Bachelor Thesis
Carrying the Man’s Burden
A study on married, self-employed women’s perceptions and experiences of reproductive and productive labor in Kampala, Uganda
Authors: Elvira Skoglund &
Ida Samarikoff
Supervisor: Sofie Tornhill Examiner: Ezechiel Sentama Term: Spring 2019
Abstract
Work and its effect on women’s empowerment and gender equality has been a long, on- going debate since the middle of the 20th century – not at least in development contexts, where women have been recognized to play a crucial role. The discussion has moved from only emphasizing women’s participation in the labor market, to also stress the need to recognize and value the unpaid, domestic work that women perform every day.
Many feminist scholars have witnessed how the neglecting of housework and childcare has left women with a double burden, since men’s responsibility in the family and household has been rather stagnant. Therefore, by interviewing 17 married, self- employed women in Kampala, Uganda, this study explores women’s reasons and experiences of organizing reproductive and productive labor, and their solutions for balancing the two working domains. Many scholars draw upon norms, attitudes and traditions, when explaining the gendered division of labor. This study shall argue too that it is indeed gender stereotypical perceptions that maintain the gendered patterns of reproductive labor. However, the results also point to a material, income-related dimension of gender equality – in a context where income is often a determinant of the woman’s workload within the household.
Keywords: Reproductive and Productive Labor, Uganda, Gendered Division of Labor, Family and Work
Acknowledgment
First of all, we would like to graduate The Swedish International Development Agency, SIDA, who granted us with a stipendium and that we could conduct our Minor Field Study in Uganda. We would also like to thank our contact person in Uganda, Daniel Bwanika who help and assisted us with the interviews and accommodation. Without you, the process of finding the interviews would have been very difficult and we cannot thank you enough. We would also like to thank our supervisor in Sweden, Sofie Tornhill, for her support and guidance throughout the C-thesis writing. Josephine Nanyonjo has been a great support during our staying in Uganda – thank you for making our writing process possible, we could not have been doing this without you.
And at last, to all the interviewees – thank you so much that you wanted to participated in our study which increased our knowledge in this field and made this subject even more interesting. We are very grateful for this opportunity and this trip will forever be a big part in our hearts.
Table of content
Abstract...
Acknowledgment………...
1.Introduction………3
1.1. Objective and Research Questions………...5
1.2. Structure of the Thesis………..5
1.2.1. Analytical Framework………...6
1.2.2. Methodological Framework………....6
2. Analytical Framework………..7
2.1. Literature review……….7
2.2. Feminist Approaches on Work and Gender Equality……….9
2.3. Gender and Development………...12
3. Methodological Framework……….16
3.1. Limitations and Delimitation……….16
3.2. Background Information About the Interviews ………18
3.3. Conducting the Interviews……….19
3.4. Thematic Analysis………..20
3.5. Ethical Considerations………21
4. Findings and Analysis………..21
4.1. The Gendered Income Dependency………...22
4.2. The Economical Provider………...24
4.3. The Wife……….26
4.4. The Other Woman………..30
4.5. “If we get money, we could change”……….32
5. Conclusion………...35
6. Bibliography………38
6.1. Books, E-books and, Chapters in Books………38
6.2. Journals and Articles………..39
6.3. Other Sources……….42
1. Introduction
The gender equality policies connected to development emerged in the United Nations in the 1960s, andemphasized the importance of women’s participation in the paid labor force. This was argued to lead both to empowerment of women and boosting of the economy (Bergeron 2011). At the same time, the domestic-labor debate emerged, challenging the view of work as solely in terms of productivity, and extending its meaning to also include unpaid domestic work and care work (Rao 2018). Now, socialist feminists (Calasanti & Bailey 1991) argue that the former policies have exclusively focused on women’s productive labor (paid work), meanwhile they have been undermining and disregarding the reproductive labor (housework and childcare) that women tend to perform. This also meant neglecting the gendered division of reproductive labor, that refers to the allocation of household tasks, that has gendered patterns (Fakier & Cock 2009). That is, the normative discourse of work has been excluding the ‘invisible’ reproductive labor of women (Hilfinger Messias et al. 1997).
Therefore, rather than empowering women, these policies are argued to have resulted in a disadvantage for women, creating a double burden and the so-called crisis in social reproduction, where women were balancing two full-time jobs – reproductive and productive labor (Fakier & Cock 2009; Bergeron 2011). Moreover, the unpaid, reproductive labor of women has not been recognized for its economic contribution in processes of development, since development and work has been associated with paid labor. However, scholars argue that reproductive labor contributes to the economy indirectly, since the two types of labor are interdependent on each other - one cannot exist without the other (e.g., Ahl 2006; Floro & Meurs 2009; Bergeon 2011; Everett &
Charlton 2013; Johnstone-Louis 2017). Now, feminist scholars are criticizing the narrow understanding of work and gender equality, and the notion of work is now being modified and transformed. Now the discussion of work has transformed from only considering paid labor, to also include unpaid domestic work and care work (e.g., Ahl 2006; Floro & Meurs 2009; Bergeon 2011; Everett & Charlton 2013; Johnstone-Louis 2017; Rao 2018). However, more recently there is a postcolonial critique of the feminist debate, which argues that the ongoing debate mainly corresponds to the interests of western, ‘white’, middle-class women (Jaquette 2017).
Regarding the research problem of this study, as one can see, the debate on gender, work and development has no clear answer to its connection to gender equality
– and feminists are not united in either causes or solutions of women’s double burden.
Thus, the understanding for the gendered division of labor remains unclear. This study aims to give a more nuanced view of the connection between gender, work and gender equality. Therefore, rather than having a stagnant view of the relation between work and gender equality, this paper contains a discussion of different feminist angels in relation to the finding. Additionally, this study neither focus on one reason for the division of reproductive labor, but rather aim to grasp the complexity of the issue. That is, there is no one-dimensional connection between work and gender equality.
