Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-v2bm5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-15T10:08:50.703Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
This chapter is part of a book that is no longer available to purchase from Cambridge Core

Chapter 10 - Gender and the Collective

By
Bina Agarwal
Edited by
Jude Browne
Jude Browne
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge
Get access

Summary

Gender inequality is perhaps the deepest form of persisting inequality we face today, especially as it intersects with inequalities of class, caste and race. It adversely affects not just a country’s economy but also its social and political fabric. Indeed, gender inequality is embedded in all our major institutions – the family, the market, the community and the State. Not surprisingly, a gender lens gives us insights into the world we live in which are rarely obtainable otherwise. Many aspects of gender inequality are visible, but many others remain hidden within gendered social norms and biased perceptions, as several other authors of this volume have also noted (for example, Nancy Fraser, Judith Butler, Jack Halberstam and Sara Ahmed). These norms and perceptions, in turn, lead to unequal outcomes for women in multiple arenas.

Type
Chapter
Information
Why Gender? , pp. 219 - 244
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Agarwal, B. 1994. A Field of One’s Own: Gender and Land Rights in South Asia. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Agarwal, B. 2000. Conceptualising Environmental Collective Action: Why Gender Matters. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 24(3), 283–310.Google Scholar
Agarwal, B. 2001. Participatory Exclusions, Community Forestry and Gender: An Analysis for South Asia and a Conceptual Framework. World Development, 29(10), 1623–48.Google Scholar
Agarwal, B. 2010. Gender and Green Governance: The Political Economy of Women’s Presence Within and Beyond Community Forestry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Agarwal, B. 2016. Gender Challenges: Environmental Change and Collective Action, vol. 3. Delhi and Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Agarwal, B. 2018. Can Group Farms Outperform Individual Family Farms? Empirical Insights from India. World Development, 108: 57–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agarwal, B. 2019a. How Ideas Shape and Are Shaped by Institutions and Organisational Innovations: The Case of Group Farming in India. ESID working paper No 116, University of Manchester.Google Scholar
Agarwal, B. 2019b. Does Group Farming Empower Rural Women? Lessons from India’s Experiments. Journal of Peasant Studies, 47(4), 841–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2019.1628020.Google Scholar
Agarwal, B. and Dorin, B. 2018. Group Farming in France: Why Do Some Regions Have More Cooperative Ventures than Others? Environment and Planning A. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X18802311.Google Scholar
Agarwal, A and Gibson, C. 2001. Communities and the Environment. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
Bergqvist, C. 2004. On the Road to Equal Democracy? Women and Parliamentary Representation in the NORDIC countries. In Tremblay, M., ed., Women and Parliamentary Representation Around the World. Montreal: Remue-Menge.Google Scholar
Bracho, C. 1998. Hilo en una tela de arania. In La voluntad del ambar. Mexico: Ediciones Era, p. 16. A recorded translation is available at: www.poetrytranslation.org/poems/thread-in-a-spiders-web#audioBox.Google Scholar
Bratton, K. A. 2005. Critical Mass Theory Revisited: The Behaviour and Success of Token Women in State Legislatures. Politics & Gender, 1(1), 97–125.Google Scholar
Bratton, Kathleen and Ray, Leonard. 2002. Descriptive Representation, Policy Outcomes, and Municipal Day-Care Coverage in Norway. American Journal of Political Science, 46(2), 428–37.Google Scholar
Chattopadhyay, R. and Duflo, E. 2004. Women as Policy Makers: Evidence from an India-Wide Randomized Policy Experiment. Econometrica, 72(5), 1409–43.Google Scholar
Custers, P. 1987. Women in the Tebhaga Uprising: Rural Poor Women and Revolutionary Leadership: 1946–47. Calcutta: Naya Prokash.Google Scholar
Dahlerup, D. 1988. From a Small to a Large Majority: Women in Scandinavian Politics. Scandinavian Political Studies, 11(4), 275–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckel, C. 2008. Gender Differences (Experimental Evidence). In Durlauf, S. and Blume, L., eds., The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 2nd ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 3, pp. 578–81.Google Scholar
FAO. 2014. The State of Food and Agriculture Report: Innovation in Family Farming. Rome: UN FAO.Google Scholar
Fraser, N. 1990. Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy. Social Text, 25/26, 56–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghose, A. K., ed. 1983. Agrarian Reform in Contemporary Developing Countries. London and Canberra: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
GoI. 2011–12. Energy Sources of Indian Households for Cooking and Lighting. National Sample Survey 20011–12. National Sample Survey Organisation, Report 567. Delhi: Dept. of Statistics, Government of India.Google Scholar
GoN. 2004. Nepal Living Standards Survey 2003–04, Statistical Report. Kathmandu: CBS, Government of Nepal.Google Scholar
Jain, S. 1984. Women and People’s Ecological Movement: A Case Study of Women’s Role in the Chipko Movement in Uttar Pradesh. Economic and Political Weekly, 19(41), 1788–94.Google Scholar
Kanter, R. M. 1977. Some Effects of Proportions on Group Life: Skewed Sex Ratios and Responses to Token Women.The American Journal of Sociology, 82(5), 965–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kanter, R. M. 1989. The New Managerial Work. Harvard Business Review, Nov/Dec. https://hbr.org/1989/11/the-new-managerial-work.Google Scholar
Lalita, K. et al. 1989. We Were Making History: Life Stories of Women in the Telangana People’s Struggle. Delhi: Kali for Women.Google Scholar
Lovenduski, J. 1997. Gender Politics: A Breakthrough for Women?Parliamentary Affairs, 50, 708–19.Google Scholar
Lukacs, G. 1971. History and Class Consciousness: Studies in Marxist Dialectics. Rodney Livingstone, trans. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Macfarlane, R. 2016. The Secrets of the Wood Wide Web. The New Yorker, August 7.Google Scholar
Mansbridge, J. 1990. Feminism and Democracy. American Prospect, 1 (Spring).Google Scholar
Nair, A. and Shah, P. 2007. Self-Help Works. Times of India, 27 December.Google Scholar
NCAER. 2001–02. Evaluation Survey of the National Programme on Improved Chulha. New Delhi: National Council of Applied Economic Research.Google Scholar
NCAER 2008. Impact and Sustainability of SHG Bank Linkage Programme. New Delhi: National Council of Applied Economic Research.Google Scholar
Sabates-Wheeler, R. 2002. Farm Strategy, Self-Selection and Productivity: Can Small Farming Groups Offer Production Benefits in Post-Socialist Romania? World Development, 30(10), 1737–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabates-Wheeler, R. and Childress, M. D. 2004. Asset-Pooling in Uncertain Times: Implications of Small-Group Farming for Agricultural Restructuring in the Kyrgyz Republic. IDS Working Paper No. 239. Institute of Development Studies at Sussex.Google Scholar
Scott, J. 1985. Weapons of the Weak. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Sell, J. 1997. Gender, Strategies and Contributions to Public Goods. Social Psychology Quarterly, 60(3), 252–65.Google Scholar
Stewart, F. 1996. Groups for Good or Ill. Oxford Development Studies, 24(1), 9–25.Google Scholar
Tanka, A. 2012. Banking on Self-Help Groups. Delhi: Sage.Google Scholar
Thomas, S. 1994. How Women Legislate. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Westerman, O., Ashby, J. and Pretty, J. 2005. Gender and Social Capital: The Importance of Gender Differences for the Maturity and Effectiveness of Natural Resource Management Groups. World Development, 33(11), 1783–99.Google Scholar
Young, I. M. 1997. Intersecting Voices: Dilemmas of Gender, Political Philosophy, and Policy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×