Gender - the power relationship that Political Economy Analysis forgot?

13th February 2014

It's easy to forget that 'gender' does not mean 'women' but actually means 'gender relations', or the relations between men and women. Gender analysis examines how power is distributed between women and men, how it operates, who can use it and for what purposes. It's best understood as a system which shapes everything around us – what we think, what we know, whose knowledge is privileged, and which values are supported.

If this isn't political, I don't know what is.

So when I recently wrote a short report on gender in Political Economy Analysis (PEA), I thought it would be fairly easy – a chance to dig a bit deeper into PEA, probably some good resources out there. As a social development specialist, I often work on gender issues and find most development research is well on the way to embedding gender analysis. I was surprised, therefore, to find only a very simple inclusion of gender in PEA.

Helen Poulsen, the DFID adviser in the Democratic Republic of Congo who commissioned the report, has really put her finger on something here. It's odd to find an analytical tool which explicitly discusses the power relations of individuals and institutions but doesn't usually include a gendered analysis.

Where gender is evident in PEA, it's mostly looking at how gender inequalities shape society and how many women are in positions of political and economic power. I found a few PEA studies for DFID that incorporate gender, and these focus on three broad themes:

  • The role of gender in society: such as gender equality in formal and customary law, women's property and business ownership.
  • Women in positions of power and influence: for instance, how many women sit in parliament, how many are business or civil society leaders.
  • The representation and influence of women's groups: whether lobbying groups exist for women's rights, and how much success they have.

A gender analysis would look at these issues but also delve deeper into how political economy affects men and women differently. It would be interesting to review, for example, whether women in positions of power exert real influence over policies. Or how gender dynamics block or facilitate change.

So, for instance, a political economy analysis of Malaysia's economic success ought to consider that it's underpinned by the institutionalisation of gendered and racial inequalities. Businesses regularly recruit female migrants with lower social capital and higher vulnerability, and pay them a lower wage than men (Griffin, 2007).

Where a PEA might ask 'Does the political executive provide for regular, open, inclusive competition for political power?', a gendered PEA would also ask 'Are women and men equally able to access positions of political power?'. Questions about what voters expect their elected representatives to deliver should probably also ask whether men and women want different things from their representatives. Not to mention whether male and female representatives are expected to – or even able to – deliver the same results.

In the short desk-based study I did for DFID, some lessons emerged about how a gender analysis can inform PEAs. Certain sectors are defined in gendered terms – 'women's work' or 'men's work'. Very practically, the interests of bureaucratic agencies can be gendered and have an impact on gender equality; if a ministry of women or social affairs is in charge of a programme, it is more likely to include gender equality goals than a ministry of finance or rural development (Jones and Holmes, 2011). And finally, gender analysis allows the inclusion of different and possibly competing voices.

There are, of course, counter-arguments. PEA does not refer to any specific demographic groups in its tools. So why should an analysis pay more attention to women than, say, ethnic minorities or young people? The argument goes that PEA isn't social analysis, it is – the clue is in the name – political and economic. PEA tools are many, varied, and differently applied. I've reviewed only a small selection, so I expect that some do include gender when it appears relevant.

But the fact remains that PEA is very much about power analysis. This clearly echoes the thrust of feminist and gender studies and yet PEA doesn't appear to draw on this established body of work. It's not in doubt that the political economy of most countries is male-dominated, and that states and governments tend to be patriarchal. But it's rare to find a political economy analyst who uses this as part of their analysis, unless they have an explicitly feminist perspective.

That PEA in general lacks a strong analysis of real politics and power is the central argument of a forthcoming DLP paper by Hudson and Leftwich (summary here, PDF 211 KB). This may partly explain why gendered power is missing from most PEA tools.

As they so succinctly put it (p.3): "Ultimately, if you wish to defeat poverty, prepare to address the power and the politics that keeps people poor. That's why political analysis matters."

And, I would add, also why gender matters to Political Economy Analysis.



Evie Browne

14th February 2014 at 10:17

Thanks Rebecca! It's great to know there are others working on this issue as well. If you have a link for the Nepal work you could post it here. I'd be very happy to collect more good examples of how PEA can include gender, as best practice resources.


Rebecca Calder

13th February 2014 at 17:15

Well done Evie. I have been working for 2 years with AusAID/DFAT in the design and delivery of a poverty and social analysis (PSA) course, In this course we explore and interrogate a number of approaches and frameworks used for PSA analysis. One of the types of analysis we look at is PEA, and a strong critique is always it's gender blindness. As you rightly note, PEA is not intrinsically gender blind, but it does appear to be the way PEA has traditionally been "done". A great exception to this is Lynn Bennett's work in Nepal, on the second Gender and Social Exclusion Assessment (supported by DFID, the WB and ADB). A brilliant piece of PEA, with a liberal dose of gender and social analysis interlaced throughout.