Further on, Magidimisha and Gordon (2015) and Guma (2015) describe how it is common in the Global South, particularly in Sub-Saharan African countries, that women are self-employed in the informal sector. This is due to several obstacles that women tend to face entering the formal market because of, for instance, the male- dominance in this domain. However, many self-employed women, particularly in developing countries, often lack possibilities for getting a higher income even when they have a business in the informal sector. That is, generally, women in developing countries tend to have few opportunities to improve their socio-economic situation (Guma 2015). Therefore, it is particularly of relevance to study self-employed women in a Sub-Saharan country, such as Uganda. Linking this to the crisis in social reproduction, argued to be most harsh in the Global South, it is relevant to investigate how self-employed women in the informal sector are affected by the crisis of social reproduction meanwhile managing an income generating strategy (Bakker & Gill 2003).
Additionally, the group performing the largest amount of time on reproductive labor in Uganda is married women (Uganda Bureau of Statistics 2013: 85), but Ugandan women now participate almost as much in the paid labor force as men (The World Bank 2019).
Therefore, in regard to the domestic-labor debate and postcolonial feminist critique of the debate on women and development, this study is based on qualitative interviews with 17, married, self-employed women in Kampala, Uganda, exploring their perceptions and experiences of reproductive and productive labor. When analyzing the women’s often unfavorable situation, carrying a double burden, Bradshaw, Chant &
Linneker’s (2019) notions of time, power, and asset-poverty are used to grasp the many dimensions of the gendered division of reproductive labor.
In conclusion, the gendered division of labor is now an internationally recognized issue on academic and political level, but the debate has to be formed in accordance with the group which policies would affect. Therefore, a deeper
understanding of the reasons behind the gendered division of labor is needed in order to further work with gender equality and labor. Married women in Uganda is a group that is stroked both by the crisis in social reproduction and the unfavorable conditions on the labor market, and this study will contribute with exploring how these conditions affect the gendered division of labor and gender equality between spouses.
1.1. Objective and Research Questions
The objective of this qualitative interview study is to understand and explain how married, self-employed women in Kampala, Uganda, perceive the gendered issue of reproductive and productive labor, and how they ‘solve’ the double burden. In addition, the study explores the gendered division of labor in relation to the feminist debate of gender, work and development, and its connection to gender equality. To do this, similarities and differences regarding work among the women are explored, and the study aims to answer three research questions:
1. How is the gendered division of reproductive labor maintained, negotiated and contested by married, self-employed women in Kampala?
2. What are the strategies to combine productive and reproductive labor in dual- earning households?
3. How does women’s productive labor contribute to gender equality?
1.2. Structure of The Thesis
The (1) Introduction of this paper have contained an overview of the debate on the gendered division of labor, as well as stating the research problem and relevance of this study, and presenting the objective and research questions. Further on, the (2) Analytical Framework starts with contextualizing the study in its broader debate - going more in debt on previous literature, and the debate of work in relation to gender and development. It also outlines different feminist approaches, and presents the theoretical terms that are used to analyze the findings of this study. The (3) Methodological Framework presents different aspect of the study, starting out by discussing the limitations and delimitations of the study, to describe background fact about the interviews to give an overview of the target group presented in the findings. This chapter also presents how the interviews was conducted, as well as how the data was
processed in order for it to be analyzed. The chapter ends with an ethical discussion of doing an interview field study. The (4) Findings and Analysis presents the different themes that describe the prominent results from the interviews. This data is presented along with the analysis, the emphasize the close relation between theory and data. This chapter also draws on to the earlier presented feminist perspectives. At last, the (5) Conclusion will give an overview of the most important results of this study, as well as outline the answers to the research questions. The paper ends with the (6) Bibliography.
1.2.1. Analytical Framework
The analytical framework of this study consists of Bradshaw, Chant & Linneker’s (2019) poverty dimensions - time, power, and asset-poverty. The authors recognize income poverty as an existing issue, but argues that there are more, crucial dimensions of poverty, and that it cannot solely be seen by the means of income. These notions grasp a wider picture of women’s deprivations connected to work, and are suitable for this study since this study considers both reproductive and productive labor.
In addition, different feminist approaches are used in the analysis to give a nuanced discussion of how gender equality is connected to gender and work. Therefore, the liberal, socialist, difference and postcolonial feminist approaches are presented in the analytical framework. As will be explained later, the liberal and socialist approaches are the most prominent approaches in the analysis, with a small addition of difference feminism. The postcolonial perspective will not be used in the analytical framework, but is presented anyhow since it is an important contributor to the contemporary, feminist debate on gender and development.
1.2.2. Methodological Framework
The data of this study was conducted in Kampala, Uganda, by interviewing 17 married, self-employed women in heterosexual relationships, living in dual-earning households.
The interviews were of semi-structured character, and the questionnaire was organized in several sections. Additionally, there was a timeline that the interviewees filled out, with the aim to get an overview of the allocation of reproductive and productive labor between the spouses. At last, the findings were coded into several themes, doing a thematic analysis.
2. Analytical framework
To contextualize the theoretical discussion of this essay, this chapter starts by (1) reviewing some already existing literature on the field of reproductive and productive labor in development contexts. Further on, (2) different feminist approaches on the issue are outlined, which are used in the analysis when discussing gender equality in relation to work. At last, the chapter (3) gives an overview of the discourse and changing debate of gender and development. The last section, 2.3., ends with explaining the terms time poverty, power poverty, and asset poverty by Bradshaw, Chant & Linneker (2019), which are used as a theoretical lens in the analysis of the findings of this research. To conclude, the findings of this study are analyzed and put in context in the already existing debate regarding women, work and development, together with the notion of time poverty, power poverty, and asset poverty, and a feminist discussion of gender equality connected to work. This chapter contains of the background information that are used to analyze the findings.
2.1. Literature Review
Research on gender, referred to as the “socially constructed sex” (Everett & Charlton 2013: 32), and the division of reproductive and productive labor are found in different geographical and cultural contexts. Several scholars states that women in heterosexual, dual-earning households do the vast majority of the housework and childcare regardless of their amount of hours spent on productive labor (e.g., Hochschild 1989; Thompson and Walker 1991; Gerstel & Gallagher 2001). A qualitative study in Nigeria was conducted to explore men's view on reproductive labor. The results of this study argue that men do less in the household due to tradition and culture, which make them take less responsibility in the household. The men that did engage in reproductive labor performed tasks such as bathing the children, cooking food and clean the dishes.
