Medeiros & Costa.2006:546). Pearce tried to examine the role that women and female-headed households had in the composition of the poor population and how this composition was changing over time (Medeiros & Costa.2006:547). She used two concepts of ‘Feminisation of Poverty’ in her research, namely ‘an increase of women among the poor’ and secondly, ‘an increase of female-headed households among the poor households. It was the second concept which later on became the core of her work (Medeiros & Costa.2006:546). However, Pearce chose to look at a group among the poor and not poverty inside group as subsequent studies have done (Medeiros & Costa.2006:547).

The idea behind ‘Feminisation of Poverty’ is that there is a “gender bias in the evolution of poverty over time” (Medeiros & Costa.2006:547). It should therefore not be confused with the existence of higher levels of poverty among women or Female Headed Households (FHH’s), where incidence, severity or intensity is indicated at a certain point in time. Instead, ‘Feminisation of Poverty’, “relates to the way poverty changes over time”, relating to a ‘process’ whereas higher levels of poverty focus on a ‘state’ at some point in time (Medeiros & Costa.2006:547). ‘Feminisation is a relative concept based on a women-men comparison. The differences or ratios between women and men is calculated and counted at each moment (Medeiros & Costa.2006:547).

Thus two definitions of ‘Feminisation of Poverty’, according to Medeiros & Costa (2006:548) arise, namely ‘an increase in the difference in the levels of poverty among women and men’; and secondly ‘an increase in the difference in the levels of poverty among female-headed households and among male and couple headed households’ (Medeiros & Costa.2006:548). Medeiros & Costa (2006:548), do however state that these definitions are in no way exhaustive.

According to BRIDGE (2001:108), ‘Feminisation of Poverty’ have been used to mean three distinct things, namely; that women have a higher incidence of poverty than men; that women’s poverty is more severe than that of men; and that there is a trend to greater poverty among women, particularly rising rates of FHH’s.

Apart from defining ‘feminisation’, there is also need to understand ‘poverty’ with its multiple meanings, of which the most common approach seems to define poverty as “income (or consumption) deprivation” (Medeiros & Costa.2006:548). It’s this lack of income, which lies at the core of all poverty definitions, that many policymakers have in mind when they are talking about ‘Feminisation of Poverty’ (Medeiros & Costa.2006:548).

Kabeer (2003:81) argues that Household-level poverty measures revealed that there is a disproportionate number of Female-Headed Households among the poor and evidence suggests that FHH’s has been increasing in both developing and developed countries, which led to the claim that there has been a ‘Feminisation of Poverty’. Female headship consequently became the accepted discourse in gender and poverty among International agencies (Kabeer.2003:81). Kabeer does, however, states in the same breath that the relationship between FHH’s and poverty is not consistent, since FHH’s seem to have a regional dimension, with FHH’s far more likely to be over-represented in Latin America and Asia, than in Africa (Kabeer.2003:81).

On the other hand, BRIDGE (2001:108) states that even though there is much discussion in academic and a development policy circle about ‘Feminisation of Poverty’ there is little clarity of what it actually means or whether it can be empirically verified. Baden & Milward (1997:4) argues in song with BRIDGE that it’s difficult to substantiate the widespread view that there, in fact, has been a ‘Feminisation of Poverty’, since systematically gender-disaggregated data on income and other welfare measures, the comprehensive empirical assessment of poverty trends and incidence, impossible renders. Medeiros & Costa (200:546) states that since ‘Feminisation of Poverty’ is related to two negative phenomena, poverty and gender inequality, it should be fought against from an equity point of view.

The causes of ‘Feminization of Poverty’

The third goal of The Millennium Development Goals (MDG’s), aims to promote gender equality and to empower women. (Kabeer.2003:169). The indicators to monitor progress in achieving this goal are; closing the gender gap in education at all levels; increasing women’s share of wage employment in the non-agricultural sector; and increasing the number of seats held by women in national parliaments (Kabeer.2003:169). Blackden, Canagarajah, Klasen and Lawson (2006:61), furthermore, discuss particular barriers in their study, which reduce the ability of women to contribute towards economic growth, specifically in Sub-Saharan Africa, namely; gender gaps in education, with related high fertility rates; gender gaps in formal sector employment; and gender gaps in access to assets and input in agricultural production.

