Today, the world will celebrate International Women’s Day, an annual opportunity to recommit to gender equality. This year’s observance comes at an important time for women’s rights, as global movements such as #MeToo and #TimesUp are refocusing attention on the discriminatory practices that women confront in their social and professional lives.
However, while women in the developed world are waging big battles over gender bias, women and girls in developing countries remain focused on smaller victories.
On this International Women’s Day, we must not forget that in the world’s poorest communities, poverty, hunger, domestic violence and discrimination remain endemic obstacles to gender parity.
I have studied gender and development in the global south for 15 years. My research, which has included thousands of interviews with women from India to Burkina Faso, has centered on one question: How can the international community improve the welfare of the world’s poorest women?
The answer, it turns out, is to help them do what they are already doing on their own.
One of the most effective ways to empower women anywhere, but especially in the developing world, is by promoting financial independence.
In many areas, that means supporting “informal savings groups,” networks of like-minded women who pay dues to build a shared pool of resources. This money can then be drawn on to fund any number of items, such as small business expenses, school fees, or healthcare costs.
Community-based savings groups — there are millions in Asia and Africa alone — are changing lives every day. I once met a woman in Burkina Faso whose son owes his life to the financial resources of a savings network.
One evening, when the boy was violently ill with diarrhea, his mother called a taxi to take him to the nearest clinic. However, taxis, like ambulances, must be paid for in advance and the woman had no money.
Fortunately, a neighbor who belonged to a savings group was able to contribute and pay the fare. That immediate access to cash very likely saved the boy’s life.
Most savings group loans are small. For example, in Benin the average loan size in one group is just US$9. However, in a country where the average annual income is less than US$800, small amounts can make a huge difference.
Unfortunately, many savings groups, as important as they are, do not scale; most operate in isolation from official services, which weakens their effectiveness. Women in poor communities must rely on one another, but they also need access to government and international agencies if they are ever to escape from hunger and poverty.
That is why my organization, the Grameen Foundation, is using digital technology and mobile phones to connect savings groups with other service providers.
One of our largest projects is in Burkina Faso, a desperately poor country in west Africa where an estimated 55 percent of the population is food insecure for at least a portion of the year.
Since 1993, we have worked with more than 73,000 women in nearly 3,300 savings groups, bringing services directly to the women who need them.
Our average participant is 40 years old, illiterate and earns just US$7 per week selling crops such as sesame and peanut.
When we began the program, only about half of the women we worked with said they felt empowered in their homes; many feared their husbands.
Today, those sentiments are slowly changing. By serving as a bridge between informal savings groups and banks, health centers, schools and agricultural extension services, we are helping women make better decisions about food use, nutritional practices and spending.
Our goal is to reduce poverty rates by strengthening asset management skills, which would give women a greater voice in their communities. “Gender dialogue sessions” that we host are also strengthening family bonds.
During each of my field visits, I have been amazed at how these efforts are affecting women’s lives. On one recent trip, I met Rasmata, a young mother who told me that thanks to the safety net of her savings group, she was managing to support her family, despite her husband’s emigration abroad, her father’s recent death and a lingering drought.
She was diversifying her income, managing her finances and even adopting climate-smart farming techniques. The best part was that she described herself as a “hard-working, respectful, rigorous and ambitious woman.”
Those are adjectives that women everywhere, regardless of their financial situation or education, deserve to ascribe to themselves. So this week, as the world celebrates the incredible progress that women have made on the long march to parity, I will be thinking about women like Rasmata, who have accomplished so much, despite having so little.
Bobbi Gray is research director at the Grameen Foundation, a global nonprofit dedicated to ending poverty and hunger.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
In honor of President Jimmy Carter’s 100th birthday, my longtime friend and colleague John Tkacik wrote an excellent op-ed reassessing Carter’s derecognition of Taipei. But I would like to add my own thoughts on this often-misunderstood president. During Carter’s single term as president of the United States from 1977 to 1981, despite numerous foreign policy and domestic challenges, he is widely recognized for brokering the historic 1978 Camp David Accords that ended the state of war between Egypt and Israel after more than three decades of hostilities. It is considered one of the most significant diplomatic achievements of the 20th century.
As the war in Burma stretches into its 76th year, China continues to play both sides. Beijing backs the junta, which seized power in the 2021 coup, while also funding some of the resistance groups fighting the regime. Some suggest that Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) is hedging his bets, positioning China to side with the victors regardless of the outcome. However, a more accurate explanation is that China is acting pragmatically to safeguard its investments and ensure the steady flow of natural resources and energy for its economy. China’s primary interest is stability and supporting the junta initially seemed like the best
Numerous expert analyses characterize today’s US presidential election as a risk for Taiwan, given that the two major candidates, US Vice President Kamala Harris and former US president Donald Trump, are perceived to possess divergent foreign policy perspectives. If Harris is elected, many presume that the US would maintain its existing relationship with Taiwan, as established through the American Institute in Taiwan, and would continue to sell Taiwan weapons and equipment to help it defend itself against China. Under the administration of US President Joe Biden, whose political views Harris shares, the US on Oct. 25 authorized arms transfers to Taiwan, another
The US election result will significantly impact its foreign policy with global implications. As tensions escalate in the Taiwan Strait and conflicts elsewhere draw attention away from the western Pacific, Taiwan was closely monitoring the election, as many believe that whoever won would confront an increasingly assertive China, especially with speculation over a potential escalation in or around 2027. A second Donald Trump presidency naturally raises questions concerning the future of US policy toward China and Taiwan, with Trump displaying mixed signals as to his position on the cross-strait conflict. US foreign policy would also depend on Trump’s Cabinet and