Leave a comment

The views expressed in Opinions posts are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent those of DLP, the Australian Government or DLP's partner organisations.


Evie Browne

Evie Browne

Evie is a GSDRC Research Fellow at the University of Birmingham. She can be found on Twitter @EvieBrowne.

Read more

Related items

Two remarkable transitions: lessons from Oman and Somaliland

Political settlements and international power structures

Opinion by Sarah Phillips20th July 2015

What do we do on Monday? Political settlements in theory and practice

The value of the political settlements framework

Opinion by Edward Laws15th July 2015

It's all about inclusion, but how?

Guest post for the World Bank

Opinion by Alina Rocha Menocal6th April 2016

Pacific power: new femininities and women's leadership in the Pacific

The educated, internationally connected women who are changing the way 'development' is done

Opinion by Ceridwen Spark24th June 2014

The politics of redistribution: we need you

Which are the key country cases? Help us shape new research.

Opinion by David Hudson16th October 2014

Medellin - more than a miracle

From the most murderous city on earth to 'a new global standard for urban policy': the politics of change in the wake of crisis

Opinion by Cheryl Stonehouse4th March 2014

Politics - the problem and solution to poor services?

Why - and how - does politics trump everything else in service delivery?

Opinion by Claire Mcloughlin13th March 2014

Taking the Results agenda to the next level?

On new book The Politics of Evidence and Results in International Development

Opinion by Chris Roche15th July 2015

Parliamentary strengthening: the IDC report

Having presented evidence to the UK's International Development Committee, what of the final report?

Opinion by Tam O'Neil9th February 2015

Welcome to DLP's blog

Welcome to DLP's new blog on politics, power, policy and developmental leadership

Opinion by Heather Marquette10th December 2013

Forgotten South Sudan tangled in factionalism and failed politics

A toxic blend of complex historical identity politics and short-term elite politicking

Opinion by Jonathan Fisher4th September 2014

Cancer and the links between medicine and development

Guest post for From Poverty to Power

Opinion by Chris Roche15th April 2015

Inequality – the politics behind the policies

Discussion starter for the #polinequality conference

Opinion by David Hudson11th February 2015

Fiji's Roshika Deo - outlier, positive deviant or simply feisty feminist?

First in a series on 'Power, politics and positive deviance', theme of DLP's 2016 annual conference.

Opinion by Priya Chattier 1st February 2016

Identifying rebels with a cause (and effect)

'Power, politics and positive deviance' is the theme of DLP's 2016 annual conference.

Opinion by Chris Roche1st December 2015

Is developmental patrimonialism a dead end?

The first of two posts introducing a new DLP paper on growth and democratic transition

Opinion by Tim Kelsall27th September 2016

Politics, risk and development: three takeaways

Reflections from two conferences

Opinion by Chris Roche19th February 2016

#Feminism: Digital technologies and feminist activism in Fiji

Guest post on Devpolicy on DLP work with research partners at University of the South Pacific

Opinion by Tait Brimacombe14th March 2017

Political analysis as the practical art of the possible

Bringing politics back into PEA - a new paper with Adrian Leftwich

Opinion by David Hudson24th July 2014

What's in a name? Leadership as more than the 'big men' and 'big women' of history

Looking beyond 'The Leader' for a deeper understanding of how change happens

Opinion by Heather Lyne de Ver11th February 2014
Opinion by Alina Rocha Menocal24th November 2014

Developmental leaders, 'dirty hands', and the dark side of collaboration

The ambiguities of supporting 'developmental leadership'

Opinion by Niheer Dasandi11th December 2013

The road to transparency in resource-rich Myanmar

Myanmar's EITI process and its contribution to broader reform

Opinion by Taylor Brown1st April 2016

Politics shape services; and services shape politics

How governance and sector specialists can help each other understand the politics of service delivery

Opinion by Richard Batley19th June 2014

Climate change and adaptation in the Pacific Islands: watering down women's security?

How women leaders are challenging a narrow adaptation agenda.

Opinion by Nicole George7th March 2014

Somaliland's route to peace

What can we learn from Somaliland's approach to peacebuilding? 

Opinion by Sarah Phillips12th December 2013

Gender - the power relationship that Political Economy Analysis forgot?

Why more questions about gender relations could help

Opinion by Evie Browne13th February 2014

Adding gender and power to the TWP agenda

Why bring gender into Thinking and Working Politically?

Opinion by Sally Moyle6th August 2015
Opinion by Dan Hymowitz3rd February 2017

Gender analysis, and thinking and working politically – bridging the gap

Guest post on Devpolicy  introducing panels at this week's Australasian Aid Conference

Opinion by Chris Roche14th February 2017