However, the reason why these men engaged in this reproductive labor was mainly to help the wife and show love and connection (Akanle, Adesina & Ogbimi 2016).
Moreover, Fakier & Cock (2009) write, in their study on women in Emnambithi, South Africa, about the crisis in social reproduction that has arisen in a situation where the women has to balance their work in the household with their income generating strategy. The authors argue how this has created a situation where the women have to work in two domains, creating a double workload (Fakier & Cock 2009). Nair (2014)
finds similar results when studying gender stereotypical behaviors. Her results show that women engaging in two domains – reproductive and productive labor – force them to prioritize and balance the role as a mother and a provider, meanwhile the men only acquire the role as an economic provider. Further on, the results show that working in two domains tend to reduce the working hours in the productive domain (Nair 2014).
Similar results are to be found in a study by Sanchez & Thomson (1997), which explores how the division of household work changes when heterosexual couples have children. The results from this study was, that the mothers in generally decreased their productive working hours while men tended to continue as they did before having children (Sanchez & Thomson 1997).
Moreover, in her study, Nair (2014) states that men tend to engage in household work that is “gender-appropriate” (Nair 2014: 68). The man is associated with financial provision for the family, which according to the author is a way of maintaining masculinity – since providing is traditionally associated with masculinity.
Due to such stagnant gender stereotypes, it is common in developing countries to hire a domestic worker who performs child care, even though the economic resources of the household are rather limited. Thus, the gendered division of labor between spouses becomes a class issue (Nair 2014).
In a quantitative study on 30 nations on the perception of fairness of the gendered division of labor between spouses, Greenstein (2009) argues that women’s dissatisfaction with the gendered division of labor is dependent on their gender ideology, which can be divided between traditional and egalitarian view. Married women with traditional gender ideology tend to compare themselves with other women that already perform similar amount of time on household tasks as themselves.
Therefore, these women perceive the gender division of reproductive labor as fair.
Meanwhile, married women with egalitarian views tend to compare themselves with their husbands and men in general. Thus, since the men most often do less in the household, these women tend to perceive that the situation as unfair (Greenstein 2009).
However, neither the term traditional nor egalitarian view are defined in the study.
Similar results are to be found in Mederer’s (1993) quantitative study on married, full- time employed women regarding the perception fairness and conflict through hierarchical regressions models. These results show how the women, regardless of their occupation, did not seem to perceived the uneven distribution of household work as an issue (Mederer 1993). Thompson and Walker (1991) writes that there are three
ideological factors that decides whether a gendered division of labor between spouses is perceived as fair or not. First, if the woman has no expectation nor wish to have an equal division of reproductive labor, the unequal distribution will most likely be perceived as fair. Second, if women who spend approximately the same amount of time on household task compare themselves to each other instead of the husband, they are also likely to find no problem with the division of labor. On the contrary, the women tend to feel dissatisfaction with her husband if she notices that he spends less time in the household than others. Third, if they can find reasons that can justify the husband’s lack of time spent of household tasks, they are most likely to perceive the division as fair.
The studies above have primarily explained the division of reproductive labor by reasons characterized by attitudes and views. However, other explanations to the phenomena have been found and will be outlined as well. Calasanti & Bailey (1991) argues, from a socialist feminist perspective, that the main factor causing the gendered division of reproductive labor is due to patriarchal and capitalist structures. Similarly, Bergeron (2011) describes the creation of women’s double burden in a historical, political development context, where she argues that the crisis in social reproduction is a consequence of poor (neoliberal) development policies. The content of her study is that policies, leading to women’s increased participation in the paid labor force, happened at the same time as institutions and states disregarded the reproductive labor – resulting in women’s double burden (Bergeron 2011). Bradshaw, Chant and Linneker (2019) focus more on different types of reasons and practical conditions that women tend to not have. These will be presented further down in this chapter.
2.2. Feminist Approaches on Work and Gender Equality
As already stated, this essay focus inter alia on relations between reproductive and productive labor and its connections to gender equality. Gender equality is not defined by the authors, but rather it is discussed through some of the most widespread feminist approaches on gender equality – liberal, socialist, difference, and postcolonial feminism. The postcolonial feminism is not used in the analysis of this study but is outlined in this paper anyway, since it is an important contribution to the debate regarding gender and development. Indeed, there exists other feminist perspectives that are a part of the debate regarding women and development. However, in the analysis, this paper focuses mostly on liberal and socialist feminism, since these are two
perspectives that have a large focus on work. The liberal feminism, starting the debate of women’s productive labor (Rathgeber 1990), and the socialist perspective, that have been discussing work in a critical way (Hartmann 1981: 386; Calasanti & Bailey 1991).
When the discussion of Women in Development (WID) emerged, which are further explained in the next chapter, it was influenced by liberal feminism (Rathgeber 1990), focusing on equal, legislative rights for women and men, and stressing the need for a recognition of women in development programs and policies (Jaquette 2017). For instance, issues such as gender equality of juridical rights, income rights, and job opportunities was stressed. That is, women and men should have “equal access to resources in our society” (Campbell & Wasco 2000: 776). The participants on the first UN Conference on women in Mexico City, in 1975, agreed on the needs for developing policies to recognize women and to create programs beneficial for women in development context (Jaquette 2017).
Emerging from Marxism, the socialist feminist approach emphasizes patriarchal, capitalistic structures as the main cause of different forms of oppression (Campbell &
Wasco 2000), which is the explanations of the gendered division of labor among women and men (Calasanti & Bailey 1991). Hartmann (1981: 386) describes the historical development from the eighteenth century of the patriarchal, capitalist oppression - where the differentiation of women and men in the formal labor market lead to lower salaries for women, which in turn gave men power even in dual-earning households (Hartmann 1981: 386). This approach argues that patriarchy is "a system of social structures and practices in which men dominate, oppress, and exploit women"
(Walby 1989: 214). Hartmann (1981: 386) Calasanti & Bailey (1991) write that the capitalist structure came to connect men with work of monetary value, that lead to work in the household being associated with ‘women’s work’. The Marxist approach, influenced by the dependency theory, argues that there exist explorative trade structures where the Global South have been historically oppressed by the Global North. This has led to the situation of today, with ‘developing’ and ‘developed’ countries (Jaquette 2017). Further on, one of the core arguments in the socialist feminist approach is that
‘attitudes’ cannot solely act as the explanations for patriarchy, but rather one has to emphasize the relationship between reproductive and productive labor and how it expresses itself in social interplays to scope the power balance. Additionally, since the socialist feminist approach emphasizes the connection between the patriarchal, capitalist structures in society, it also assumes that the outcome of the oppression against women
can take different forms in different contexts – depending on a country’s structure. That is, different socio-economic conditions, politics and ideological aspects can affect the interpersonal relations between men and women (Calasanti & Bailey 1991).
