The article explores the implications for gender roles and relations in Nicaragua of implementing a Conditional Cash Transfer programme aimed at improving the situation of the extreme poor. Nicaragua's programme, the Social Protection Network/Red de Protección Social (RPS), is modelled on the Progresa/Oportunidades programme of Mexico and shares many features in common. Evaluations of Progresa have suggested positive outcomes for women. However, examination of the findings highlight some cause for concern particularly around what inclusion on the programme means for the women involved. The article explores the consequences of translating this programme aimed at addressing the structural causes of poverty into a more overtly neoliberal and neo-conservative policy context such as that in Nicaragua. It highlights how a key feature of the RPS is the `social adjustment' of women's behaviour for economic growth gains and discusses the possible consequences for the women included and excluded from the programme.
Adato, M. (2000) The Impact of PROGRESA on Community Social Relationships , International Food Policy Research Institute, 20 September.
2.
Adato, M. and Roopnaraine, T. (2004) Sistema de Evaluación de la Red de Protección Social de Nicaragua: Un análisis social de la `Red de Protección Social' (RPS) en Nicaragua [Report to the Red de Protección Social]. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.
3.
Adato, M., De la Briere, B., Mindek, D. and Quisumbin, A. (2000) The Impact of PROGRESA on Women's Status and Intrahousehold Relations, International Food Policy Research Institute , Final Report, 27 July.
4.
Afshar, H. and Dennis, C. (1992) Women and Adjustment Policies in the Third World . Macmillan: London.
5.
Agarwal, B. (1997) `"Bargaining" and Gender Relations: Within and Beyond the Household', Feminist Economics3(1): 1-51.
6.
Alvarez, S. (1999) `Advocating Feminism: The Latin American Feminist NGO "Boom"', International Feminist Journal of Politics1(2): 181-209.
7.
Booth, D. (2003) `PRSPs: Introduction and Overview', Development Policy Review21(2): 131-59.
8.
Bradshaw, S. (2001) Dangerous Liaisons: Women, Men and Hurricane Mitch . Nicaragua: Puntos de Encuentro .
9.
Bradshaw, S. (2002a) Gendered Poverties and Power Relations: Looking inside Communities and Households in Nicaragua. Nicaragua : Puntos de Encuentro.
10.
Bradshaw, S. (2002b) `Exploring the Gender Dimensions of Reconstruction Processes Post-Hurricane Mitch', Journal of International Development14(6): 871-9.
11.
Bradshaw, S. (2006) `Is the Rights Focus the Right Focus?: Nicaraguan Responses to the Rights Agenda', Third World Quarterly27(7): 1329-41.
12.
Bradshaw, S. and Linneker, B. (2003a) Challenging Women's Poverty: Perspectives on Gender and Poverty Reduction Strategies from Nicaragua and Honduras, Briefing. London: CIIR-ICD.
13.
Bradshaw, S. and Linneker, B. (2003b) `Civil Society Responses to Poverty Reduction Strategies: The Case of Nicaragua', Progress in Development Studies3(2): 146-57.
14.
Bradshaw, S. and Quirós Víquez, A. (2003) `A Gender Analysis of the Social Protection Network in Nicaragua', CISAS Working Papers, Nicaragua, October.
15.
Bradshaw, S., Linneker, B. and Zuniga, R. (2002) `Social Roles and Spatial Relations of NGOs and Civil Society' in C. McIlwaine and K. Willis (eds) Challenges and Change in Middle America: Perspectives on Development in Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean (pp. 243-69). Harlow: Pearson Education.
16.
Cammack, P. (2002) `What the World Bank Means by Poverty Reduction and Why it Matters', New Political Economy9(2): 189-211.
17.
Chant, S. (2003a) `The "Engendering" of Poverty Analysis in Developing Regions: Progress Since the United Nations Decade for Women, and Priorities for the Future', LSE Gender Institute New Working Paper Series No. 11, November.
18.
Chant, S. (2003b) `Female Household Headship and the Feminisation of Poverty: Facts, Fictions and Forward Strategies', LSE Gender Institute New Working Paper Series No. 9, May.
19.
Chant, S. (2004) `Dangerous Equations? How Female-Headed Households Became the Poorest of the Poor: Causes, Consequences and Cautions', IDS Bulletin35(4): 19-26.
20.
Chant, S. (2006) `Re-Thinking the "Feminisation of Poverty" in Relation to Aggregate Gender Indices', Journal of Human Development7(2): 201-20.
21.
Chant, S. (2008) `The "Feminisation of Poverty" and the "Feminisation" of Anti-Poverty Programmes: Room for Revision?', Journal of Development Studies44(2): 165-97.
22.
Ciesas (2002) Documento Final de Diagnóstico Cualitativo de Hogares Semiurbanos: Evaluación ProgresaqOportunidades [Final Document of the Qualitative Diagnostic of Semi-Urban Households: Evaluation Progresa/Oportunidades], Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social, (CIESAS) Occidente, Mexico, August.
