What Do Bonobos Have to Do With the Millennium Development

Goals?Rae Lesser Blumberg

Wm. R. Kenan, Jr. Prof. of Sociology, Univ. of Virginia

Abstract, 1 of 2

• I discuss the linkages between women’s economic empowerment & the level of gender equality within a group (my theory).

• I take us back to bonobos and chimps, with whom we share a common ancestor, and across human history to show that women have held substantial economic power and have been behind significant technological innovations

Abstract, 2 of 2

• In conclusion, I argue that measuring the 3d Millennium Development Goal, “promoting gender equality and empowering women,” requires the development of additional indicators than the end of the gender gap in education

• I suggest that such indicators begin with a sex-disaggregated measure of relative economic empowerment

Gender Equality Goal - & Women’s Economic Power as the Key Means• Historically, of the 5 main types of power –

economic, political, force, ideology and information – the only one where women get above the “50-50 line” is economic power (defined as control of key economic resources); this varies from near-zero to near-100% for both men and women

• It is the most achievable form of power for women, as well as the most important

Gender Equality in History 1

• There have been 4 main “techno-economic bases” in human evolutionary history: (1) foraging (hunting-gathering); (2) horticultural (hoe cultivation); (3) agrarian (plow cultivation), and (4) industrial; now, the 5th, information/ biotech/ globalization, is emerging

• In each, we can measure level of gender equality and it proves closely tied to relative M/F economic empowerment

The Big Picture: Gender Equality in History 2

Gender Equality in History 3

• In each previous techno-economic base, or mode of subsistence, there always have been some groups ~on/very near the “50-50 line” of gender equality

• In all cases, women’s degree of economic power has been equal to or greater than that of counterpart men (e.g., Iroquois of Colonial North America; N.E. Thailand/ lowland Lao today)

Some key variables from my theory

• For women, work in key production activities is a necessary but insufficient condition for gender equality

• But unless “mere work” in such activities is translated to economic power, it does not lead to greater control over one’s destiny – “life options,” my dependent variable, include

M/F say in marriage, divorce, fertility, freedom of movement, sex, hh power

Key variables, cont.

• 3 sets of factors help translate “mere work” by women into economic power:– It’s harder in more unequal/stratified societies– It depends on the extent the kinship/property

system disadvantages/advantages each sex– It depends on their “strategic indispensability”

• Of the 6 main “strategic indispensability factors” 2 are impt. here: (1) degree of organization, & (2) control of technical expertise

On to bonobos & chimps

• There are ~200,000 chimps vs. ~20,000 bonobos (they live in war-torn SE Congo)

• Bonobos’ walk=more upright; body=more human-shaped; sex=often face-to-face

• Bonobo females (Fs) are more organized & control the food supply (i.e., control of main economic resources/econ. power)

• Fs have the upper hand, & keep it by making love, not war (av.=every 1.5 hrs.)

Chimps

• Chimp males (M) are more organized than females & compete for political power, not control of food supply; can be violent (vs. peaceful bonobos)

• Males usually have upper hand but more likely to die than bonobo Ms (sex %)

• But females=tool makers/users/trainers, even for hunting weapons (new data from Senegal) – No bonobo data on tools

Foraging

• Began millions of years ago when we were hominids; homo sapiens=<200,000 yrs.

• Classically nomadic, sharing & egalitarian

• Women, main gatherers, as impt. as men; diet=60-80% gathered in non-Arctic lands

• Women & men had ~equal control of key economic resources (explain)

• Classic foragers=~gender egalitarian too

Foraging, gender & technology

• Women credited with invention of baby sling & gathering basket, 2 keys to human survival (but no archeological record)

• Baby sling helped wide spacing between births (av. F raised ~2 to adulthood, 4-5 yrs. apart), group survival, F equality

Horticulture (hoe, digging stick)

• Rise of cultivation=biggest revolution of all• Women generally credited with gradual

development of cultivation in many places (as botanical specialists); F usually=main farmers

• 1st cultivation=18-20k yrs ago in Africa• But 1st horticultural societies=10-12k in Fertile

Crescent & SE Asia; soon emerged in all major land masses bar Australia (no suitable cultigens)

• Why? Agreement on population pressure• How/what? Massaging genetically plastic

cultigens (wheat, rice, corn, potatoes, etc.)