Further on, in the 1980’s, the difference feminism, also called cultural feminism, started as a critique against both the liberal and Marxist feminist approaches for promoting gender equality on ‘men’s conditions’. This approach argued that women have to fight for their rights in a gender equality discourse consisting of a system of values created by men, “that emphasized individualism, competition, and violence”
(Jaquette 2017). This system is, according to the difference feminist approach, stressed to be problematic itself, and therefore it is not the women who should adjust themselves to the system, but the system that should adapt itself in cohesion with traditionally female attributes. For example, “pacifism, cooperation, care, and solidarity” (Jaquette 2017) could replace the male norms presented above. Moreover, another branch of the difference feminism – the so-called ecofeminism – argues that the gender hierarchy has its roots in ‘natural’ causes, referring to biological explanations (Everett & Charlton 2013: 34).
Moreover, Everett & Charlton (2013: 33-34) writes that the difference feminism, in opposite to the liberal, emphasized that due to the already existing differences between women and men, policies particularly formed in favor for women’s needs, should be implemented. Scholars of this perspective argue that rather than accepting the already existing male values and dominance, female values and women’s experience should be revalued. The authors give the reproductive labor as an example, meaning that it is a type of work often excluded in international statistics of work and development – since the paid work has been in focus in the development discipline. It is common, from this view, to emphasize the gendered division of labor and women’s
‘invisible work’, and criticize the focus on the paid and traditionally ‘male work’ – productive labor (Everett & Charlton 2013: 33-34).
Postcolonial feminism emerged out of dissatisfaction with already existing, dominant approaches, and is sometimes argued to be an opponent to neo-liberalism, neo-colonialism, and a certain type of globalization. This approach is a critique on the western hegemony that is reflected upon in the feminist discourse, and the postcolonial perspective argues that the feminist debate has been dominated by issues concerning white, western, middle-class women. The postcolonial approach seeks for a greater
inclusion of all women (Mohanty 1991). Jaquette (2017) describes how feminists from the Global South, at the UN Conference on Women, in Mexico City, 1975, emphasizing that the ‘underdevelopment’ in many countries was mainly due to the historical colonialism, the neo-colonialism, imperialism, and exploitative economic structures (Jaquette 2017). As Mohanty (2003) describes, the western feminism is rather eurocentric and argued that western feminists described women of ‘The Third World’ as one homogeneous group. The postcolonial approach, or decolonizing feminism as she calls it, aims to address this issue.
The debate of women’s empowerment connected to work is rather ambivalent.
On the one hand, there is an emerging discourse that seeks to value the reproductive labor made by women, and on the other hand, there is a wish for women to perform less domestic work and participate to a larger extent in the paid labor force. However,
‘women’s liberation from housework seems to be connected to a western perception of care work as a burden, meanwhile many other countries seem to value this work as an important and contributing act of life and society (Everett & Charlton 2013: 41). In this way, there is both critique and appreciation of policies promoting women’s productive labor.
2.3. Gender and Development
There have been many different approaches to empowering women in development contexts. To contextualize this paper in the larger debate on the issue, this section gives an overview of the historical discourse of women in development policies. Inter alia, Women in Development (WID), Women and Development (WAD), Gender and Development (GAD), and the social turn will be described. Further, the chapter ends with an overview of women’s situation regarding work in the Global South in the present, and Bradshaw, Chant & Linneker’s (2019) notions of time poverty, power poverty, and asset poverty will be explained.
Feminists have challenged policymakers for decades to recognize that gender equality is of great significance for development, and to modify the rather common picture of women as the victim rather than as the agent in the development processes (Calkin 2015). As policy making for empowering women emerged in the 1960’s, the notion of WID became internationally used in the 1970’s, through Ester Boserup’s book Women’s Role in Economic Development. She was the first to systematically study the
gendered division of labor on a large-scale level, when studying women and men in agricultural households (Rathgeber 1990). The study pointed at failed development projects that had marginalized women’s work, and raised awareness about women in agriculture production. Therefore, Boserup was criticizing the ongoing discourse where international institutions assumed modernization to be empowering for women (Jaquette 2017). As well as Boserup, other liberal feminists (Calkin 2015; Razavi & Miller 1995;
Tinker 1990) and the “Washington-based network of female development professionals” (Tinker 1990: 30) were criticizing the modernization approach for its lack of gender-sensitivity and argued that the former developing policies disadvantaged women rather than improve their situation (Razavi & Miller 1995). Instead of exploring why the earlier efforts to empower women had failed, WID focused on integrating women in already existing development projects. Further on, these liberal efforts focus solely on women’s productive labor meanwhile neglecting the reproductive labor (Ratheber 1990).
Socialist- and Third World feminists criticized the WID framework for promoting capitalist approaches for development (Calkin 2015). Therefore, WID was modified to WAD, with a neo-Marxist feminist approach, and was introduced in the later part of the 1970’s. Compared to WID, WAD focused on “the relationship between women and development processes” (Rathgeber 1990: 492). That is, women are, and have always been, important economic actors. Rather, they had just not been recognized for their crucial role in development. However, WAD lack “a full-scale analysis of the relationship between patriarchy, differing modes of production, and women's subordination and oppression” (Rathgeber 1990: 493). According to WAD, the improvement of the women's conditions is dependent on a change in the international structure (Rathgeber 1990).