23.
Ciet-Ccer (2001) Principales Resultados de la Auditoría Social Sobre la Condición de la Pobreza: Fase 3. Managua, Nicaragua: CIET International and the Civil Coordinator for Emergency and Reconstruction .
24.
Cornia, G.,Jolly, R. and Steward, F. (eds) ( 1987) Adjustment with a Human Face. Oxford : Clarendon Press.
25.
Dollar, D. and Gatti, R. (1999) `Gender Inequality, Income, and Growth: Are Good Times Good for Women?', Gender and Development Working Papers No. 1, May.
26.
Dollar, D. and Kray, A. (2000) `Growth is Good for the Poor', The World Bank Development Research Group, March.
27.
Dwyer, D. and Bruce, J. (eds) (1988) A Home Divided: Women and Income in the Third World. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
28.
Eclac (2004) Roads Towards Gender Equity in Latin America and the Caribbean, paper presented at the 9th Regional Conference on Women in Latin America and the Caribbean, Mexico City, Mexico, 10-12 June.
29.
Ellsberg, M. et al. (1998) Confites en el Infierno: Prevalencia y Características de la Violencia Conyugal Hacia las Mujeres en Nicaragua [Candies in Hell: Women's Experiences of Violence in Nicaragua]. Managua , Nicaragua.
30.
Elson, D. (1991) `Male Bias in Macro-Economics: The Case of Structural Adjustment', in D. Elson (ed.) Male Bias in the Development Process (pp. 164-90). Manchester : Manchester University Press.
31.
Elson, D. (2004) `Social Policy and Macroeconomic Performance: Integrating the "Economic" and the "Social"', in T. Mkandawire (ed.) Social Policy in a Development Context (pp. 63-79). Basingstoke : Palgrave Macmillan/UNRISD .
32.
Escobar, A. and González de la Rocha, M. (2003) `Evaluación Cualitativa del Programa de Desarrollo Humano Oportunidades: Seguimiento de Impacto 2001-2002: Documento Final de Diagnóstico Cualitativo de Hogares Semiurbanos' [Qualitative Evaluation of the Human Development Programme, Oportunidades: Monitoring Impact 2001-2002: Final Qualitative Diagnostic of Semi-Urban Households], Serie Documentos de Investigación3, Secretaria de Desarrollo Social, Mexico, June.
33.
Escobar, A. and González de la Rocha, M. (2005) Documento de Evaluación Evaluación Cualitativa de Mediano Plazo del Programa Oportunidades en Zonas Rurales [Evaluation Document: Medium Term Qualitative Evaluation of the Oportunidades Programme in Rural Areas]. Mexico: Instituto Nacional de Salud Pública.
34.
Gómez-Hermosillo, R. (2005) `Con Oportunidades las Mujeres Mejoran sus Condiciones de Vida e Incrementan su Autonomía' [With Oportunidades Women Improve their Standard of Living and Increase their Autonomy], Coordinación Nacional del Programa de Desarrollo Humano Oportunidades, Dirección General Adjunta de Comunicación y Difusión. México, DF, 26 November.
35.
Government of Nicaragua (2002) Reglamento Operativo de la Red de Protección Social, Fase II [Operative Regulations for the Social Protection Network, Phase II], Gobierno de la República de Nicaragua, Ministerio de la Familia, November.
36.
Government of Nicaragua (2003) Bases para una Nicaragua Prospera [The Basis for a Prosperous Nicaragua], March.
37.
Heise, L., Ellsberg, M. and Gottemoeller M. (1999) Ending Violence against Women, Population Reports Series L. No. 11. Baltimore, MD: Population Information Program, Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health.
38.
Hoddinott, J., Skoufias, E. and Washburn, R. (2000) The Impact of PROGRESA on Consumption. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.
39.
IDBAmerica (2005) `"Mexico's Oportunidades": An interview with Miguel Székely, Undersecretary for Social Development', (30 June).
40.
Inter-American Development Bank (IADB) (2003 ) La Red de Protección Social, Fase II: Informe de Evaluación [Nicaragua, Social Protection Network, Phase II: Evaluation Report]. Washington, DC: IADB.
41.
International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) (2005) Nicaragua: Breaking the Cycle of Poverty. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.
42.
Jackson, C. (1998) `Rescuing Gender from the Poverty Trap', in C. Jackson and R. Pearson (eds) Feminist Visions of Development: Gender Analysis and Policy (pp. 39-64). London: Routledge.
43.
Klasen, S. (1999) `Does Gender Inequality Reduce Growth and Development? Evidence from Cross-Country Regressions', Gender and Development Working Papers No. 7, November.
44.
Maluccio, J.A. and Flores, R. (2004) Impact Evaluation of a Conditional Cash Transfer Programme: The Nicaraguan Red de Proteccion Social, FCND Discussion Paper 184, Food Consumption and Nutrition Division, International Food Policy Research Institute, July.
45.