Horticulture 2

• Semi-sedentary groups, shifting/slash & burn cultivation1st great population explosion; no return to foraging• Early hortculture=egalitarian, peaceful, matri-focal• “4 paths through horticulture”: 3=complex unilineal corp.

kin groups – matri + 2 patri types• Where women (still) control economic resources,

remain ~equal (e.g., Iroquois)• If kin/property system=patri polygyny, brideprice

– Africa=still mostly horti because of thin soils; most ethnic groups=patri but women more equal where local marketsF economic power (more prevalent in W. Africa than E. Africa)

• Many patri groups=internal war, disadvantages women;• Matri groups=external war only (if war)

Agrarian (plow; mixed farming)

• Plow invented in M. East 5-6 k yrs ago, spread E-W on Eurasian landmass, home of ~all top domestic animals (Diamond)

• Permanent cultivation & settlement because plow brings up nutrients & animals provide fertilizer. Need deep soil

• Most agrarian societies=patriarchal but it’s not inevitable (e.g. NE Thailand, Lao Lum)

Agrarian 2

• Types: dry (rainfed)=male farming (& patriarchy to varying degrees) vs. wet (irrig. rice)=everyone (M,F animal) works (most labor intensive/elastic)

• 2 wet types: most=patri. but in SE Asia matri-oriented/bilateral, with >F econ. power, equality

• ~500 million in SE Asia (about same population as EU) but their >gender egalitarianism is lost in (very patri) agrarian average: China+India=2.5 billion; most of world, in fact, lives in industrializing agrarian societies

• Tech innovation low for F if no stake in outcome• All industrial societies emerged from patri agrarian types;

so we think tech=male & patriarchy=universal

Industrial societies

• Rise of capitalism in NW Europe ended “technostasis” of v. stratified patri. agrarian societies: econ. growth due to reinvesting surplus + gold & silver of New World

• In <400 yrs, “marriage of capitalism & technology” (in M hands) led to industrial societies; England=1st, ~1800

• But despite home/work split, F rise as % of labor force. If they control income-->equality

Rise of Base V?

• Globalization, tech change=exponential growth; uncertainty also increasing

• Information society? Biotech society?• Gender, the “tree of knowledge” & the “tree of

life”: women lag in IT but education gap is closing, & women are almost at parity in the life sciences (stats below)

• Better shot at equality, driven by >% of F earning, controlling income & stronger role in emerging techno-economic base

Subsistence Technology & Gender

• Most important historically, per Lenski (similar to my techno-economic bases)

• Women played important roles through most of history (gender inequality 1st rose ~6,500 years ago), i.e., until they lost stake in outcome

• Foraging – baby sling, gathering basket• Horticulture – developing it; villages

permitted F-developed pottery & weaving

More Women & Technology

• Cooking=chemistry process;

• Learned what can be made edible, e.g., leach cyanide from bitter cassava– Now: Igbo women’s compound gardens (they

control proceeds)

Tree of Knowledge; Tree of Life

• Women in IT: in US, BSc degrees declined from 29-28% between 1994-2001 but more F at lower, middle levels (e.g., 1/3 of IT mgrs., many info jobs=largely female)

• Women in biotech/life sciences= in US now majority of BSc, 48% of Ph.Ds in 2004 (quiet revolution; but may as important as IT)

Consequences of Economic Empowerment (Blumberg’s Theory)At micro level• > self-confidence• > say in household decisions, including:

– Domestic well-being decisions (e.g., sending sons vs. daughters to school)

– Economic decisions – Fertility decisions (& women usually want to

lower it, which helps developing nations grow)– Land use decisions (F = mainly “pro-green”)

Consequences of Women’s Economic Empowerment

At macro level:

-The increase in female paid employment in developed countries has been the main driving force of growth in last 20+ years;

-These income-earning women have contributed more to global GDP growth than either new technology or China and India (per The Economist, April 15 ‘06)

Blumberg’s 2d Theory: Women’s Economic Power & Development:

• M and F with provider responsibilities spend income under their control differently:– Both take care of economic activities– But women spend the rest more single-mindedly on

children’s human capital formation: diet, health, survival and education

– > human capital is linked to > GNP growth

• And women spend more equally on girls & boys• In sum, economically empowered women

provide a “synergy bonus” for development

Linking Economic Empowerment and Education

• In general, women who control income are more likely to send both daughters and sons to school, even when their income is less than male counterparts (Blumberg et al. 1992, Santiago, Chile data)