Further on, GAD was established in 1980 due to several ideas. Inter alia, due to socialist feminist criticism of WID (Ratheger 1990). Another prominent influence was the ideas of Ann Whitehead, who wanted to shift the women-focus of WID and WAD, to instead recognize that it is not solely women but gender relations that has to be emphasized. To describe GAD, Chant & Sweetman (2012: 518) writes that “A gender and development approach recognizes gender inequality as a relational issue, and as a matter of structural inequality which needs addressing directly and not only by women, but by development institutions, governments and wider society” (Chant & Sweetman 2012: 518). In this way, GAD focused on gendered power relations rather than solely
women (Calkin 2015), and regarding work, GAD focused on reproductive and productive labor in relation to each other (Everett & Charlton 2013: 38-39).
As already mentioned, Bergeron (2011) argues that the former international discourse of women’s empowerment as participation in the paid labor force lead to the double burden and the crisis of social reproduction. Further on, she writes that the crisis has to be understood in its historical context, where the relation between development policies and domestic care work is central. Large, international organizations such as the UN and World Bank, influenced by neoliberalism, focused mainly on market and economic growth in development policies and empowerment of women in the Global South. One outcome of this focus was the Structural Adjustments Programs (SAP), that received critique for its narrow focus on productive labor. This critique lead to the so called Social Turn, and in this Post-Washington era, new policies expanded from only focusing on market issues, to also focus on change social institutions and social practices (Bergeron 2003). In this way, reproductive labor was now internationally recognized in development policies. Indeed, the Post-Washington discourse focuses less on market, but instead, Bergeron (2011) argues that the new focus implemented neoliberalism in the social sphere as well. Now the neoliberal ‘efficiency’ appeared as
“self-reliance, self-empowerment and individual responsibility” (Bergeron 2011) that was seen to be hindered by “flawed social structures and behaviors” (Bergeron 2011).
Further on, now, women’s empowerment and gender equality was argued to be relying on women’s economic assets, as this was expected to give them more power in intra- household relations (Bergeron 2011).
As one can see, the policies to reduce women’s double burden have had a diversity of approaches through the history up till the present, and it is closely connected to the development discipline. Today, the efforts to solve the crisis in social reproduction has several approaches in the Gender & Development policy making - from stressing the need of making care work into a public matter and increasing the role of the state, to emphasize the need for men to take a larger responsibility in the household and family (Everett & Charlton 2013: 41). In the last decade, Agenda 2030 made an effort to include the unpaid, ‘invisible work’ of women, where Goal number 5, target 5.4, is to “Recognize and value unpaid care and domestic work through the provision of public services, infrastructure and social protection policies and the promotion of shared responsibility within the household and the family as nationally appropriate” (UN 2015). However, there is still a large, feminist critique of how the UN
is handling women’s empowerment and gender equality (e.g., Everett & Charlton 2013:
31). For example, Bradshaw, Chant & Linneker (2019) are witnessing new challenges for gender and development policies – not at least regarding Agenda 2030 – meaning that recently, in the phase of many anti-poverty programs, there have been a re- feminization, a backlash, for gender equality and women’s empowerment in many development contexts (Bradshaw, Chant & Linneker 2019). Fakier & Cock (2009) investigate the crisis in social reproduction, the situation where women carry a double burden with reproductive and productive labor, from a South African context. The authors argue that the crisis in social reproduction primarily strikes women engaging in income generating strategies in poor areas, and Bakker & Gill (2003) argues that the issue is most urgent in the Global South. Guma (2015) describes how the crisis in social reproduction strikes women with income generating strategies, but that however, women in the Global South tend to have an unfavorable position in the paid labor force as well.
Regarding women’s conditions in the paid labor force in developing countries,
“Dual economics of African Countries” (Spring 2009: 12) refers to the landscape of Africa, where the labor market is divided in the formal and informal market. The informal sector is characterized by “unregistered, unregulated, and untaxed businesses”
(Spring 2009: 12) while the formal sector is referred to the opposite (Spring 2009). In Sub-Saharan African countries, women tend to face several obstacles to enter the formal market due to the male-dominance in this sphere. Therefore, women in the Global South (Fakier & Cock 2009), particularly in Africa, often own micro businesses in the informal sector (Guma 2015), and Magidimisha & Gordon (2015) writes how many are forced to self-employment in the informal sector due to the lack of other possible income sources. However, being self-employed in the informal sector is not unproblematic either, and business woman, particularly in developing countries, have difficulties to save money from their business which decrease the possibilities neither get a higher or to secure their income (Guma 2015).
Adding on to the discussion of women, work, and development, Bradshaw, Chant & Linneker (2019) introduce three dimensions of poverty. In their case study regarding gendered poverty and poverty alleviation in Latin America, the authors give a more nuanced view of gender and poverty. Instead of only income poverty, they also bring time poverty, power poverty, and asset poverty into the discussion. Stating that women have increased their involvement in income generating activities, the authors
write how this can lead to decreased rates of income poverty. Notwithstanding, this often leads to women balancing both productive and reproductive labor, which leads to time poverty, which in turn can give health issues - backlashing the income generating strategy. The authors argue that gender norms can impede women from using their incomes as a way to possess power within the home. However, there is a large focus on rather practical dimensions, such as power for decision making, time, and material assets such as ownership of land and property. Further, the authors argue that a lack of
“control over household assets and decision making” (Bradshaw, Chant & Linneker 2019: 122) can lead to a feminizing of power-poverty (Bradshaw, Chant & Linneker 2019). The notions of time poverty, power poverty, and asset poverty are used when analyzing the findings of this research.
3. Methodological Framework
This is a qualitative field study conducted in districts of Kampala, Uganda. Since it is a qualitative study that aims to explore personal experiences and perceptions, interviews were the most suitable method for collecting data. The character of the interviews has been semi-structured, meaning that the questionnaire has contained of space for the interviewee to make her own associations and analysis although. Although, the interview is still following a theme that can generate information useful to the study (Bryman 2012: 468). Further on, the study has an abductive approach where the analytical framework will act as a lens in which the data will be interpreted and analyzed through. “With abduction the researcher grounds a theoretical understanding of the contexts and people he or she is studying in the language, meanings, and perspectives that form their worldview” (Bryman 2012: 401). Since this is a qualitative minor field study that explores women’s perspectives and experiences, the abductive approach is considered suitable for this research.