The three resources to achieve gender equality according to MDG, are education, employment, and political participation, which are also the three main areas where gender gaps can cause the ‘Feminisation of Poverty’. Therefore I would like to approach the causes of the ‘Feminisation of Poverty’ from within these three sectors where most gender inequality occurs, with an additional area, namely the gender gaps in access to, and input in production in the agricultural sector.

The first area of gender-inequality which causes ‘Feminisation of Poverty’ is gender gaps in education. “Females in developing countries typically receive less education than do males” and considerable variations exist in poor countries with regards to male/female enrolment ratios (Baden & Milward.1997:41). Gender inequality in Education reduces the average amount of human capital in a society, by artificially restricting the pool of human resources from which it can draw from, consequently harming countries’ economic performance (Blackden et al.2006:65). Their study found that gender gaps in education together with gender gaps in employment reduce economic growth in Sub-Saharan Africa and in turn increases poverty. (Blackden et al.2006:68-69). It further proved that gender inequalities in education led to higher fertility, higher child mortality, higher under-nutrition and lower educational investments (Blackden et al.2006:69).

Nearly two of every three children in the developing world, who do not receive primary education, are girls (Kabeer.2003:92) There are certain constraints to girls schooling, culturally sanctioned, which are straining their access to education. The opportunity costs for girls schooling in poor households are too high since their labor is used to substitute that of their mothers in caring for siblings. Girl’s labor, thus lost to schooling, adversely affects the mothers’ ability to raise an income through wage labor, for they will have to take care of household tasks (Baden & Milward.1997:41). Further constraints include; their safety both in school and journeying between school and home, especially at puberty; and the fear that girls will become sexually active outside of social sanction (Baden & Milward.1997:41).

Gender gaps in education can further contribute towards women’s lack of bargaining power within the household, which in turn negatively impact on investments in children’s education, health, and nutrition (Blackden et al.2006:65). Gender differences in time use, exacerbated by very high fertility rates, that place disproportionate burdens on women, preventing their productive participation outside the home and lack of access to education, in turn leads to a lack of bargaining power within the household, keeping women trapped in this cyclical poverty trap (Blackden et al.2006:79).

Women’s disadvantage in education is a vicious circle, since lower returns to female labor force participation in return act as a disincentive to future investment in future female education, perpetuating the problem. (Baden & Milward.1997:34). Baden & Milward (1997:34) further states that the lack of education is not only important with relation to worker productivity and pay, but it’s also used by employers as a screening device to exclude women from employment.

The second area of gender inequality giving rise to the ‘Feminisation of Poverty’ is gender gaps in employment. Gender discrimination in labor markets lead to limited access to employment and lower earning capacity than men, contributing to women’s greater vulnerability to poverty (Baden & Milward.1997:6) Gender discrimination refers to three main issues, namely; occupational segregation; earning differentials by gender; and unemployment, which will each be discussed in brief (Baden & Milward.1997:30).

Occupational segregation refers to gender divisions in the labor market according to a sector (Baden & Milward.1997:30). Male concentration of labor is mainly in manufacturing (sector), the car industry (sub-sector), skilled manual positions and management (occupational category), and in self-employment (work status); whilst women seem to be concentrated in services (sector), electronics and garments (sub-sector), unskilled manual or clerical work (occupational category), and unpaid family labor (work status) (Baden & Milward.1997:31). Even when women and men do similar work, they rarely have the same title according to Baden & Milward (1997:31). 

Female jobs, in general, tend to be lower paid, less skilled, less secure and lacking opportunities for upward mobility. Women’s labor in the developing world seems to be concentrated in the informal sector and in casual, seasonal or unprotected wage work (Baden & Milward.1997:30). Legislation in many countries prevents female participation in certain industries such as women, while trade unions also attempt to limit women’s access to ‘male’ occupations (Baden & Milward.1997:32). The demands of domestic labor and childcare further constrain women from accepting employment with inflexible hours, overtime, extensive travel or shift work (Baden & Milward.1997:32). Kabeer (2003:76) mentions employers who refuse to recruit women or only recruiting them in stereotypically female activities, as an imposed form gender disadvantage in the workplace by institutional actors that actively reproduce and reinforce custom based gender discrimination.

