VPThancock51

8/8/2019 VPThancock51

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vpthancock51 1/3

Development Bulletin 5166

Introduction

The Human development report 1999 (UNDP 1999) ranks

Indonesia as a country of poor gender equality, which is not

surprising for a developing nation. The 1999 gender-related

development index (GDI) and the gender empowerment

measure (GEM) rank Indonesia 88 and 71, respectively, out of

a possible 102 countries. The GDI uses a composite set of indices

related to human development which are then adjusted to

measure gender inequality, while the GEM measures gender

inequality in economic and political opportunities. In bothmeasures, Indonesian women rank poorly. This paper focuses

on the effectiveness of the criteria upon which the GEM is based.

It argues that local factors and the views of women involved in

the development process need to be absorbed into the indicators

which measure the GEM. The paper is based on research and

fieldwork among factory women in rural Indonesia, carried out

between 1997 and 1999. Three hundred and twenty-three

factory women and their mothers were surveyed to ascertain

how they and their communities measure the extent to which

young women are empowered by economic development. The

results show clearly that, at the local level, women measure

gender empowerment in completely different ways. The GEM ranks nations according to the extent to which

gender equality has improved over time, through indicators

based on country data. Complex formulas are used to measure

economic and political power and the participation of women

compared with men. The following indicators are used by the

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) to create a

composite GEM:

• seats held by women in parliament

• female administrators and managers

• female professional and technical workers

• women’s real GDP per capita.

On the basis of these indicators, Indonesian women are given

the relatively low rank of 71 in the 1999 GEM. However, the

indicators are very general and do not completely represent the

ways in which women may be empowered over time. For example,

the fact that women are highly represented in parliament does

not result in all women in that nation automatically becoming

empowered. Simply having more women in parliament over time

does not mean that gender equality has improved. This assumes

that the women in government are there to support the status of

other women. For example, China ranks 40 on the 1999 GEM

mainly because women make up 21 per cent of its legislature.

Indonesia ranks 71 predominantly because women constitute only

11 per cent of the legislature. Are Chinese women more

The Gender Empowerment Measure: Issues from West

Java, Indonesia

Peter Hancock, International Development Studies, Deakin University

empowered than Indonesian women as a result? The assumption

that an increase in the number of women in parliament means

that gender empowerment has occurred, and that parliaments

in developing nations have power, is misplaced.

The first three indicators of the GEM are problematic

because most of the women who would be drawn into these

measurements are from different (usually elite) classes and ethnic

groups from the majority of women in the nations concerned.

They are not representative at all of working class, rural or the

most impoverished groups. They are not representative of

women where gender inequality is most prevalent and most

obvious, for example in the rural sectors of the economy and

sectors where women are invisible to data collected for the GEM,

such as factory workers. The final indicator of the GEM

(women’s real GDP per capita) has been analysed by McGillivray

and Pillarisetti (1998:200). They state that the measurement of

income does not address the realities of empiricism, and that

the income variable is included in the GEM calculations in an

unadjusted form, unlike all other UNDP calculations. This

indicator ignores empirical reality and does not take into account

the small nature of the manufacturing sector in developing

nations. Further, the income data used by the UNDP to calculatethe GEM are based on vital statistics which are prone to

inaccuracy (Bulmer 1993, Bulmer and Warwick 1993, Gulrajani

1994, Jones 1987).

McGillivray and Pillarisetti also point out that the GEM in

‘adopting an essentially arbitrary value for all countries effectively

prescribes a universal norm’. This defies the reality of the divide

between the developed and the developing world and the social,

cultural and economic individuality of each nation. For example,

the GEM formula gives equal weighting to all countries, without

regard to the accepted argument that gender inequality is more

widespread in developing nations. Further, the formula ignores

differences within nations, between ethnic groups, between ruraland urban women, and between classes. In all developing

countries these differences are usually quite significant.

McGillivray and Pillarisetti also point out that the indicator

which uses numbers of women in parliament ignores more basic

and important indicators, such as the right to vote which is

denied many women in developing nations.

As a result of extensive research among rural Indonesian

factory women, and on the basis of the ideas and culturally

sensitive attitudes of the women themselves, I suggest that other

more important indicators could be used to measure and define

gender empowerment. They should at least be considered by

anyone attempting to use the GEM to study the extent to which



March 2000 67

economic or political development and power lead to gender

empowerment. These suggested indicators are:

• inclusion in household decision making processes;

• ability to solve problems (because of new

employment);

• mother–daughter comparisons (education levels,

marriage age);

• financial contributions to family;• geography (highland or lowland dwellers); and

• the impact of the state and labour laws.