Molyneux, M. (2006) `Mothers at the Service of the New Poverty Agenda: Progresa/ Oprtunidades, Mexico's Conditional Transfer Programme', Social Policy and Administration40(4): 425-49.
46.
ODI (2005) `Red de Protección Social: Nicaragua', Inter-Regional Inequality Facility, Policy Brief3, Overseas Development Institute (ODI).
47.
Oxfam (2000) `Growth with Equity is Good for the Poor', Oxfam Policy Paper.
48.
Parker, S. and Skoufias, E. (2000) The Impact of Progresa on Work, Leisure, and Time Allocation, Final Report, International Food Policy Research Institute.
49.
PovertyNet (2005) `World Bank Should Refocus on Promoting Growth as Means to Cut Poverty: Watchdog' , Press Release, Friday, 20 May.
50.
Rawlings, L.B. (2004) `A New Approach to Social Assistance: Latin America's Experience with Conditional Cash Transfer Programs', World Bank Social Safety Nets Primer Notes 15.
51.
Schultz, P. (2001) `School Subsidies for the Poor: Evaluating the Mexican Progresa Poverty Program', Center Discussion Paper No. 834, Economic Growth Center, Yale University, August.
52.
Sedesol (2003) `Oportunidades una de las Mejores Propuestas para Combatir las Desigualdades Sociales en América Latina, Coinciden Representantes de Costa Rica y Nicaragua' [Oportunidades one of the Best Proposals to Combat Social Inequalities in Latin America Agree Representatives from Nicaragua and Costa Rica]. Comunicado de Prensa [Press Release], Coordinación. Nacional del Programa de Desarrollo Humano Oportunidades Dirección de Información y Difusión, México, DF, 28 July.
53.
Sedesol (2004a) `Oportunidades Apoya a Más de 4 Millones de Madres de Familia que Viven en Extrema Pobreza' [Oportunidades Helps More than 4 Million Mothers of Families that Live in Extreme Poverty], Comunicado de Prensa [Press Release], Coordinación Nacional del Programa de Desarrollo Humano Oportunidades, Dirección General Adjunta de Comunicación y Difusión. México, DF, 9 May.
54.
Sedesol (2004b) `Oportunidades Presentó los Resultados de su Evaluación Externa' [Oportunidades Presented the Results of their External Evaluation], Comunicado de Prensa [Press Release], Coordinación Nacional del Programa de Desarrollo Humano Oportunidades Dirección de Información y Difusión, México, DF, 26 April.
55.
Sedesol (2005a) `Oportunidades es un Ejemplo Paradigmático y Efectivo: BID' [Oportunidades is a Paradigmatic and Effective Example say BID], Comunicado de Prensa [Press Release], Coordinación Nacional del Programa de Desarrollo Humano Oportunidades Dirección de Información y Difusión, México, DF, 28 July.
56.
Sedesol (2005b) `Oportunidades Realiza Acciones Afirmativas a Favor de las Mujeres, Destaca el Coordinador Nacional del Programa' [Oportunidades Undertakes Affirmative Action that Favours Women notes the Coordinator of the National Programme], Comunicado de Prensa [Press Release], Coordinación Nacional del Programa de Desarrollo Humano Oportunidades Dirección de Información y Difusión, México, DF, 4 July.
57.
Sen, A. (1987) `Gender and Co-operative Conflicts', World Institute for Development Economics Research, Working Paper 18, Helsinki.
58.
Sen, A. (1990) `Gender and Cooperative Conflicts', in I. Tinker (ed) Persistent Inequalities: Women and World Development (pp. 123-149). New York: Oxford University Press.
59.
Skoufias, E., Davis, B. and De la Vega, S. (2001) `Targeting the Poor in Mexico: An Evaluation of the Selection of Households into Progresa', World Development29(10): 1769-84.
60.
Sparr, P. (ed.) (1994) Mortgaging Women's Lives: Feminist Critiques of Structural Adjustment. London: Zed Press.
61.
Tendler, J. (2004) `Why Social Policy is Condemned to a Residual Category of Safety Nets and What To Do About It', in T. Mkandawire (ed.) Social Policy in a Development Context (pp. 119-42). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan/ UNRISD.
62.
Vermehren, A. (2002) `Nicaragua Social Investment Fund Conditional Cash Transfers: A New Avenue for Social Funds?', Social Funds Innovation Update2: 2.
63.
Weisbrot, M., Baker, D., Naiman, R. and Neta, G. (2000) `Growth May be Good for the Poor but are IMF and World Bank Policies Good for Growth?', Centre for Economic Policy Research, Draft, August.
64.
Wodon, Q., De la Briere, B., Siaens, C. and Yitzhaki, S. (2003) `Mexico's Progresa: Innovative Targeting, Gender Focus and Impact on Social Welfare', En Breve17, The World Bank, January.
65.
World Bank Gender and Development Group (2003 ) Gender Equality and the Millennium Development Goals, World Bank, April.
