Conference Agenda

In this paper we follow a Classical political economy approach, basing the identification of social classes on the functional distribution of income. We then distinguish a 'working class', which earns only labour income; a 'middle class', which earns mixed incomes from self-employment and/or both capital and labour; a 'capitalist or rentier class', which earns only capital income; and those who are 'at risk of poverty or dependent on welfare', who have no autonomous source of income other than transfers from other family members and/or the State.

A gender analysis makes it necessary to go beyond household-level classifications and look at individuals. However, in most households at least some incomes are received collectively (and/or information on some incomes is only known at the household level). We therefore need to individualise collective incomes (or collectively declared incomes) on the basis of some distribution rule that is usually unobservable. To try to address this challenge, we consider four hypothetical scenarios: two extremes, a 'winner takes all' scenario, in which all pooled resources are captured by the household member with the highest income, and a 'full sharing' scenario, in which all adult household members share equally all household resources, including personal incomes, regardless of individual entitlements; and two intermediate scenarios, in which each individual retains his or her personal income and receives a share of the collective income calculated as the same share for all adult household members (in an 'equal sharing' scenario), or a share proportional to their individual income (in a 'proportional sharing' scenario).

Using cross-sectional data from the European Survey on Income and Living Conditions before the COVID-related crisis (i.e. from 2008 to 2019), we consider the class structure and associated income differences in Europe over the medium term.

By calculating different indicators of inequality, such as the Gini index and generalised entropy indicators, we observe that different assumptions on sharing rules lead to different estimates of income inequality both overall and between classes and genders.

The linkage between gender inequality and poverty has been a concern within the global development agenda for decades but action has been limited. Gender-insensitive measurement of poverty at the household level is part of the problem, limiting the evidence of gendered poverty needed to inform priorities and influence action.

Assessing poverty at the household level limits disaggregation and intersectional analysis. It ignores differences between individuals inside households, underestimating global inequality by around one-third, overestimating the extent to which improvements in GDP translate into poverty reduction (Kanbur 2010, 2016), and hiding unequal access to resources between men and women (Chant 1997, 2006). Further, household-level measurement of poverty ignores gender in what is assessed (Chant 2006, 2007, 2010), limiting understanding of differences in women’s and men’s experiences of poverty and in their resources to respond to it (Bessell 2014, Cozzarelli & Markham 2014). Measurement that so fails to assess its intended target cannot be considered fit for purpose (Crawford 2023).

Since at least 1995, improving measurement has been identified as key to understanding and addressing linkages between gender inequality and poverty. “Women and poverty” was the first strategic focus in the Beijing Platform for Action agreed at the UN Fourth World Conference on Women with collection of gender- and age-disaggregated data on poverty required for gender-sensitive assessment of economic performance (United Nations 1996). The World Bank has recognised the limitations of household-level measurement of poverty and the need for individual-level measurement, to answer basic questions such as how many women are poor globally and are women poorer than men (World Bank 2017), improve insight into within-household differences in access to resources (Munoz Boudet et al 2018), and improve targeting of assistance (World Bank 2018).

A robust, feasible, individual-level, gender-sensitive measure of multidimensional poverty has been developed (Wisor et al 2014), reviewed (Hunt et al 2017), audited (Caperna et al 2020) and tested through use (Fisk & Crawford 2017, Suich et al 2020, Fisk et al 2020, Meinhart et al 2022). With near universal commitment from nation states to achieve gender equality, end poverty and reduce inequalities, the next World Bank Gender Strategy (2024-2030) presents the institution and stakeholders with opportunities to accelerate all three goals.

This paper argues that addressing recognised measurement limitations by identifying a pathway and timetable for individual-level, gender-sensitive measurement of multidimensional poverty would improve accuracy of estimates, and strengthen evidence, advocacy and action on gendered poverty and inequality.

The South African government introduced the Covid-19 Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant in May 2020 in response to Covid-19 induced economic shocks. The SRD grant is the biggest and fastest rollout of a social protection cash transfer in Africa thus far, and aimed to prevent and alleviate extreme poverty for the economically vulnerable who were not already (directly) benefiting from social grants, thereby being able to absorb members of the informal economy. As a (temporary) landmark for social protection in South Africa, the SRD grant would be the first grant awarded to able-bodied, working age and unemployed adults without any requirements and for their own use. This being significant as South Africa has the highest unemployment rate globally.

Motivated by the radical expansion of emergency social protection, I investigate the experiences of the SRD grant through a case study approach which explored how people living in poverty during a global crisis navigated social and economic hardships with the use of the SRD grant. Drawing on multiple semi-structured qualitative interviews, between 2021 and 2022, with 41 individuals in a urban locations and rural areas of South Africa across multiple provinces. This paper explores inter- and intra-household utilisation of the Covid-19 Social Relief of Distress Grant. In addition to investigating how the SRD grant is used, I explore the concurrence of multiple social grants (SRD grant, Older Persons Grant and Child Support Grant) forming the basis of household incomes and how this income is shared across persons within a household and across space between different households in rural and urban areas.

Through an exploration of inter- and intra-household utilisation of the SRD grant, we come to understand the interdependence of families, households and the state. The SRD grant has introduced a life course narrative of social grants which extends beyond directly benefiting those who are informally employed in urban areas to all generations of households and families across urban and rural parts of South Africa.

This paper is based on the summative evaluation (SE) conducted in Inukjuak Village, Nunavik, Quebec, Canada. The authors analyse feminist economics methods used for the evaluation. To achieve the SE objectives outlined above, this SE employed a purposeful sampling method and incorporated a mixed methods approach to the data collection. As part of the methodological approach, the evaluation team developed both an anti-oppression and feminist approach focused on the intersectionality of various identities (gender, age, socio-economic status, indigenous status) that aimed to debunk the myth of lack of agency of women, gender diverse persons, and Indigenous Peoples with the specific focus on gender and non-colonial lens.

FDR’s approach to storytelling drew on the concept of Futures Literacy (FL) as conceptualized by UNESCO (UNESCO 2021). FDR in consultation with field partners and project participants was able to modify the storytelling methodology to better match the needs of the community in Inukjuak and to tell the story from the lens of Indigenous people there.