A gender differential in pay is the second issue of gender discrimination in labor markets, mentioned by Baden & Milward. Women in both developed and developing countries earn on average less than their male counterparts, according to numerous studies; as well as fringe benefits seemingly disproportionately allocated to me (Baden & Milward.1997:33). Although women’s lack of earnings can be ascribed to their relative lack of education, it cannot explain all of the difference (Baden & Milward.1997:34). Gender wage disparities also occur in that poor women are paid less than poor men. Women in India and Bangladesh received approximately only half of what men received in the late 1980s for doing the same work, according to statistics (Kabeer.2003:112). In Sub-Saharan Africa, women only receive between one third and half the male rate for a day’s wage (Kabeer.2003:129) Pay differentials between men and women are often higher in the informal sector (Baden & Milward.1997:36).

With regards to unemployment and under-employment as the third issue of gender discrimination in the labor market, mentioned by Baden & Milward (1997:35), it seems that women’s unemployment levels are higher than those of men. It furthermore seems that there is also considerable hidden female unemployment according to Baden & Milward (1997:35), where women withdraw from the labor force in the face of limited opportunities. The fact that women are more likely than men to suffer from under-employment may be a consequence or cause of poverty (Baden & Milward.1997:35). Conversely, according to Rogers, over-employment can also occur when women are forced to combine market employment with home-based activities (Baden & Milward.1997:35).

Constraining gender equality in the workplace is the fact that women have very little control over their own labor (Baden & Milward.1997:20). This limit women’s independent productive activity not having control over their own labor, nor the labor of other household members (Baden & Milward.1997:20). Men’s reciprocal rights over women’s labour within patriarchal family structures, together with market and public institutions’ demand of permission from husbands to grant loans or ignoring the needs of female producers, not only exhibits gender bias, but also attributes to gender inequality in general leading to a ‘Feminisation of Poverty’ (Baden & Milward.1997:20).

Women’s concentration in the informal sector, have led to the idea that this sector has become feminized (Baden & Milward.1997:35). This trend is associated, if not with increasing poverty, at least then with increased vulnerability and insecurity among women (Baden & Milward.1997:35). The informal sector forms a high proportion of overall employment in developing countries, particularly in South-Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa (Baden & Milward.1997:35). Baden & Milward, however, claims it’s not a reliable predictor of poverty (Baden & Milward.1997:35), nor is it synonymous with poverty, since most women are found in the informal sector, it’s not a useful tool for identifying poor women (Baden & Milward.1997:36). BRIDGE (2001:110) however states that the “rise of female participation in low return, informal sector activities” is “evidence of the feminization of poverty”. Greater insecurity and lower earning capacity are furthermore seen as a reason for the feminization of poverty (BRIDGE 2001:110). Women’s high participation in informal activities suggests that their representation in the formal sector is very low and negatively impacts economic growth (Blackden et al.2006:76).

Urbanisation and accelerated growth, due to an increase in demand for female labour in the export-oriented light manufacturing sector, is another area where women face discrimination with regards to access to employment, housing, and basic services, including gender-blind service provision, which does not take into account the needs of women (Baden & Milward.1997:41). According to Kabeer (2003:116) has export-oriented employment in India, as in many other countries, been feminized, but it’s not visible due to the fact that it’s located in the informal sector. It has however taken a more visible form in Bangladesh with high percentages of female rural migrants moving to cities finding employment in factories (Kabeer.2003:117).

The third area of gender-inequality which causes ‘Feminisation of Poverty’ is gender gaps in political participation. The right to representation is central to civil and political rights. Gender equality thus implies 50 percent representation of women in national parliaments (Kabeer.2003:185) The reality, however, paints a bleak picture of only 13.8 percent, on average, representation of women in national parliaments in the year 2000, which is an “extraordinary under-representation of women in the highest structures of governance” (Kabeer.2003:185).

