全球仍有8亿多学生不能返校。图片： © Shutterstock
From education to entrepreneurship, global recovery efforts need to pay particular attention to the needs of women and girls.
Policymakers haven’t always considered how economic shocks impact women and men differently — or how governments should respond. When the 2008 recession hit, few asked how stimulus measures would affect women compared with men.
That approach won’t work for the COVID-19 crisis. As leaders face the enormous challenge of rebuilding post-pandemic economies, women must be at the center of their strategies.
In many countries, women have been hit hardest by COVID-19 lockdowns. In Latin America, for example, they were 50% more likely than men to lose a job in the pandemic’s first months.
Women tend to be heavily employed in vulnerable sectors such as retail, restaurants and hospitality. They also often work in informal jobs, from selling wares on the streets to sewing at home, that lack protections such as paid sick leave or unemployment insurance. When those jobs disappeared, women had no social safety net to fall back on.
Moreover, women can have an outsized impact on economic recovery, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. World Bank research, for instance, shows Niger’s per capita GDP could be more than 25% larger if gender inequality were reduced.
What can governments do? At least three broad areas deserve attention.
First, countries can accelerate the digitization of government identification systems, payment platforms and other critical services, in partnership with the private sector. Economically marginalized women are often invisible to their governments. They are less likely to have formal identification, own a mobile phone or appear in a social registry.
While over 200 countries have developed social-protection measures in response to COVID-19, many have struggled to identify and deliver aid to informal workers, meaning many women continue to be overlooked.
Advanced digital systems can help identify women in need so they can receive cash quickly and securely. Direct cash transfers targeted to women in countries such as Indonesia, Nigeria and Zambia have already offered millions of women safer access to and increased control over funds.
India’s experience highlights the benefits of getting this right. Last year, the government was able to transfer pandemic-relief payments quickly to more than 200 million women in need because it already had sex-disaggregated data and a digital infrastructure, and these women had their own bank accounts. Governments can ensure that economic opportunities are equitably shared by broadening access to the internet, increasing mobile connectivity and building digital skills.
Second, governments can remove barriers to women’s full inclusion in the economy, whether as entrepreneurs or employees. In economies with the strictest pandemic lockdowns, women-owned companies were 10 percentage points more likely to close than those owned by men. That’s not surprising: Most women-owned businesses tend to be smaller — sole proprietorships or informal microenterprises with fewer than five employees.
Closing gender gaps in entrepreneurship would help reduce poverty, create jobs, and spur growth and innovation. Governments should thus target lines of credit and other forms of finance to women-owned businesses, boost the creation of e-commerce platforms to enable female entrepreneurs to access markets, and help business incubators to overcome biases when it comes to investing in women-owned businesses.
Employees, too, require multiple forms of support. In some countries, this may mean making public transport safer for women so they can get to work without fear of harassment. Elsewhere, laws and regulations need to be reviewed to prevent discrimination against women in the workforce. And all countries would benefit from appropriate family-leave policies and quality childcare supported by the public and private sectors.
Finally, governments must commit to ensuring a strong education for girls through at least secondary school. Even before the pandemic, the world faced a learning crisis: More than half of 10-year-olds in schools across low- and middle-income countries could not read and understand a basic text.
The pandemic has made things worse. Globally, more than 800 million students remain out of school and many poor students, especially in rural areas, have no access to remote learning. In sub-Saharan Africa, as many as 45% of children have been completely disconnected during school closures.
Girls face additional challenges to remote learning. If there is only one phone per household, for example, it is likely to be used by boys rather than girls, while a heavier burden of domestic work prohibits access to instruction for many girls.
As students return to school, countries need to ensure that both girls and boys reengage with the learning process. That will require investing in hybrid schemes that mix remote and in-person learning, while focusing on foundational and socio-emotional skills that will help children catch up.
True, most of these measures will require substantial investment, at a time when rising debt poses a major concern. But the best way to pay that debt back is to get economies growing faster and to keep more families from falling into poverty.
This piece was originally published on Bloomberg Opinion.
Join the Conversation
This article says, “there are no incentives for small farmers in Madhya Pradesh to cultithvate dried legumes known as pulses, which are very high in proteins. Additionally, market prices of pulses and lentils are prohibitively high, which discourage consumption by poor families.” Why can’t small farmers produce pulses and lentils, taking advantage of the high market prices, and helping to bring those... prices down?
