Critiques of gender mainstreaming (GM) as the officially agreed strategy to promote gender equity in health internationally have reached a critical mass. There has been a notable lack of dialogue between gender advocates in the global north and south, from policy and practice, governments and non-governmental organisations (NGOs). This paper contributes to the debate on the shape of future action for gender equity in health, by uniquely bringing together the voices of disparate actors, first heard in a series of four seminars held during 2008 and 2009, involving almost 200 participants from 15 different country contexts. The series used (Feminist) Participatory Action Research (FPAR) methodology to create a productive dialogue on the developing theory around GM and the at times disconnected empirical experience of policy and practice. We analyse the debates and experiences shared at the seminar series using concrete, context specific examples from research, advocacy, policy and programme development perspectives, as presented by participants from southern and northern settings, including Kenya, Mozambique, India, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Canada and Australia. Focussing on key discussions around sexualities and (dis)ability and their interactions with gender, we explore issues around intersectionality across the five key themes for research and action identified by participants: (1) Addressing the disconnect between gender mainstreaming praxis and contemporary feminist theory; (2) Developing appropriate analysis methodologies; (3) Developing a coherent theory of change; (4) Seeking resolution to the dilemmas and uncertainties around the 'place' of men and boys in GM as a feminist project; and (5) Developing a politics of intersectionality. We conclude that there needs to be a coherent and inclusive strategic direction to improve policy and practice for promoting gender equity in health which requires the full and equal participation of practitioners and policy makers working alongside their academic partners.
The International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie) promotes evidence-informed equitable, inclusive and sustainable development. We support the generation and effective use of highquality evidence to inform decision-making and improve the lives of people living in poverty in low-and middle-income countries. We provide guidance and support to produce, synthesise and quality-assure evidence of what works, for whom, how, why and at what cost. 3ie working papers These papers cover a range of content. They may focus on current issues, debates and enduring challenges facing development policymakers, programme managers, practitioners, and the impact evaluation and systematic review communities. Policy-relevant papers in this series synthesise or draw on relevant findings from mixed-method impact evaluations and systematic reviews funded by 3ie, as well as other rigorous evidence, to offer new analyses, findings, insights and recommendations. Papers focusing on methods and technical guides also draw on similar sources to help advance understanding, design, and use of rigorous and appropriate evaluations and reviews. 3ie also uses this series to publish lessons learnt from 3ie grant-making. About this working paper This paper, Transparency and accountability in the extractives sector: a synthesis of what works and what does not, uses evidence from seven rigorous impact evaluations of information disclosure and deliberation interventions in the extractives sector. It discusses the impact of these interventions on increasing citizens' knowledge, awareness, trust, and demand for accountability and civic action, as well as their implications for public service delivery, and environmental and development outcomes.
The International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie) is an international grant-making NGO promoting evidence-informed development policies and programmes. We are the global leader in funding and producing high-quality evidence of what works, how, why and at what cost. We believe that better and policy-relevant evidence will make development more effective and improve people's lives. 3ie evidence gap map reports 3ie evidence gap maps are thematic collections of information about impact evaluations or systematic reviews that measure the effects of international development policies and programmes. The maps provide a visual display of completed and ongoing systematic reviews and impact evaluations in a sector or sub-sector, structured around a framework of interventions and outcomes.The evidence gap map reports provide all the supporting documentation for the maps, including the background information for the theme of the map, the methods and results, protocols, and the analysis of results. About this evidence gap map reportThis report provides the supporting documentation for the 3ie evidence gap map on financial risk in agricultural production for smallholder farmers in developing countries, developed as part of a project funded by UK aid through Department for International Development. All of the content of this report is the sole responsibility of the authors and does not represent the opinions of 3ie, its donors or its Board of Commissioners. Any errors and omissions are also the sole responsibility of the authors. Any comments or queries should be directed to the corresponding author Bidisha Barooah at bbarooah@3ieimpact.org. AcknowledgementsWe are thankful to the UK Department for International Development for supporting this study through 3ie's agricultural risk window. We are also thankful to the numerous interviewees and stakeholders to whom we spoke and from whom we took advice. Arundhati Srinivasan and Megha Nath provided excellent research assistance. Last but not least, we thank Ombeline de Bock, Jesse D'Anjou and Tatiana Goetghebuer from ADE Consulting, who contributed to the sections on theory of change.ii SummaryRisks in agricultural production pose a major threat to the economic well-being and development of households in rural areas of developing countries. Indeed, 98 per cent of the world's food-insecure people live in developing countries, and four in five of them are involved in small-scale food production (Food and Agriculture Organisation et al. 2015). A key reason for this is the inability of the smallholder farmer to mitigate, diversify and transfer risks.To deal with shocks and risks that lead to crop and livestock loss, many organisations around the world have proposed, piloted and implemented financial agricultural risk mitigation (FARM) programmes. In this paper, we identify such programmes and strategies and assess the evidence on their effectiveness. Despite the increasing popularity of these programmes, it is unclear whether FARM instruments improve farmer welfare, provide rea...
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.