What is empowerment?

Empowerment is a problematic term. To empower someone

means to give them power or to do something to them to ensure

that they receive power. However, to receive power means that

you are taking it from someone else or that you will use it over

someone else. Either way, the ultimate result is that someone’s

life is negatively affected as a result. The GEM and the UNDP

need to ask: ‘What is empowerment?’ Afshar (1998:3) claims that empowerment will mean

different things at different times in history. It will be different

as a result of culture and local geography. She argues that

empowerment needs to be defined so that it is not perceived as

something which is ‘done to women or done for women’. It

should come from the women themselves and be something

they can own with pride. My research supports this claim. The

factory women I studied empowered themselves with very little

outside help. Nothing was done to them or for them. More

common were exploitation, harsh treatment and impediments

to empowerment. Further, because the empowerment comes

from within, whether at the individual, village or local culturallevel, it does not mean that someone has power over someone

else. It is sustainable but, at this time, it is also fragile.

The women experiences of the women I studied fitted well

with the arguments of the above authors. These women

empowered themselves as a result of increased income which

acted as a catalyst to increased access to decision making

processes at household and village levels. However, decision

making at the national level is open only to a very small elite, as

Indonesia is a highly centralised state with harsh traditions which

deny human agency and which do not have the capacity to

accommodate gender equality in anything but the most

superficial sense. My research showed clearly that empowerment

should develop from within individuals, households and

communities. From there it may move up into the national

structures of government, but this will depend upon many

factors associated with political and economic power and upon

the elite in Indonesia who rarely give away power unless they

are forced to, or because they see some benefit to themselves.

Contributions to development

In spite of the oppression and exploitation highlighted above,

the factory women manage to contribute to the development

of their family and community with their meagre wages and

through their attitude to work. In so doing, the women empower

themselves and are not empowered through the actions of

politicians or of professionals and managers above them, as the

GEM saliently implies. The financial contributions made by

the women were a major primary source of improved status,

which empowered them to solve household problems and to

constructively contribute to household discussions. This

argument has been strongly reinforced by similar findings from

other research among women at the grassroots level in Mexico

and Bangladesh (see Osmani 1998, Rowlands 1998).

Before going to West Java I had assumed that the financial

contributions of female factory workers to their families would

be relatively insignificant. This expectation was based on the

literature and on the fact of the extremely low wages in Indonesia

per se (Wolf 1992, for example). However, after having surveyed

only a few women, I realised that their contributions to the

household were very important. Female factory wages were

extremely beneficial to the social, physical and spiritual well-

being of the families I studied. Usually, the small factory incomes

were budgeted to allow for the factory workers’ transport andfood costs, which were comparatively high, and occasionally

for a few luxury items. The remainder was spent on food,

clothing, education or medicine.

The sampled factory women contributed on average 38 per

cent of their incomes to their family every month, their average

monthly incomes being 142,000 rupiah (Rp) in 1997–98. Only

the equivalent of 17 per cent of this monthly income was

reimbursed to the women for their working costs (transport

and food). Working costs greater than this were usually met by

the women themselves from the remainder of their wages.

The research also found that the factory women make

substantial financial and unseen contributions to development,

such as giving monies to family members on a daily basis, over

and above the monthly contributions. Other unseen

contributions include improving the status of women, providing

a positive example to other women, contradicting the traditional

ethos that women are a financial burden to their family or

husbands, and in challenging notions of female workers

propagated by the state and investors. Unseen contributions,

combined with the significant financial ones made by the women

sampled, create a sophisticated and substantial system of social

security. This security is provided in spite of an oppressive and

exploitative state and the rarefying nature of global capitalism.

The women I studied provided evidence which strongly suggests

that the GEM indicators are not totally relevant to the lives of

many women in the Third World. The factory women were

doing more to empower themselves, using their small wages,

their experience and their new life choices and were not beholden

to women in higher levels of management or public service.

Some self-perceptions of empowerment

Despite the importance of their financial contributions to their

families, most of the women surveyed did not feel empowered

by money alone. When they conceptualised the paths to theirown empowerment, the women considered other factors, such



Development Bulletin 5168

as generational and demographic differences from their mothers

and being included in decision making mechanisms, to have

been more important.