Read more Read lessThis article says, “there are no incentives for small farmers in Madhya Pradesh to cultithvate dried legumes known as pulses, which are very high in proteins. Additionally, market prices of pulses and lentils are prohibitively high, which discourage consumption by poor families.” Why can’t small farmers produce pulses and lentils, taking advantage of the high market prices, and helping to bring those... prices down?
Read more Read lessThank you for this insightful question. I too had raised this point during my fieldwork, and the answers I received varied from crop fragility, to weather uncertainties, low Minimum Support Price (MSP) from government-based centralized procurement, fertilizer pricing and processing costs associated with some lentils and pulses. Additionally, cultivation of pulses by small farmers owning < 1 acre land... does not provide economies of scale. Growing other crops which have assured MSPs from government procurement offer greater security to small scale farmers. All these factors appear to interact together in a complex web. It is difficult to isolate one specific cause, but if I had to, I would say government procurement and higher MSP assurance would probably offer relatively better incentives towards pulse cultivation. Thanks, Parvati
Read more Read lessThank you for this insightful question. I too had raised this point during my fieldwork, and the answers I received varied from crop fragility, to weather uncertainties, low Minimum Support Price (MSP) from government-based centralized procurement, fertilizer pricing and processing costs associated with some lentils and pulses. Additionally, cultivation of pulses by small farmers owning < 1 acre land... does not provide economies of scale. Growing other crops which have assured MSPs from government procurement offer greater security to small scale farmers. All these factors appear to interact together in a complex web. It is difficult to isolate one specific cause, but if I had to, I would say government procurement and higher MSP assurance would probably offer relatively better incentives towards pulse cultivation. Thanks, Parvati
Read more Read lessThe question of George Kent is really insightful. We forget the impacts while introducing a project. A state like MP is famous for its protein rich soybean, especially organic soybean during near past for export purpose, but unable to supplement protein in food for the people. There is need of in-depth study why the people are not taking soybean in their diets for protein supplements.
Im working on pulses production and consumption in South Asia with IWMI with special reference to Nepal. I also would have asked why if price of pulses is high in the market for consumers dont farmers grow more to generate more income? simple issue of supply and demand. But answer suggests other constraints - costs of production, risk and uncertainty, govt restrictions on market prices, no economies... of scale. Also maybe problems of marketing (transport, knowledge etc.) dr david seddon
Read more Read lessThank you for your responses to my question. They are very constructive. One point that might be worth pursuing is this. So far Parvati focused on the economic incentives to produce pulses and lentils, and perhaps other products with good protein value. What about the home gardeners who produce mainly for their own consumption, those for whom the nutritive value is more important than the monetary... value? What protein rich products would be easily produced on a small scale? Ekashi Nandi mentioned soybeans. Is there any reason why home gardeners can’t be encouraged to raise soybeans for their own consumption? Of course the answer about what protein-rich products to favor is likely to be different in different regions, depending on the physical geography of the place and also the prevailing cultural norms and practices. A second point: As I understand it, the subsidized foods distributed under the right to food program are mainly inferior quality grains, leading to excessive grain consumption and poor, monotonous diets. Arguments should be made to the government to diversify and improve the quality of the subsidized foods that are distributed. This might require increases in the Minimum Support Prices paid to farmers, but paying those increased costs might be necessary in order to improve the quality of the diets. Who could take the lead in formulating and presenting that argument? This is important because simply increasing the production of protein rich foods will not ensure that it will get to those who need them most. In the normal operation of the market system, with no subsidies, higher quality products migrate to those with more money. If you would like to continue this discussion we could switch over to email or Skype. My email address is kent@hawaii.edu My Skype ID is geokent Aloha, George
Read more Read lessThank you for generating such an interesting discussion! I agree with Ekadashi Nandi's point that there is a need for detailed examination of reasons why soya bean is not consumed, and I have a feeling that the answer involves going into people's kitchens and making them change the way they cook and eat. This is a huge expectation- for instance, think about how much people struggle to change their... diet habits to lose weight- it is a tremendous effort, does not work for everyone, and only few people are able to convert this into a sustainable lifestyle. So, if we are expecting people from rural areas to start including soya bean in their diet, we will have to find ways to motivate them to make this change, start eating something they are not used to, and convince them of the health benefits. It does not appear that health is the first priority among households with limited financial stability. That makes this undertaking quite daunting. To Dr. David Sedon's points, I completely agree with you- the consumption basket and choice set of food items is not simply determined by market costs and supply-demand dynamics. It is much more nuanced than meets the eye, and we need intensive behavior change communication, combined with other enablers (mentioned in your response) in order to overcome this chronic deficit. I find George Kent's questions particularly insightful- How do we make subsistence farmers grow protein-rich crops for home-consumption, and, who should take the lead on advocating for higher MSPs for pulses? I think, for the first question, the answer lies in behavior change interventions that create awareness about benefits of protein consumption. Of course, this is easier said than done, but could be the catalyst needed to set things in motion. The second question is a little trickier- and would need multi-sectoral collaboration. Currently, we import pulses from Canada and the US. How do we change that? Who bears the cost of providing good seeds, fertilizers, agriculture extension, support, assured market price and crop insurance against pestilence, which is the most common vice of pulses? I believe the first step would be to make policy makers realize the magnitude of the problem, and how endemic, chronic protein deficiency can only be overcome through self-reliance and promotion of home-grown pulses. Thank you once again for your invaluable inputs. Please feel free to email me with more comments/questions at p.singh@utexas.edu.
