The Structural Adjustment Policies of Bretton Woods Institutions: A Double Burden for Women in the Global South
Andrea Magnon,
Social activist, biologist, web editor on issues of youth engagement and professional development of young people
In 2024, the Bretton Woods Institutions (BWIs), which include the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, will mark their 80th anniversary. Established in the wake of World War II, these institutions were intended to stabilize the global economy and foster economic development. However, the Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs) and austerity measures they have often imposed on Global South countries have had mixed results, with significant negative impacts, particularly on women. This article explores how SAPs and austerity measures affect women’s well-being and social safety nets, and emphasizes the urgent need for reforms that are both inclusive and equitable.
Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs) are economic policies imposed by the IMF and the World Bank on countries facing financial crises. The main goals of these policies are to restore economic stability, encourage economic growth, and reduce national debts. However, the methods used to achieve these goals often involve stringent measures such as reducing public spending, liberalizing markets, and privatizing state-owned enterprises (Cagatay, 1998). While these policies are designed to address economic imbalances, they frequently lead to severe social consequences, especially for the most vulnerable populations.
Reducing Public Spending
One of the primary components of SAPs is the reduction of public spending. Governments are required to cut expenditures in various sectors to reduce budget deficits. These cuts typically target social services such as education, health care, and social protection (Cagatay, 1998). Unfortunately, these austerity measures often undermine the quality and accessibility of essential services, disproportionately affecting women, who are frequently the primary beneficiaries of these services.
Liberalizing Markets
SAPs also involve liberalizing markets to promote competition and efficiency. This usually means removing trade barriers, deregulating industries, and encouraging foreign investment (Kabeer, 2003). While these changes are intended to boost economic growth, they can also lead to job losses and economic instability, with women often facing the harshest consequences.
Privatizing State-Owned Enterprises
Privatization is another common feature of SAPs. Governments are encouraged to sell state-owned enterprises to private investors as a means of increasing efficiency and reducing public sector burdens (Elson, 2002). However, this often leads to job losses and reduced access to essential services for the poor, especially women, who may depend on these services for their well-being.
The Impact of SAPs on Women’s Education
One of the most immediate effects of SAPs is the reduction in public spending on education. Education is a crucial factor in reducing gender inequalities, but SAPs have frequently led to higher school fees, reduced funding for schools, and decreased access to educational resources (Kabeer, 2003). These changes have severe repercussions for girls, who are often already at a disadvantage in many societies.
School Enrollment and Dropout Rates
In many countries, SAPs have led to increased school fees and other costs related to education. For families struggling with reduced incomes due to austerity measures, these costs can become prohibitively expensive. As a result, families may choose to withdraw their daughters from school to help with household chores or work to support the family (Konadu-Agyemang, 2000). This not only limits the educational opportunities for girls but also perpetuates a cycle of poverty and inequality.
In Ghana, for example, SAPs led to significant reductions in public spending on education, which had a direct negative impact on girls and young women. School enrollment rates for girls dropped, and many girls faced increased barriers to completing their education (Konadu-Agyemang, 2000). This situation illustrates how austerity measures can undermine the progress made toward gender equality in education.
The Effects of Austerity on Health Services
Austerity measures also have a profound impact on health services, which are critical for women’s health and well-being. By reducing public spending on health care, SAPs lead to decreased access to health services, increased costs for patients, and a deterioration in the quality of care (Elson, 2002). Women, who are often the primary users of health services, particularly those related to reproductive and maternal health, are disproportionately affected.
Increased Maternal Mortality Rates
Austerity measures can lead to a reduction in the quality and availability of health services. For example, cuts to funding for maternal health services can lead to higher maternal mortality rates and reduced access to prenatal and postnatal care. Women in rural areas are particularly vulnerable to these cuts, as they often face additional barriers to accessing health services (Lustig, 2001).
In Mexico, austerity measures in the 1980s and 1990s resulted in the privatization of public services, including water and electricity. Women, especially those in rural areas, experienced increased costs and diminished access to these essential services (Lustig, 2001). This not only worsened the health outcomes for women but also exacerbated existing gender inequalities.
Austerity measures can also limit access to reproductive health services, which are essential for women’s health. For instance, reduced funding for family planning and sexual health services can lead to increased rates of unintended pregnancies, unsafe abortions, and higher maternal mortality rates. According to Togolese activist Marie Cynthia Ahamadah, these barriers contribute to stigmatization, unsafe abortions, and increased maternal, neonatal, and infant mortality.
The Impact of SAPs on Property Rights and Economic Participation
SAPs often encourage the privatization of land and natural resources, which can negatively impact women who rely on these resources for their livelihoods. Additionally, economic liberalization tends to favor male-dominated sectors, exacerbating gender inequalities in the labor market (Lastarria-Cornhiel, 1997).