• Educating girls has its own cornucopia of benefits for development, & no down side

Benefits of Educating Girls 1

A. Blumberg (1989) posited 8 benefits; 7/8 =linked to lower fertility (all but #5)

1. Later age of marriage; 2. > contraceptive use; 3. < fertility [itself]; 4. < infant/child mort.; 5. > child nutrition/family health; 6. > participation in modern wage labor force; 7. > earnings; 8. > GNP/national income growth (since ‘89, increasing evidence of all)

B. <fertility=linked to >GNP growth in 3W

Benefits of Educating Girls 2

• In a 100-country study, Dollar & Gatti (1999) found: a 1% rise in % of F with secondary education raises income growth/cap. 0.3%

• If the gender parity gap in the 3 “gap regions” (Sub-Saharan Africa, S. Asia & M. East/N. Africa) had fallen at the same rate as in E. Asia 1960-1990, their GNP/capita would have grown 0.5-0.9% more/year (Klasen 1999)

Closing the Gender Gap in Education: Progress on Target #4,

MDG #3 (& EFA Goal #5)• Per UNESCO 2006:2, of 181 countries w/

2004 data, ~2/3 have achieved gender parity in primary education

• Now: 94 girls/100 boys in primary education vs. 92/100 in 1999

• But ~70 countries=still below gender parity in primary ed. (2005); & 24=unlikely to get to parity in either primary or 2dy by 2015

More Benefits of F Economic Empowerment/Equality: <Conflict

• Re int’l conflict, Caprioli (2000) found an inverse link to F equality (r or causal??):– A 5% rise in female Labor Force Participation

(LFP) was linked to a state being 495% less likely to fight neighbor states

– A 1/3 drop in fertility was linked to a state being 467% less likely to fight its neighbors

• Re internal conflict, she found (2005):– Nations with only 10% F LFP=30 times more

likely to have it than those with 40% F LFP

More Benefits of F Economic Empowerment/Equality:<Corruption• Where women are active in the labor force

or politics, govts.= less corrupt (King & Mason 2001)

• An 80-country study showed an inverse link between index of women’s economic & social rights and a corruption index

• Women in business=less likely to bribe

• >% of F in parliament linked to <corruption

More Benefits of F Economic Empowerment/Equality: <HIV/AIDS• Copeland 2006 found an inverse link in

Sub-Saharan Africa between women who controlled their own income and HIV/AIDS prevalence rate (but educ. & HIV = no link)

• Economically empowered women=more likely to demand husbands use condoms for non-marital sex (Blumberg et al. re Zanzibar, Tanzania 2002)

Millennium Development Goals

1. Eliminate extreme poverty & hunger2. Achieve universal primary education3. Promote gender equality & empower

women4. Reduce child mortality5. Improve maternal health6. Control HIV/AIDS, malaria, & other diseases7. Ensure environmental sustainability8. Develop a global partnership for development

MDG #3, Promote Gender Equality and Empower Women

• Currently, the target (#4) is: “Eliminate gender disparity in primary and secondary education, preferably by 2005, and in all levels of education no later than 2015”

• This is good but not enough to achieve the goal.

Summary & Policy Implications 1

• Measures of relative female control of income = best, but they’re rare;

• F vs. M income measures are good;

• F/M LFP measures vary by country in extent to which non-income work “counts”

• Moreover, we need more initiatives that include both economic & education objectives aimed at both genders

Summary & Policy Implications 2

• Add new target to MDG #3, Promote Gender Equality & Empower Women:

• Ideally, it should be an indicator of (relative) income under female control

• It should be linked with many benefits, including a synergy effect with girls’ education

• It also should be linked with less conflict, less corruption and less HIV/AIDS prevalence

• In sum, women’s economic empowerment is not only a measure of MDG #3, but a virtual “magic potion” of development

Epilogue: Gender Equality in History and Now

• Then: starting ~6,500 years ago, gender inequality began to rise in some horticultural, and most herding & agrarian societies

• In each previous techno-economic base, always some groups on/very near the “50-50 line” of gender equality; in all, women had significant economic power

• But war close to home constrained F ec. power/equality• Now, a main globalization trend=a growing % of men &

women earn income but % of women doing so is rising faster, implying increasing levels of gender equality in most groups and countries

• But war close to home still constrains gender equality