Read more Read lessGreetings all – I appreciate the interest all of you are showing in this discussion. Let’s continue on! To review, Parvati’s article on protein deficiencies in India mentioned that market prices of pulses and lentils are prohibitively high, discouraging consumption by poor families. I responded by asking why small farmers can’t produce these items, taking advantage of the higher market prices. Parvati’s... reply, basically, that it was not economically feasible to raise these products on a small scale. Ekdadi Nandi then mentioned protein-rich soybeans, and said there was a need to study why people don’t include soybeans in their diets. It is important to notice the change in perspective here. We had been talking about the economic incentives for farmers, but then we switched to talking about the nutritive value for consumers. Broadly speaking, we might say farming is for income, while most household food production is mainly for the nutritive value of the food, not its value as a commodity. David Seddon’s comment was mainly on the commercial value, not the nutritive value. On February 24 Parvati came back to the nutritive value, asking why soybeans are not consumed. That is a good question, but I am troubled by the thought that there is a need to MAKE people change what they cook and eat. Instead, let’s talk about helping people understand why a particular change in their diet would be good for them and their children People need to make their own well-informed choices. Here I am reminded of the way some ministers in India want to ban eggs from children’s Mid Day Meals because THEY think children should not eat animal products. I am glad to see that Parvati does come around to saying there is a need to motivate people to make the change, partly by convincing them of the health benefits. This is not easy, but it is not impossible. Whether we focus on soybeans, lentils, or other protein-rich plants, a lot could be done with demonstration projects, showing how they could be raised in home gardens and how they could be prepared. This is an approach that I think of as “gardening with friends,” an idea I discuss in an essay available at http://www2.hawaii.edu/~kent/GardeningwithFriends.docx India’s people could benefit from state and national systems for facilitating household food production, providing social as well as technical support. If middle class people began to raise protein-rich foods in their gardens, and talked about it, poorer people might soon follow, especially if they had support from friends. Aloha, George
Read more Read lessThis report on pulses might be of interest: http://www.fao.org/3/a-bq757e.pdf Aloha, George
The question of George Kent is really insightful. We forget the impacts while introducing a project. A state like MP is famous for its protein rich soybean, especially organic soybean during near past for export purpose, but unable to supplement protein in food for the people. There is need of in-depth study why the people are not taking soybean in their diets for protein supplements.