3.1. Limitations and Delimitations
During the interviewing process, several unexpected conditions emerged – making the delimitations into limitations and modifying the focus of this study. From the beginning, the aim, and also a delimitation, with this study was to interview both women and men about reproductive and productive labor. However, when arriving to Uganda the contact person informed us that men are not keen to talk about their income strategies
occupations and domestic work. This was due to a stigma where men are expected to generate money to their families – and it can therefore be a sensitive subject for men.
Therefore, our focus is solely on married women's perceptions and experiences about reproductive and productive labor. The group was reconstructed from the first delimitation of 10 women and 10 men, to 20 women. The interviews ended up being made with 17 married women. However, we are aware that having men's views on this matter as well could have been enriching, because women and men are both part of the gendered division of labor through daily action (West & Zimmerman 1987). However, married women in Uganda tend to engage in reproductive labor in higher extent than any other social groups in the country (Uganda Bureau of Statistics 2013: 85), and therefore the new target group is still considered a valuable source of information considering the research topic.
Moreover, the study had a comparative character, and aimed to compare the cases between a rural and an urban area. Therefore, the target group was delimited to be equally divided between an urban and a rural area – something that the contact person was supposed to arrange as well. Although, when arriving to the ‘rural area’, it did not have the characteristics of a rural area. Also, only three interviewees had businesses in this area – the rest were in the inner city of Kampala. Due to this, we adapted the research questions to the new informant group – married, self-employed women in Kampala.
As one can see, the sample of informants was in large extent dependent on the contact person. This was sometimes a limitation, although, it was also helpful to have a local gatekeeper arranging the interviews. The changed focus of the target group as well as the changed focus of area, lead to a modifying of the research questions. First, the delimitations of the research were on married women and men in an urban and rural area, but this became limited to married women in Kampala. However, since the research questions were adjusted, the interviews generated information that helped answering the research questions, and rather than changing the study, it was further delimited and specified.
Another limitation was our position as foreigners. It could have either be an advantage or disadvantage depending on how the informants perceived us. Further on, the issue of gender equality between spouses was expected to be a somewhat sensitive issue – both from the authors and the gatekeeper. However, when the interviews were
carried out, the interviewers did not perceive the informants as uncomfortable with the subject.
Moreover, language barriers were sometimes a limitation. There are many languages spoken in Uganda but one of the official language is English (Tembe 2006).
However, the English skills possessed was dependent on the level of education, and therefore it was sometimes a language barrier. In the cases of communications barriers, the contact person acted as an interpreter. This followed by some obstacles. For example, the interpreter could have been adjusted the information between the interviewer and the interviewees. Therefore, it could be argued that the information became unintentionally adjusted, and this would then have affected the validity of the data (Roger & Code 2011).
3.2. Background Information About the Interviews
Our contact person and translator in Uganda was Daniel Bwanika who assisted and help to arrange the interviews. He has a broad contact net in Uganda since he works as a Consultant Coordinator of International and Research Program at the Victoria University in Kampala, Uganda. We got in touch with him through the internet while searching for someone that would like to acquire the role as a contact person. The informants in this study is chosen by the contact person and neither the authors nor the contact person had personal contact before the first arrangement. The participants are named after which interview they participated in (1-17) to maintain their anonymous identity.
In this study, 17 women in heterosexual marriages in Kampala and areas near have been interviewed, and all interviewees lived in dual-earning households. That is, they had an income generating occupation (self-employed in the business sector) and had husbands that also had an income (except for the husband of interviewee number 15). The women performed productive labor approximately 8-17 hours each day, and generally most of them worked more than 10 h each day. Almost all women had children except two informants’ but they live in a household with at least one child from a relative. The informants’ children either went to school or was working depending on the child's age. The interviewers age ranged from 23-56 years of the women, and 28-70 years for their husbands. The age difference between the spouses was between 0-10 years, and the husband was the oldest among the couples. There was one exception where the age difference in the couple was 14 years old.
Several lived outside of Kampala, and when they were asked whether they would like to work closer to their homes some wanted to but said they had to stay in Kampala due to the rate of clients. Even though the rent is higher in the capital, the profit, according to these women, seemed to be higher in Kampala than outside. The amount of people living in the household ranged from two persons up to ten persons.
Many of the informants had one or several relatives staying in their household.
As already stated, the interviewees had an income generating strategy, with the vast majority working with small businesses such as selling fruit, shoes, fast food, clothes, or working as a hairdresser. 16 participants engaged in the informal sector and one in the formal sector, and all but one was self-employed. Three of them had a post- secondary education, and one of these women worked with the profession she was educated for. The other two joined business instead, due to low job opportunities in their field. The others had primary education. Together with their husband’s income, they could all provide for basic needs and school fees for their children. However, most of the informants indicated that the income was occasionally only sufficient for the most urgent needs.
3.3. Conducting the Interviews
Before conducted the interviews, the interviewers were well prepared to reduce the risk to miss important question in the standard questionnaire (Bryman 2012: 217). The interviews were held in the women’s businesses places, and the duration of the interview sessions were between 20-55 minutes. Before the interview session the informants were informed about the aim of the study, the anonymity throughout the process as well in the final results of the thesis, and the ability to choose whether or not they want to answer certain questions. They were also asked if the interview could be recorded, and all participants answered yes. The reason of why the interviews was recorded is to simplify the process to analyze and describe the interview sessions. Also, notes were taken along the interviews, as there were two authors participating. One was holding the interview, and one was writing. Approximately half of the interviews session we had an interpreter that due to the lack of English communication.
53 questions were asked for each participant follow by different themes. The following themes were: background questions, the timeline for the wife and husband (which describes a typical day for those concerned), questions regarding work, productive labor, reproductive labor, maids, friends and community, and as well
supplementary questions. During the interview session, the informants were asked to describe a regular day for themselves and their husbands. To get a clearer picture of this, the interviewees filled out a timeline, where they described what they do each hour of the day. Later, they filled out a timeline of how they believe their husband’s day looks like. This information was later used to compare the wives’ and the husband’s days regarding hours of productive and reproductive labor, and was a useful complement – especially considering that the original idea to interview women and men could not be carried out. However, the timelines are based solely on the women’s perception, and the men’s timelines therefore cannot be taken for granted to be fully correct. Rather, they are subjective interpretations of the women, but still a valuable tool to get an overview of the allocation of work between the spouses.
