Professor Maithree Wickramasinghe (Phd)

How to ensure that Sustainable Development Goals will be evaluated with a focus on “leaving no one behind”?

Professor Maithree Wickramasinghe (PhD)

University of Kelaniya

Keynote Address at the Technical Seminar:

“Towards an Equity-focused and Gender -responsive framework to evaluate the SDGs,”16-17 March 2016

at UNICEF Headquarters

I am delighted to be here at this UN technical session, which seeks to conceptualize and operationalize an Equity-focused and Gender-responsive framework to evaluate current aspirations of development – the Sustainable Development Goals.

I thank you for seeking my views on the subject – it is indeed a great privilege.

My mandate, during the next 15 - 20 minutes, is to consider how to ensure that those who generally get left behind (vulnerable women, defenseless children, marginalized youth, the forgotten-elderly, the differently-abled, the socially-disadvantaged, the economically-deprived, the internally displaced, and the sexually-ostracized to name a few) are included in the SDGs - in development processes and in their evaluation.

Having looked at this morning’s very comprehensive program relating to the technicalities of evaluation, I have taken it upon myself to sound a somewhat different note at this session. I want to examine some of the fundamental epistemological gaps, assumptions and connotations with regard to equity-focused and gender responsive frameworks (whether in policy, programming or evaluation) that could perhaps deter or detract from the realization of this very impressive, yet highly ambitious set of goals and targets.

To begin with - let us take the two concepts of equity and equality – used somewhat carelessly and arbitrarily in development discussions and debates.

You will agree with me that one of the main considerations in an equity approach is that of identifying and targeting the different needs of people –

that emanate from their sex/gender, political, economic, social, and cultural differences and inequities. Equitable treatment is presumed to fulfill these differing needs, interests and priorities, and lead to fairness - in action, and, social justice - in effect.

Yet such targeting can often take the form of isolated and compartmentalized programs based on various dominant assumptions - related to common group concerns. For instance, take the spate of non-governmental self-empowerment projects targeting poor women-headed households - especially in the 1980s and 90s in Sri Lanka. These offered rural women micro-credit and entrepreneurship training in traditional skills such as rearing goats and poultry, food processing, beauty culture and so on –

on the premise that women could expand their time; learn a skill; produce goods and services; sell them; and become economically empowered –

yet without routing access to local markets and supply and distribution schemes – let alone the global value chain.

With reference to SDG1 and SDG5 of ending poverty in all forms everywhere and economically empowering women – what we need to take away from the evaluation of these projects is that they did not actually integrate women-headed householders into the local economies on equal terms. Even more disturbingly, these women were ‘not always seen’ as targets for mainstream development opportunities such as agricultural extension schemes from which these householders were left out (despite owning farmland and being farmers).

If then - in using an equity approach - we do not also take into account similarities and commonalities in people’s needs - there is a possibility then that our intervention or evaluation may perpetuate inequality.

****

So, lets take a look at the equality approach. An equality approach is based on the assumption that people have – common needs, interests, and priorities that should be treated equally - in terms of equal rights, freedoms, status, responsibilities, opportunities, access to resources and benefits, and control over them. Equality is understood to lead to an absence of discrimination.

The following example is related to SDG 4 of ensuring inclusive and equitable quality education and the promotion of lifelong learning opportunities for all. The 2014 statistics of the University Grants Commission of Sri Lanka reveal that women undergraduates constitute 62% of those admitted to universities, while conversely, men comprise only 38% of the total figure of 25,200 – fueling the argument that university student populations are fast becoming feminized –

in other words, there is, when it comes to numbers at least, more than equality – a neoliberal phenomenon in higher education - common in two out of three countries globally (Chamie, 2014).

However, such parity in figures is confined to participation; it is, by no means, reflected in higher education leadership in Sri Lanka (which is minimal when it comes to women in student union leadership or in university governance, management and academic headship). Nor has it brought about gender equitable university cultures.

In fact, university student sub-cultures harbor some of the most oppressive, patriarchal and discriminatory norms and mores that completely deny the targets of SDG5 – the rights for women and girls to dress as they wish; to live devoid of sexual objectification and coercion; and to be free from sexual and gender-based violence.

Therefore, subscribing to the equality approach alone is insufficient in development - if we don’t take into account people’s vulnerabilities…

(in this case, arising from gender differences), we can easily augment inequities.

The two instances cited reinforce the fact that the frames of equity or equality in development can no longer be an either or option (even though it has been argued that the concept of substantive equality does cover some equity issues, I find its theoretical foundation somewhat insubstantial - and I will not be going there this morning).