The fourth area I would like to address, which probably affects most developing countries, is gender discrepancies and inequality in the agricultural sector. Gender gaps in access to assets and inputs in agricultural production are one of the barriers Blackden et al (2006:61) lists, reducing women’s ability to contribute towards economic growth and subsequent poverty reduction. There are gender differences not only in the way human assets are being generated and maintained but also in the way physical assets, such as land, are being maintained and increased (Blackden et al.2006:64). Gender inequalities in access to productive assets, such as fertilizer, land, seeds, and credit, not only reduce female producer’s productivity, it also increases male producer’s productivity (Blackden et al.2006:68-69). Women’s high rates of labour force participation in the agricultural sector of Sub-Saharan countries has the effect that if and when they are denied access to assets and inputs for their productive activities, it not only leads to a feminization of poverty, it more seriously impedes the growth of Sub-Saharan economies (Blackden et al.2006:75).

Women have a time burden related to their employment activities in general, which is also referred to as ‘time-poverty’. The boundaries between household and economic activities are less well drawn in Africa where female labor represents most of the agricultural workforce. Men and women have different roles in the economy with women fulfilling the domestic responsibilities such as processing food crops, fetching water and firewood, taking care of the elderly and sick, etc, while men are either formally employed or are involved with cash crops (Blackden et al.2006:78). 

Women seem to have on top of their employment burden, generating income, the additional burden to fulfill all the domestic duties within Sub-Saharan economies, as African examples, such as Cameroon, show that women’s weekly hours double that of men (Blackden et al.2006:78). Similar studies of transportation in Tanzania and Zambia also show that women spend up to three times as much on travel time as do men (Blackden et al.2006:79) According to Kabeer (2003:74); “women continue to put in long hours of unpaid work in the reproductive economy, regardless of their role in the productive economy”. Gender-specific domestic responsibilities, it was found in Uganda, interacted with household poverty, to increase women’s disadvantages in farming, where they, unlike men were constrained by competing claims on their labor time (Kabeer.2003:75). The study further showed that women are mainly found in the unpaid subsistence sector and that they have to perform their agricultural tasks without the use of technological innovations, inputs or finance (Kabeer.2003:75).

Gender inequality within the agricultural sector particularly pertains to women’s lack of access to land for their productive activities. Participatory Poverty Assessments (PPA’s) have highlighted the problems women are facing in obtaining access to land (Kabeer.2003:100). Even when national legislation is put in place to protect women’s rights with regards to inheritance, customs still prevail it seems, as demonstrated by the 1993 Vietnamese land law which intended protection, but was not enforced (Kabeer.2003:101). Women, thus continue to face unfavorable access to land and other important resources such as credit, agricultural inputs, marketing outlets, etc (Kabeer.2003:105).

Alleviating ‘Feminisation of Poverty’: Key areas and strategic priorities

In the causes of ‘Feminisation of Poverty’, four key areas where gender-inequality occur, namely gender gaps in education; gender gaps in employment; gender gaps in political participation; and gender gaps in access to assets and inputs in agricultural production were discussed. Development literature mentions these same four areas as key areas where policy changes and strategic priorities are necessary to alleviate the status quo. I would, thus, like to address policy changes and key strategies necessary, within the framework of these four problem areas that cause the ‘Feminisation of Poverty’.

Gender inequality in education is the first key area which needs to be addressed. Blackden et al (2006:69) argue that gender equality in education would not only reduce ‘education poverty’, but it would furthermore reduce ‘health poverty’ as well as ‘nutrition poverty’ and furthermore state that policies to boost enrolments would particularly help poor women in its direct contribution towards poverty reduction in both income and non-income dimensions. Baden & Milward (1997:42), mention several strategies to tackle female disadvantage in education; namely “reducing of opportunity costs to girl’s schooling through child-care provision, investment in labour saving infra-structure or flexible non-formal education provision; incentives and scholarships for girl’s enrolment to reduce the direct costs of girl’s schooling; educational initiatives outside of the schooling system, such as adult education and literacy programs for those who ‘missed-out’; improving the quality of education and tackling gender bias in the curriculum; and non-education sector policies to tackle discrimination, e.g. in labor and financial markets, which prevent women from realizing the returns to educational investment. Blackden et al (2006:80), however, makes a very interesting suggestion when they state that although the effects of gender gaps in education are quite substantial, greater attention should be given to the impact of gender gaps in employment.