The subject of the study could be interpreted as sensitive among the informants and it was unclear how the participants would react on the questions. Overall, the women chose to answer the questions, although some were more likely to respond more detailed while others needed more follow-up questions. In some interview sessions either the question become misinterpreted or the informants was not keen to give a detail answer therefore it lacks data on answers from everyone on all questions.
3.4. Thematic Analysis
After each interview session, the work started to analyze and write about the data. This process included summarize each interview session in detail, and then look for patterns and draw general conclusions about the data that was believed to be helpful to answering the research questions. When looking for similarities, a thematic analysis was made by manually coding the data into several themes. Thematic analysis is used to analyze data in detail by creating and organizing themes found in the interviews. Each theme is related to one or several research questions, and represents important aspects to answer the questions (Braun & Clarke 2006). In this way, the themes highlight the most important findings of the study. The themes of this study are named The Gendered Income Dependency, The Economical Provider, The Wife, The Other Woman, and “If we get money, we could change”.
3.5. Ethical Considerations
An interview field study contains of several ethical considerations. First, Everett &
Charlton (2013: 32) writes about feminist approaches in research, meaning the reflexivity, to critically reflect on one’s own research process, is one of the challenges in doing a research of this kind. The authors argue that, as a result of the normative wish for research work to be objective, many feminist researches now strive for having a
“sensitivity to the social and cultural location of the researcher and power relations between researcher and subject, and accountability for the knowledge constructed”
(Everett & Charlton 2013: 32). The authors argue that it is impossible for a research to be objective, since we already – as western, feminist, researchers – have a certain view on feminism. Instead of hiding this, one should be transparent in one's subjectivity of the subject (Everett & Charlton 2013: 32).
Further on, the idea of “the third world woman” has been criticized for having a stagnating effect on women’s empowerment in developing countries – silencing their voices and creating a power dimension where the poor third world woman becomes an antonym to the modern, empowered western woman (Everett & Charlton 2013: 36).
This is a consideration worth having. Further on, the informants’ anonymity has been considered during the writing process and the presentation of the final thesis as well.
Therefore, as already mentioned, the interviewees are named with the number of the interview session as which they participated. Further on, quotations that risk to reveal an informant will not be published. Rather, the material is in these cases discussed on a more general level. Additionally, it is of importance to interview the informants separated from others in order to reduce the risk that the informant will be influenced by other or that the participants cannot answer the question as she wants.
4. Findings and Analysis
This section aims to reflect and discuss the empirical data in accordance with the research questions. To emphasize the close connection between the findings and the interpretations of the empirical data, the findings and analysis are presented in one chapter. It is stated by many researchers that there is no such thing as objectivity in a research (Everett & Charlton 2013: 32), and therefore, instead of seeking objectivity and separate the findings from the analysis, this section aims to have a discussion that emphasizes the close relationship between the empirical data and theory. Further on, as
already mentioned, several themes have been created to structure the findings, and these are presented below.
4.1. The Gendered Income Dependency
The wife and husband in each marriage performed approximate the same number of hours on productive labor. Both spent approximately 8-17 hours on reproductive labor, generally most of them work more than 10 hours, five to seven days a week. As already mentioned, the women were self-employed. This was due to few income opportunities in the area which they lived, and according to these women it was common to open a business in Uganda due to the few job opportunities. Additionally, working as an employee generated too low salary which also was a common reason for self- employment. However, the self-employment did not always lead to an adequate income either. Interview 5 reflected on problematic societal and structural conditions regarding the labor market: “[The state] doesn’t do anything for us. You come from school, you fail to get a job. And if you can’t fight for your own, you can even die”. This can be connected to the conditions on the paid labor market, that ‘pushes’ women into self- employment which do not often generates an adequate income. It can also be connected to the socialist feminist critique of the societal structure which is argued to disadvantage women, leading to women’s income poverty, due to societal structures.
One of the large struggles for generating an adequate income was the high rents and expensive electricity in Kampala. Due to the low profit from their businesses, most of the women did not have enough money to pay for basic needs, school fees, and medical treatment and healthcare with their own income. Interviewee 14 describes how the high rent for the shop is a vast problem, which leads to a situation where her husband often has to add money so that she can pay the rent for the shop. She says ”I got a little money, and the money I got is not even enough to pay [the rent]”. This was leading to a situation where many of the women are dependent on their husband’s income to manage to pay for the expenditure for their businesses as well as their lives in general.
Moreover, all women except for two (that had saved capital from earlier productive labor) had been depending on a starting capital to open a business, and it was always provided by men – a brother, a sister’s husband, but mostly the wife’s husband.
For instance, interview 16 received money from her husband to open her restaurant, and interviewee 5 from her brother to open her clothing shop. Similarly, when asking about
opportunities of generating higher income, the majority answer that the only solution was to increase their capital to expand the business. This capital was, most of the times, also provided by men. Bradshaw, Chant & Linneker (2019) state that an income generating strategy can lead to a reduce in income poverty. However, the results of this study indicate that different practical reasons, such as few work opportunities, a need for capital to earn money, and high electricity fees and rent, lead to a situation where many of the women do not have a decrease in income poverty. Rather, they are dependent on men’s income for their business to survive, and in this way, without the husbands, the women risk being income poor.
Further on, even though most women spend long working hours at their businesses, it was rather material conditions and societal structures of income opportunities, that seem to have the largest impact on their income opportunities. Due to these circumstances, employment does not necessarily lead to economic self-sufficiency for the women in this study, and interviewee 5 saying “[the state] doesn’t do anything for us”, reflects on the poor social systems that women in the Global South often suffers from (Guma 2015). Regarding research question 3, the results are therefore challenging the neoliberal view of gender equality and women’s empowerment as market participation. It was the men who earned the most money – even though the division of productive labor between the spouses was, when it comes to number of hours, equally divided. It was not productive work in itself, but rather the poor income opportunities, that was the problem.