In gross terms, 40 per cent of the women studied said that

they felt their status had increased as a result of factory work

(status being defined by the women as increased household

ability to make decisions, solve problems and contribute

financially). The other 60 per cent believed that their householdstatus had not changed. Of those who claimed increased status,

roughly 45 per cent stated that this was predominantly due to

their new wage contributions to their family. The remaining 55

per cent thought that it was due to their not being at home all

the time and, therefore, not being confined to household duties

and under constant control.

At this point, it is easy to see why the young Sundanese

factory women are significantly more able than their mothers

to improve their status. I collected data on their mothers’

employment patterns. The small minority of mothers who did

work were mostly confined to two sectors: agriculture, or

household servitude. At the time, the average monthly incomefor house servants in Banjaran was Rp40,000, and agricultural

wages for women averaged Rp50,000 per month. The average

monthly income of the factory women was Rp142,000 which,

in itself, is a small amount for hard work. However, compared

with their mothers’ vastly inferior average incomes, it gives the

factory women significantly more potential to improve status

through financial means.

Apart from wages and dislocation, women commonly

measured their improved status by the degree to which they

were included in family decision making processes, and by their

ability to make independent social and economic decisions and

to solve family problems. That is, by being away from home

and village and experiencing new and complex happenings in

the factories, including Western notions of production, foreign

managers, buyers and investors, they gained valuable and high

status experience which enabled them to solve household

problems. These are crucial indicators which need to be

incorporated into the GEM and considered by anyone interested

in gender empowerment.

Education and marriage

The women also measured improved status or empowerment

by making comparisons between their own education, marriage

and fertility levels and those of their mothers. It was evident

that the young factory women had significantly more education,

higher marriage ages and fewer children and were more able to

choose their own spouse.

The average age at first marriage (AAFM) was used by the

women to indicate the extent to which they had become

empowered as a result of factory work, improved education and

modern demographic norms. The AAFM of the married factory

women was 17.2 years. Their overall average age at the time of

the survey was 25.5 years, compared with an average age of

19.4 years for the cohort of unmarried factory women sampled.

The combined average age of married and unmarried factory

women sampled was 22 years.

The comparatively low AAFM of the mothers of the factory

women provides a brief insight into the recent history of

Sundanese women. The AAFM of the mothers was 14.3 years.

However, when these figures are broken down into a highland–

lowland distinction, significant patterns emerge. For example,

the AAFM of the mothers in lowland areas was 15.6 years,compared with 13.3 years in highland areas. This distinction

between married and unmarried factory women, combined with

the highland–lowland distinction, provides an interesting insight

into the differences operating between the more traditional

highland areas and the lowland areas in the research site.

Conclusion

The GEM attempts to measure or trace the indicators of gender

equity in political and economic power. However, research

among factory women in rural Indonesia suggests that the GEM

should be changed to incorporate additional indicators. Untilthat time, students and researchers need to take account of the

reality of the lives of women at the local level in developing

nations if they intend to use the GEM in their work.

References

Afshar, H. 1998, ‘Introduction’, in H. Afshar (ed.), Women and empowerment: Illustrations from the Third World, Macmillan,London, 1–10.

Bulmer, M. 1993, ‘Sampling’, in M. Bulmer and D. Warwick (eds), Social research in developing countries, UCL Press,London, 91–101.

Bulmer, M. and D. Warwick 1993, ‘Data collection’, in M.Bulmer and D. Warwick (eds), Social research in developing countries, UCL Press, London, 145–60.

Gulrajani, M. 1994, ‘Child labour and the export sector in the Third World: A case study of the Indian carpet industry’,Labour, Capital and Society , 27, 192–214.

Jones, G. 1987, ‘The 1985 intercensal survey of Indonesia: Thelabour force’, Research Note No. 78 , August, Department of Demography, The Australian National University, Canberra.

McGillivray, M. and J. Pillarisetti 1998, ‘Human developmentand gender empowerment: Methodological and measure-ment issues’, Development Policy Review , 16(2), 197–203.

Osmani, L. 1998, ‘The Grameen Bank experiment:Empowerment of women through credit’, in H. Afshar (ed.),Women and empowerment: Illustrations from the Third World ,Macmillan, London, 67–85.

Rowlands, J. 1998, ‘A word of the times, but what does it mean?Empowerment in the discourse and practice of development’,in H. Afshar, (ed.), Women and empowerment: Illustrations from the Third World , Macmillan, London, 11–34.

UNDP (United Nations Development Programme) 1999, Human development report 1999 , Oxford University Press, New York.

Wolf, D. 1992, Factory daughters , University of California Press,

Berkeley.

Documents

VPThancock51