HENRY JL BADENHORST

FEMINISATION OF
POVERTY
Henry JL Badenhorst
Email: henry_badenhorst@yahoo.com
4/20/2010

Feminisation of poverty exists through 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.

(i)

Title:

Discuss 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.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
1. Introduction

2. Conceptualizing Feminization of Poverty

2-3

3. The causes of Feminization of Poverty

3-7

4. Alleviating Feminization of Poverty:

Key areas and strategic priorities

7-9

5. Conclusion

10

6. Bibliography

11

Introduction
Poverty has a womans 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 worlds 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 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 (FHHs),
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 womens
poverty is more severe than that of men; and that there is a trend to greater poverty among
women, particularly rising rates of FHHs.
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). Its this lack of income, which lies at
the core of all poverty definitions, that many policy makers 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
disproportionate number of Female Headed Households among the poor and evidence suggests
that FHHs 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 state in the same breath that the relationship between FHHs and poverty
is not consistent, since FHHs seem to have a regional dimension, with FHHs 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 its 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 (MDGs), 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 womens
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 a 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 labour is used to substitute that of their
mothers in caring for siblings. Girls labour, thus lost to schooling, adversely affects the
mothers ability to raise an income through wage labour, 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 womens lack of bargaining power
within the household, which in turn negatively impact on investments in childrens 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).
Womens disadvantage in education is a vicious circle, since lower returns to female labour
force participation in return acts 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 its 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 labour markets lead to limited access to employment
and lower earning capacity than men, contributing towards womens greater vulnerability to
poverty (Baden & Milward.1997:6) Gender discrimination refer 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 labour market according to sector
(Baden & Milward.1997:30). Male concentration of labour 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 labour (work status) (Baden & Milward.1997:31). Even when
women and men do similar work, the 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. Womens labour 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 prevent female participation in certain
industries such as women, while trade unions also attempt to limit womens access to male
occupations

(Baden & Milward.1997:32). The demands of domestic labour and childcare

further constrains 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 labour 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
womens 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 days 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 labour market, mentioned by Baden & Milward (1997:35), it seems that
womens 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 labour 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, overemployment 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 labour (Baden & Milward.1997:20). This limit womens independent productive
activity not having control over their own labour, nor the labour of other household members
(Baden & Milward.1997:20). Mens reciprocal rights over womens 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).
Womens concentration in the informal sector, have led to the idea that this sector has become
feminised (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 its 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, its 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 is furthermore seen as a reason for the feminization of
poverty (BRIDGE 2001:110). Womens 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 do 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 its not visible due to the fact that its 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
the gender discrepancies and inequality in the agricultural sector. Gender gaps in access to
assets and inputs in agricultural production is one of the barriers Blackden et al (2006:61) lists,
reducing womens 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 producers productivity, it also
increases male producers productivity (Blackden et al.2006:68-69). Womens 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 feminisation 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 labour represents most of the agricultural work force.
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 fulfil all the domestic duties within Sub-Saharan economies, as
African examples, such as Cameroon, show that womens 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 womens disadvantages in farming, where they, unlike men were constrained by
competing claims on their labour 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 womens lack of access
to land for their productive activities. Participatory Poverty Assessments (PPAs) 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 womens rights with regards to
inheritance, customs still prevails 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 unfavourable 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 girls schooling through child-care provision,
investment in labour saving infra-structure or flexible non-formal education provision;
incentives and scholarships for girls enrolment to reduce the direct costs of girls 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 labour
and financial markets, which prevent women from realising 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 is 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, is the second area in need of strategies and policies. Blackden et al
(2006:80) suggests 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
its going to improve womens access to formal sector employment. Blackden et al (2006:77)
further notes the successes of countries which have reduced gender gaps in formal sector
employment and claim that it was due to their adoption of strategies based on export oriented
and labour intensive light manufacturing, which mainly utilize female labour.

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
womens 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 womens access to wage
employment has led to womens greater independence in household decision making
(Kabeer.2003:182)
Regarding womens 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
labour 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 labour saving technology in the area of food product transformation and processing.
Womens excessive time burden can drastically be alleviated by an acceleration of demographic
change. (Blackden et al.2006:80)
The third area where gander gaps occur and where strategies are necessary to alleviate the
problem is political participation. Womens 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 womens 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 womens 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 womens 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 micro credit in rural
Bangladesh found that womens 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 womens assets, ultimately empowering
women (Kabeer.2003:181).

10

Conclusion
The Feminization of Poverty is a concept widely discussed now in academic and development
policy circles, since it was first used as 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 of 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 womens 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. Womens time burden and
their concentration in the informal sector together with urbanisation were also addressed.
Gender gaps in political participation with regards to womens low representation in national
parliaments affecting governance, also received attention. The final gender inequality, namely
the lack of womens 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 were 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 has 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 MDGs and collective action to improve women
empowerment, can in fact lead to an un-feminisation of poverty

11

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,
lingages, analysis and policy implications, in Gender and Development:
a reader, compiled by D.A. Kotz. 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. Kotz. Pretoria: University of
South Africa.
4. BRIDGE:

development-gender.

2001.

Briefing

paper

on

the

feminisation of poverty, in Gender and Development: a reader,

compiled by D.A. Kotz. 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. Kotz. 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)