The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) is also an example of an international policy established to address this issue of gender inequality in education. “The MDGs are eight goals to be achieved by 2015 that respond to the world's main development challenges. The MDGs are drawn from the actions and targets contained in the Millennium Declaration that was adopted by 189 nations-and signed by 147 heads of state and governments during the UN Millennium Summit in September 2000” (undp.org). Target 3 of the Millennium Development Goals aims to: “Ensure that, by 2015, children everywhere, boys and girls alike, will be able to complete a full course of primary schooling” The reality in Africa is that very few countries, like Uganda, have actually been successful in reducing gender gaps in enrolment as stipulated in target 3. There are efforts underway according to Blackden et al (2006:79) that would improve female education and gender gaps in many African countries and the key to overcoming education stagnation, according to them, have been significant investments in the education sector, the lifting of user fees for primary education and special programs to target female education.

Gender gaps in employment are the second area in need of strategies and policies. Blackden et al (2006:80) suggest that Africa, in particular, needs to slowly shift its workforce from the agricultural to the non-agricultural sector and improve employment opportunities for women if it’s going to improve women’s access to formal sector employment. Blackden et al (2006:77) further note the successes of countries which have reduced gender gaps in the formal sector employment and claim that it was due to their adoption of strategies based on export-oriented and labor-intensive light manufacturing, which mainly utilize female labor.

Kabeer (2003:181) highlights the advantages for women whose ‘agency’ has been improved in critical ways due to their newfound access to paid work. She states that even paid work in the home itself can sometimes shift the balance of power in the household (Kabeer.2003:181) A study of women engaged in industrial homework in Mexico City noted that there where women’s economic contribution was critical to household survival, they had been able to demand a greater degree of respect (Kabee.2003:181). Evidence from the vegetable industries in Guatemala, Mexico, and the Dominican Republic, suggests that women’s access to wage employment has led to women’s greater independence in household decision making (Kabeer.2003:182).

Regarding women’s excessive time burden, constraining their access to and productivity in the employment sector, Blackden et al (2006:80), suggests a concurrent investment in time-and labor saving infrastructure that will reduce this time burden, such as greater priority to water supply and sanitation, energy for household needs, access to appropriate means of transportation and labor-saving technology in the area of food product transformation and processing. Women’s excessive time burden can drastically be alleviated by an acceleration of demographic change. (Blackden et al.2006:80).

The third area where gender gaps occur and where strategies are necessary to alleviate the problem is political participation. Women’s representation in national parliaments is disproportionate to their numbers. Kabeer (2003:169) points out that although the increase of women seats in national parliaments has no proven link to poverty reduction, it does, however, play a critical role for the promotion of gender equality in a wider sense. Kabeer (2003:188) suggests, instead of greater representation in national parliaments, there should be greater participation in and influence by women in local government structures, which decisions most directly affect the lives of women. Some Indian states have reserved 33 percent of their seats in local government for women. (Kabeer.2003:188). Further public policies are necessary to transform the patriarchal structures in women’s lives, such as collective action, that will challenge patriarchal power in society (Kabeer.2003:190,194).

The fourth area where gender gaps create a ‘Feminisation of Poverty’ and where policies are needed to address gender inequality is the lack of women’s access to assets and inputs in agricultural production. Blackden et al (2006:80) suggest that equity must be improved in resource access and control in agriculture, where a gender-informed growth agenda would have to address improving women’s greater land ownership and security of tenure and more equal access to modern inputs. While some of these changes can be made possible through legislation, other changes will depend on changes in intra-household relations, which are less amenable through government intervention (Blackden et al.2006:80). Studies of microcredit in rural Bangladesh found that women’s access to credit led to a number of changes in terms of perceptions of themselves and their role in household decision making as well as a long term reduction in domestic violence and an increase in women’s assets, ultimately empowering women (Kabeer.2003:181).