Im working on pulses production and consumption in South Asia with IWMI with special reference to Nepal. I also would have asked why if price of pulses is high in the market for consumers dont farmers grow more to generate more income? simple issue of supply and demand. But answer suggests other constraints - costs of production, risk and uncertainty, govt restrictions on market prices, no economies... of scale. Also maybe problems of marketing (transport, knowledge etc.) dr david seddon
Read more Read lessThank you for your responses to my question. They are very constructive. One point that might be worth pursuing is this. So far Parvati focused on the economic incentives to produce pulses and lentils, and perhaps other products with good protein value. What about the home gardeners who produce mainly for their own consumption, those for whom the nutritive value is more important than the monetary... value? What protein rich products would be easily produced on a small scale? Ekashi Nandi mentioned soybeans. Is there any reason why home gardeners can’t be encouraged to raise soybeans for their own consumption? Of course the answer about what protein-rich products to favor is likely to be different in different regions, depending on the physical geography of the place and also the prevailing cultural norms and practices. A second point: As I understand it, the subsidized foods distributed under the right to food program are mainly inferior quality grains, leading to excessive grain consumption and poor, monotonous diets. Arguments should be made to the government to diversify and improve the quality of the subsidized foods that are distributed. This might require increases in the Minimum Support Prices paid to farmers, but paying those increased costs might be necessary in order to improve the quality of the diets. Who could take the lead in formulating and presenting that argument? This is important because simply increasing the production of protein rich foods will not ensure that it will get to those who need them most. In the normal operation of the market system, with no subsidies, higher quality products migrate to those with more money. If you would like to continue this discussion we could switch over to email or Skype. My email address is kent@hawaii.edu My Skype ID is geokent Aloha, George
Read more Read lessThank you for generating such an interesting discussion! I agree with Ekadashi Nandi's point that there is a need for detailed examination of reasons why soya bean is not consumed, and I have a feeling that the answer involves going into people's kitchens and making them change the way they cook and eat. This is a huge expectation- for instance, think about how much people struggle to change their... diet habits to lose weight- it is a tremendous effort, does not work for everyone, and only few people are able to convert this into a sustainable lifestyle. So, if we are expecting people from rural areas to start including soya bean in their diet, we will have to find ways to motivate them to make this change, start eating something they are not used to, and convince them of the health benefits. It does not appear that health is the first priority among households with limited financial stability. That makes this undertaking quite daunting. To Dr. David Sedon's points, I completely agree with you- the consumption basket and choice set of food items is not simply determined by market costs and supply-demand dynamics. It is much more nuanced than meets the eye, and we need intensive behavior change communication, combined with other enablers (mentioned in your response) in order to overcome this chronic deficit. I find George Kent's questions particularly insightful- How do we make subsistence farmers grow protein-rich crops for home-consumption, and, who should take the lead on advocating for higher MSPs for pulses? I think, for the first question, the answer lies in behavior change interventions that create awareness about benefits of protein consumption. Of course, this is easier said than done, but could be the catalyst needed to set things in motion. The second question is a little trickier- and would need multi-sectoral collaboration. Currently, we import pulses from Canada and the US. How do we change that? Who bears the cost of providing good seeds, fertilizers, agriculture extension, support, assured market price and crop insurance against pestilence, which is the most common vice of pulses? I believe the first step would be to make policy makers realize the magnitude of the problem, and how endemic, chronic protein deficiency can only be overcome through self-reliance and promotion of home-grown pulses. Thank you once again for your invaluable inputs. Please feel free to email me with more comments/questions at p.singh@utexas.edu.
Read more Read lessGreetings all – I appreciate the interest all of you are showing in this discussion. Let’s continue on! To review, Parvati’s article on protein deficiencies in India mentioned that market prices of pulses and lentils are prohibitively high, discouraging consumption by poor families. I responded by asking why small farmers can’t produce these items, taking advantage of the higher market prices. Parvati’s... reply, basically, that it was not economically feasible to raise these products on a small scale. Ekdadi Nandi then mentioned protein-rich soybeans, and said there was a need to study why people don’t include soybeans in their diets. It is important to notice the change in perspective here. We had been talking about the economic incentives for farmers, but then we switched to talking about the nutritive value for consumers. Broadly speaking, we might say farming is for income, while most household food production is mainly for the nutritive value of the food, not its value as a commodity. David Seddon’s comment was mainly on the commercial value, not the nutritive value. On February 24 Parvati came back to the nutritive value, asking why soybeans are not consumed. That is a good question, but I am troubled by the thought that there is a need to MAKE people change what they cook and eat. Instead, let’s talk about helping people understand why a particular change in their diet would be good for them and their children People need to make their own well-informed choices. Here I am reminded of the way some ministers in India want to ban eggs from children’s Mid Day Meals because THEY think children should not eat animal products. I am glad to see that Parvati does come around to saying there is a need to motivate people to make the change, partly by convincing them of the health benefits. This is not easy, but it is not impossible. Whether we focus on soybeans, lentils, or other protein-rich plants, a lot could be done with demonstration projects, showing how they could be raised in home gardens and how they could be prepared. This is an approach that I think of as “gardening with friends,” an idea I discuss in an essay available at http://www2.hawaii.edu/~kent/GardeningwithFriends.docx India’s people could benefit from state and national systems for facilitating household food production, providing social as well as technical support. If middle class people began to raise protein-rich foods in their gardens, and talked about it, poorer people might soon follow, especially if they had support from friends. Aloha, George
Read more Read lessThis report on pulses might be of interest: http://www.fao.org/3/a-bq757e.pdf Aloha, George