When development planners began looking closely at poverty in the 1970s, they discovered something troubling. Economic growth policies were meant to lift entire nations, but women were being left behind. Agricultural modernization programs trained men on new technologies. Educational opportunities expanded for boys more than girls. Industrial jobs went to male workers. Meanwhile, women’s contributions to farming, trade, and household economies remained invisible in official statistics. This disconnect sparked a movement that would reshape how the world approached development.
Table of Contents
From welfare recipients to economic actors
The Women in Development approach emerged in the early 1970s as a direct response to evidence that development processes had overlooked women’s economic contributions, particularly in agrarian societies. Danish economist Ester Boserup’s 1970 book provided the foundational analysis, demonstrating that women performed the majority of subsistence agriculture in traditional economies but faced displacement during modernization. Her research revealed that in some regions, women did as much as 80 percent of agricultural work, yet new technologies and cash crop systems favored male labor.
This research exposed what became known as a gender-specific development gap. In India, for example, women constituted 48.2 percent of the population but only 13 percent of economic activity according to the 1971 census. Most female workers were confined to the unorganized sector in agriculture, handicrafts, and informal trade.
The WID approach represented a fundamental shift in thinking. Rather than viewing women primarily as beneficiaries of welfare programs, it positioned them as potential contributors to economic development. The core premise was straightforward: increasing women’s productivity and earnings would benefit not just individual women, but entire communities and economies. Development planners began integrating women into projects by providing resources, skills training, and opportunities for economic participation, particularly in rural and low-income settings.
The equity versus efficiency debate
WID advocates initially emphasized equity, arguing that women deserved equal access to development opportunities as a matter of justice. However, the approach evolved to stress economic efficiency. The Harvard Analytical Framework, developed in collaboration between Harvard University and USAID in the early 1980s, exemplified this shift. Its starting point was the assumption that allocating development resources to women as well as men made economic sense and would make development more efficient.
This efficiency argument proved strategically valuable. By demonstrating that excluding women wasted human resources and limited economic growth, WID advocates made women’s issues relevant to mainstream development priorities. The United Nations Development Program established a special Division for Women in Development to ensure women participated in UNDP projects. Yet this focus on economic contribution also drew criticism for downplaying women’s rights and equity concerns in favor of productivity metrics.
Global recognition through UN leadership
The United Nations Decade for Women, spanning 1976 to 1985, provided critical momentum for the WID approach. The decade began with the first World Conference on Women in Mexico City in 1975, which brought together over 2,000 delegates from 125 countries. This conference produced the Declaration of Mexico on the Equality of Women and Their Contribution to Development and Peace, along with a World Plan of Action that outlined specific targets for governments over the next ten years.
Three major conferences shaped the decade’s trajectory. The Mexico City conference in 1975 focused on consciousness-raising about women’s status. The Copenhagen conference in 1980 created networks and reflected on progress, identifying persistent barriers such as lack of political will, insufficient women in decision-making positions, and inadequate childcare and credit facilities. The Nairobi conference in 1985 celebrated accomplishments while establishing forward-looking strategies for continued advancement.
Institutional transformations
The UN Decade for Women brought tangible policy changes that established the legitimacy of women’s development issues. Governments established women’s departments and appointed cabinet ministers for women’s affairs to track progress annually. The decade also saw the creation of lasting institutions including the United Nations Development Fund for Women and the International Research and Training Institute for the Advancement of Women.
Perhaps most significantly, the decade drew attention to issues previously ignored in national planning. Topics like pay equity, violence against women, property rights, and unpaid care work moved from the margins to mainstream policy discussions. Prior to this focus, women’s labor often went invisible in economic reports because household and subsistence work remained unpaid and uncounted. By 1979, the UN General Assembly adopted the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, which 170 countries had ratified by 1985.
Confronting the feminization of poverty
By the late 1970s, researchers identified an alarming pattern: poverty was becoming increasingly concentrated among women and their children. Sociologist Diana Pearce coined the term “feminization of poverty” in 1978 after observing that despite overall economic growth in the United States, women were falling into poverty at higher rates than men. This phenomenon extended globally, revealing that women faced disproportionate economic vulnerability across diverse contexts.
Several factors drove this trend. Women’s interrupted careers for caregiving reduced lifetime earnings and pension accumulation. Wage discrimination meant women earned less than men for comparable work. Single mothers, who headed increasing numbers of households, faced particular hardship juggling employment with family responsibilities. The concept highlighted how gender-based disparities in education, employment access, and economic resources created cycles of disadvantage that trapped women in poverty.
WID’s response to economic inequality
The feminization of poverty became a central concern for WID advocates. The approach shifted toward anti-poverty strategies that focused on reducing income inequality between women and men rather than abstract discussions of subordination. This meant directing resources toward income-generating projects, microfinance initiatives, and vocational training programs specifically designed for women in poverty.
However, research revealed mixed results. While some women gained economic opportunities, structural barriers persisted. Women still performed approximately three times more unpaid care work than men globally, restricting their ability to pursue education and formal employment. Credit and capital remained difficult for women to access. A 1985 OECD report found many WID projects too welfare-oriented, calling for greater focus on economically relevant income-generating activities rather than home economics approaches.
Limitations and the path forward
By the mid-1980s, critiques of the WID approach had accumulated. The framework focused almost exclusively on women’s productive economic roles while neglecting reproductive labor, household power dynamics, and welfare needs. It treated women as a homogeneous group, overlooking differences based on class, race, ethnicity, and location. Most fundamentally, WID did not address root causes of gender inequality embedded in social structures and power relations.
These limitations led to the emergence of the Gender and Development approach in the 1980s, which shifted focus from women in isolation to gender relations and power dynamics between women and men. Yet WID’s legacy remained significant. It established that women’s economic participation mattered for development outcomes. It created institutional mechanisms and expertise that persisted. It brought women’s voices into international development conversations that had previously excluded them.
The approach demonstrated that making women visible in development planning required deliberate effort and institutional support. It showed that economic data collection needed to capture unpaid work and informal sector activities where women predominated. These insights continue shaping development policy today, even as frameworks have evolved to address WID’s shortcomings.
What do you think? How can development approaches balance economic efficiency goals with addressing deeper structural inequalities? What lessons from the WID experience remain relevant for contemporary efforts to achieve gender equality in development?
Leave a Reply