Conclusion

The ‘Feminization of Poverty’ is a concept widely discussed now in academic and development policy circles, since it was first used as a concept in U.S. debates in the 1970s based on a study by Diane Pearce where she focussed on gender patterns in the evolution of poverty over time. She found an increase in female-headed households among poor households, which led to the term ‘Feminization of Poverty’. Some development literature suggests that it is difficult to prove the existence of a widespread ‘Feminization of Poverty’, due to a lack of systematically gender-disaggregated data, while other literature suggests a ‘female face’ to poverty makes it clear that ‘Feminization of Poverty’ does indeed exist. 

It is thus not clear whether it can be empirically verified or whether it can be even defined, it does, however, seem that most accept the fact that poverty has a female face and that the issue remains relevant and popular in both academic and development policy circles, which sways me to the side of its existence. ‘Feminization of Poverty’, furthermore is caused by gender inequality or gender gaps in education, employment, political participation, health and access to agricultural assets and inputs. I chose however to exclude gender gaps health access and to focus my attention on the other four. Gender gaps in education occur due to constraints on female education such as socio-cultural sanctions based on patriarchy and stereotypical gender roles, sanctioned and promoted by certain cultures and it leads to lack of women’s bargaining power and general disempowerment. 

Gender gaps in employment were discussed in the areas of occupational segregation, earning differentials by gender and unemployment and/or under-employment and examples of gender discrimination in each area were mentioned. Women’s time burden and their concentration in the informal sector together with urbanization were also addressed. Gender gaps in political participation with regards to women’s low representation in national parliaments affecting governance also received attention. The final gender inequality, namely the lack of women’s access to agricultural inputs and assets, leads to not only a lack of economic growth and poverty reduction in developing countries especially Africa, but also to a ‘Feminisation of Poverty’ 

Each of these four key areas was then discussed from a policy perspective on how to alleviate these gender inequality problems in terms of strategies and suggestions and examples of policies adopted by some countries that have led to success stories. It does seem that ‘Feminisation of Poverty’ exists, caused by gender inequalities in key areas of our existence, but that government policies, a shift in stereotypical cultural beliefs, international legislation, programs or goals like the MDG’s and collective action to improve women empowerment, can, in fact, lead to an “un-feminization of poverty’.

Bibliography

1. Adaway, D. 2010. The Feminization of poverty. Available at: http://desireeadaway.com/the-feminization-of-poverty/ (accessed on 13/04/2010)
2. Baden, S & Milward, K. 1997. Gender inequality and poverty: trends, linkages, analysis and policy implications, in Gender and Development: a reader, compiled by D.A. Kotzé.  Pretoria: University of South Africa. 
3. Blackden, M, Canagarajah, S, Klasen, S & Lawson, D. 2006. Gender and growth in Sub-Saharan Africa.  Issues and evidence, in Gender and Development: a reader, compiled by D.A. Kotzé. Pretoria: University of South Africa.
4. BRIDGE: development-gender. 2001. Briefing paper on the “feminization of poverty”, in Gender and Development: a reader, compiled by D.A. Kotzé. Pretoria: University of South Africa.
5. Kabeer, N. 2003. Gender mainstreaming in poverty eradication and the millennium development goals. A Handbook for policymakers and other stakeholders. London: Commonwealth Secretariat, 2003 (chapters 3-7).
6. Medeiros, M & Costa, J. 2006. Poverty among women in Latin America: Feminization or over-representation, in Gender and Development: a reader, compiled by D.A. Kotzé. Pretoria: University of South Africa.
7. UNDP.  Millennium development goals:   About the MDGs: Basics.  Available at: http://www.undp.org/mdg/basics.shtml (accessed on 19/04/2010).

- Soli Deo Gloria -