Loss of Agricultural Land
In Sub-Saharan Africa, many women are involved in agriculture and depend on access to land for their livelihoods. SAPs that promote the privatization of land can lead to the loss of agricultural land for women, undermining their ability to support their families and participate in the local economy (Lastarria-Cornhiel, 1997). This loss of land not only affects women’s economic stability but also reinforces existing gender inequalities in access to resources.
Gender Inequalities in the Labor Market
Economic liberalization often benefits sectors that are predominantly male-dominated, leaving women with fewer opportunities for economic advancement. This deepens gender inequalities in the labor market and limits women’s economic participation and empowerment (Lastarria-Cornhiel, 1997).
The Consequences of Reduced Social Safety Nets
SAPs and austerity measures also lead to cuts in social safety nets, which are crucial for protecting the most vulnerable members of society. Programs such as family allowances and food subsidies are often among the first to face budget cuts (Razavi, 2007). Women, who frequently bear a disproportionate share of caregiving responsibilities, are particularly affected by these reductions.
Increased Vulnerability for Women
With reduced social safety nets, women face increased vulnerability during economic or personal crises. Austerity measures that cut family allowances and food subsidies exacerbate women’s financial insecurity and place additional burdens on them to fulfill their domestic and caregiving roles (Mackintosh & Tibandebage, 2006).
In Zambia, for example, austerity measures led to significant cuts in social support programs, leaving many women without the necessary safety nets during times of economic or personal hardship (Mackintosh & Tibandebage, 2006). This highlights how austerity policies can transform into a burden on women rather than providing the support they need.
Case Studies: Ghana and Mexico
In Ghana, SAPs resulted in substantial cuts to public spending on health and education. These cuts led to higher costs for health care and limited access to education for girls. As a result, women and children faced increased barriers to accessing essential services, and the educational opportunities for girls stagnated (Konadu-Agyemang, 2000).
In Mexico, the austerity measures of the 1980s and 1990s led to the privatization of essential public services such as water and electricity. Women in rural areas were particularly affected by the increased costs and reduced access to these services (Lustig, 2001). This case illustrates the broader impacts of austerity measures on women’s well-being and access to essential services.
The Need for Reforms: A Feminist Decolonial Perspective
The SAPs and austerity measures imposed by the BWIs have often had disproportionate effects on women in the Global South, exacerbating gender inequalities and compromising their well-being. To address these issues, it is crucial to reconsider these policies through a critical decolonial feminist lens, focusing on the protection and enhancement of essential social services and promoting inclusive economic approaches that account for women’s needs and rights.
One approach to addressing these issues is to increase investments in social services and review austerity policies to ensure adequate funding for sectors like education and health. By prioritizing these investments, it is possible to create more equitable and supportive environments for women (Elson, 2002).
Another important step is to establish and strengthen social safety nets to protect the most vulnerable, especially women. This includes implementing robust support programs that provide financial assistance and access to essential services (Razavi, 2007).
Advocating for gender equality and integrating gender perspectives into economic policy design and implementation are essential.
References
- Cagatay, N. (1998). Gender and Poverty. UNDP Social Development and Poverty Elimination Division. 1998
- Elson, D. (2002). Gender Justice, Human Rights, and Neo-liberal Economic Policies. In M. Molyneux & S. Razavi (Eds.), Gender Justice, Development, and Rights. Oxford University Press. 2002.
- Kabeer, N. (2003). Gender Mainstreaming in Poverty Eradication and the Millennium Development Goals: A Handbook for Policy-makers and Other Stakeholders. Commonwealth Secretaria. 2003.
- Konadu-Agyemang, K. (2000). The Best of Times and the Worst of Times: Structural Adjustment Programs and Uneven Development in Africa: The Case of Ghana. The Professional Geographer, 52(3), 469-483. Accesed Jun 2024, https://doi.org/10.1111/0033-0124.00238 .
- Lastarria-Cornhiel, S. Impact of Privatization on Gender and Property Rights in Africa. World Development, 25(8), 1317-1333, accessed June 2024, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(97)00030-7.
- Lustig, N. Shielding the Poor: Social Protection in the Developing World. Brookings Institution Press, 2001.
- Mackintosh, M., & Tibandebage, P. Gender and Health Sector Reform: Analytical Perspectives on African Experience. In Gender and Social Policy in a Global Context. Palgrave Macmillan, 2006.
- Razavi, S. The Political and Social Economy of Care in a Development Context. UNRISD, 2007.
Andrea Magnon,
Social activist, biologist, web editor on issues of youth engagement and professional development of young people, Andrea Magnon is passionate about sustainable development. Her passion for social justice issues leads her to examine the effects of the policies of the Bretton Woods institutions on women in the Global South. Through this article, she highlights the economic and social injustices caused by these policies and advocates for changes that promote gender equality and sustainable development.