Further on, the women’s situation can be connected to Bergeron’s (2011) description of the social turn as well. During the social turn, Bergeron (2011) argues that the social sphere was influenced, by the neo-liberal approaches of “self-reliance, self-empowerment and individual responsibility” (Bergeron 2011), and how social behaviors was a hinder in this self-empowering process. However, the problem does not seem to be attitudes and need of economical ‘self-empowerment’ among the women in this study. Rather, the self-employment (that can be argued as a type of self- empowerment) of the women can be seen as a logical effort to generate income for themselves, but this seemed to be hindered by poor conditions for them as women and self-employed. Connecting this to socialist feminism, gender equality seems to be relying inter alia on market mechanisms. This answers research question 3, of how women’s productive labor does contribute to gender equality, whereas the results show
that, in this study, women’s productive labor does not necessarily lead to gender equality, due to poor income opportunities.
4.2. The Economical Provider
The informants were asked questions about the woman’s, the man’s, and the children’s role in the family and household. Regarding the man’s role in the family and household, it was a common expression to say that the husband’s role is to take care of the family.
Further on, when explaining how they should take care of the family - it was always economically. The woman could help financially sometimes - but the main responsible for this was the husband.
Interviewee 10 described how her income was not sufficient without her husband’s, whereas his income was sufficient without hers’. When asking if they shared their income she said that they share his income – not hers, because it is his responsibility. Further on, the husband was in control over the income, and she decided over the food, which resulted in he giving her money and she buying the food. In this way, she was responsible for the house, and he is responsible for the economic provision. This was reflected in her answer of what a man’s and a woman’s role in the household and family is, where she said that a man’s role is to provide economically, and a woman’s role is to cook, clean, and take care of the children. Similar answers are to be found in the interview with interviewee 16.
Interviewer: What is the man’s role in the household and family?
Interviewee 16: He has to buy food, pay school fees, pay water, electricity, etc. “You [the man] can’t fail to do that.”
Interviewer: What happens if the husband can’t pay for all those things?
Interviewee 16: Then the woman helps with the bills and they can share the bills.
Interviewer: So, what is the woman’s role in the family/household?
Interviewee 16: To look after the kids. So that they eat, are well behaved, and so that they go to school, are well-dressed and clean.
[...]
Interviewee 16: Unless I want, I can help [to pay] once in a while if I want.
Saying that the women can help to pay the bills can be interpreted as indicating how it is not her responsibility, and the interview illustrates the different responsibilities of the spouses in the households. Most interviewees were united in this view. However, this
can be argued to creates a new dimension of the women’s dependency in terms of income. Indeed, the earlier section argued that the women are many times income dependent on their husband’s, but however, it is their expectations that men should provide for them. In this way, it seems to be somehow a ‘chosen’ way of having it.
Therefore, the women did not seem to perceive themselves as victims. Further on, this can be connected to the women’s use of income. Bradshaw, Chant & Linneker (2019) argue that gender norms can impede women from using their income as a way to possess power within the home. However, for the women who had an economic profit from the business, often used the profit for themselves, for example by fixing their hair and buying beauty products. That is, the women with profit did not seem to be impeded from using the income as a way to possess power. Rather, expected the man to provide for basic needs, meanwhile themselves could enjoy their private income. However, one should not forget that the women did not choose to become self-employed because they liked it, but rather because they were forced into the informal sector due to poor income opportunities.
Additionally, to get a larger picture of the allocation of income and the space of negotiation and possible bargaining between the spouses, the interviewees were asked questions such as Do you and your husband share your income? Who decides how the income should be used? Do you discuss the income? Approximately half of the interviewees shared income with their husbands, meanwhile the others had separate incomes. However, when asking about the allocation of the income, the man’s economical responsibility was again clearly expressed. This is reflected by interviewee 8, who had separate incomes: “We share his income – not mine. Because it’s his responsibility. [...] He does his business and I do mine.” When they were asked who decides over the income, the answers were different from each other’s, and were a mix of the four categories: The wife decides, the husband decides, they decide over the income together, and the spouses have separate incomes and decides over their own income. This shows that some of the women have some space for negotiation and responsibility. Although, it was still the husband or both (but only in one case the woman) who had the main authority of the income. Among the other categories, the answers were rather equally allocated. Moreover, the majority of the interviewees discussed the income with their partner. However, the question about if the spouses discussed the income were dependent on if the they had separate or shared income,
where shared income tended to lead to discussion. That is, shared income often led to more economical bargaining space for the women.
According to the results, some women were part of the decision making of the economics in the household, and Bradshaw, Chant & Linneker (2019) writes how
“control over household assets and decision making” (Bradshaw, Chant & Linneker 2019: 122) can lead to more power in the household (Bradshaw, Chant & Linneker 2019). Some women in this study had bargaining space, and if interpreting the women’s income as assets, this bargaining was not dependent on their own material assets.
Neither did this bargaining space seem to affect the dimensions of poverty, such as time, assets, and income, since they were dependent economically on their husbands.
That is, the women’s space for decision making did not seem to have a strong connection to their personal, economical resources – since also women that were dependent on their men’s income could be a part of the economic decision making.
Answering research question 3, economical resources does not necessarily lead to power of decision making in the household – meaning, as in the previous section, that gender equality is not always connected to women’s economical resources. The situation of the women’s many times inadequate incomes seem to be due to the poor conditions for the women’s opportunities to higher income. This lead to a situation where the women work productively approximately as many hours as their husbands, even though they are still economically dependent on their husband’s income. On the other hand, when asking about the responsibility of providing, another dimension appeared. Indeed, the women are in need of men’s economical contribution – but it was also expected to be this way due to the expectation of the husband. Many women expressed how the man’s responsibility is to provide economically, and in this way, one could argue that the women somehow gained more economically from the relation then the men. However, as we shall see in the following chapter, the women contribute to the productive labor in many other ways – though reproductive labor. In this way, the power of bargaining (that can be interpreted as a contributor to gender equality) was not always connected to the women's productive labor.
4.3. The Wife
According to the women's view on the timeline, the men performed barley no household tasks expect from a few expectations. When the informants were asked about interpretations and experiences of who is holding the responsibility for the reproductive