It is imperative therefore that both the commonalities in people’s needs (which, can be very convincingly portrayed and evaluated by statistics – even though the actual features of these commonalities may get left out),

and differences in needs (while these too can be numerically assessed, they may also require further qualitative unpacking and nuancing), are addressed - simultaneously in developmental frameworks, policy, planning, programing, monitoring and evaluation (Wickramasinghe, 2012).

****

You will note that I framed my examples of equity and equality in terms of women as a uniform collective; in terms of economic activity and the field of higher education; in terms of discrimination as generalized and fixed; and in terms of women’s gender rights as coherent, independent and tangible.

But if we are to be gender responsive we need to acknowledge that women, like any other category, are, by no means, a homogenous group. While we may, as policy makers, practitioners and evaluators choose to emphasize a collective or group identity, an individual may interpellate or subscribe to multiple, intersecting identities (as pointed out by Kimberle Crenshaw (1991) or have identities imposed on him or her - based on social delineations, specific histories and the operation of socialization, of ideologies and structures of power.

It is vital then that we acknowledge that identities are layered and intersecting, contextual and time-bound; that they lead to substantially different life experiences; and that these will be a significant key in determining how an individual will respond to the challenges of inequality and inequity.

Moreover life experiences cannot simply be sectorized and isolated into fields, sectors and activities (ie. as health or disasters, or the environment etc.,). Rather - we must also contemplate inequity and inequality – in crosscutting and holistic ways. So that the multiple facets and layers of inequities and oppression that people may undergo are accommodated in development and evaluation frameworks.

I can cite the case of 16-year-old schoolboy Raj - now residing in the costal town of Kalkudah in Eastern Sri Lanka. Raj is oppressed due to poverty and his ethno-religious locations within a wider social context; scarred due to serial displacements as a result of the long drawn ethnic conflict as well as the 2004 Asian tsunami within an environmental context. He is also a target of sexual abuse from an uncle within a personal context.

Raj’s case spans a number of SDGs - and provides –evidence of how inequalities and inequalities are often interlinked and multisectoral (depending on one’s identity), contextual and layered (depending on the context and environment), and can also be time-bound (depending on personal experience and situational crisis).

****

On the other hand, there may also be other individuals who may experience degrees of vulnerability and oppression but - who may simultaneously possess various capabilities and skills as conceptualized by Martha Nussbaum (2000). In fact, they may even be empowered on occasion - depending on the context. For instance, a woman who may have achieved her rights in securing land and employment may still be victimized by her family in terms of her right to choose a same-sex sexual partner. We need to be mindful then, that empowerment can seemingly co-exist with oppression.

Now, I am sure we are all aware that the SDGs themselves do not explicitly acknowledge the relationship between sexuality, gender identity and development as argued by Elizabeth Mills (2015) including LGBTQI identities. This is the very reason why development practitioners and evaluation actors have a greater responsibility to fill in the gaps vis-à-vis the SDGs - to proactively ensure that they do not leave behind populations on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity and expression.

****

In conclusion, let me close by reiterating the following points. The overarching currents of globalization, multilateralism, and the predominant ethic of neo-liberalism demand an adherence to methods and measurements for the universal equalization and standardization of development goals / processes. And we are aware that the SDGs were formulated based on a hard won international consensus on what should be prioritized as aspirations during the next phase in global development. Though impressive in range, they still do not encompass the interests of all inequitable groups. But, we must not forget that development policy makers, planners and evaluators possess the autonomy to frame their work in ways that can –

·  concurrently explore and evaluate gender and social equities / equalities;

·  understand that there are spectrums and hierarchies of gender and social inequities and inequalities, and that these are enmeshed and contextual;

·  account for the fact that people have multidimensional and inter-dimensional identities and may be simultaneously disempowered and empowered depending on the context and time period;

·  identify gaps and assumptions pertaining to the SDGs (especially vis-à-vis local contexts) and rectify them via proactive analysis and evaluation; and

·  devise integrated, multidimensional frameworks to explore and evaluate the realization of these different dimensions of equity and equality.

References

Chamie, Joseph (2014) Women More Educated by Men but Still Paid Less, posted at Yale Global on Line

http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/women-more-educated-men-still-paid-less-men

Crenshaw, Kimberle (1991) “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color”, Stanford Law Review, Vol. 43, No. 6 (Jul., 1991), pp. 1241-1299

Mills, Elizabeth (2015) Gender, Sexuality and the SDGs – an Evidence-base for Action, Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex, posted at http://www.ids.ac.uk/opinion/gender-sexuality-and-the-sdgs-an-evidence-base-for-action

Nussbaum, Martha (2000), Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wickramasinghe, Maithree (2012) Towards Gender Equity / Equality: A Scan of Gender Sensitive Laws, Policies and Programs in Sri Lanka, International Labour Organization, Colombo.

2