This chapter gives an overview of the main policies and trends of the past Development Decades and strategies for the future, and especially their impact on women. Focusing on food production, income generating projects and appropriate technology, it examines these in the light of feminist perspectives and critically questions the concept of (integrating women in development). Emphasis is on how women are developing theory and action in organizing and mobilizing around these issues. The overview is followed by a review of the resources on women and rural development.
This chapter was written by Marilee Karl with help from Anita Anand.
women and rural development: an overview
Marilee Karl
Poverty is most widespread in the rural areas of both developing and developed countries. Since the situation of rural areas has continued to decline over the past few decades, it is not surprising that a great deal of development thought and literature focuses on these areas. Before looking at the situation of rural women in particular, a brief survey of the main policies and trends of the Development Decades is in order
The goal of the first Development Decade in the 1960s, according to the United Nations General Assembly, was "to accelerate progress towards self-sustaining growth of the economy of the individual nations and their social advancement so as to obtain in each under-developed country a substantial increase in the rate of growth, with each country setting its own target, taking as the objective a minimum rate of growth of aggregate national income of five per cent at the end of the Decade..."1 During the second Development Decade, emphasis was put on aid or "development assistance" from richer countries to developing ones: "The International Development Strategy for the 1970s was designed to provide developing countries with a larger share of benefits from the economic growth of the developed countries."2
What is meant by "economic growth" becomes clear as country after country develops cash crop production for export and export-oriented industry in rapidly growing urban areas and becomes more dependent on western investment and technology and on the international economy. This "economic growth" has disrupted rural cultures, driving massive numbers of farmers from the land to the cities, where some are absorbed in the export-oriented industries and the tourist industry, while others are reduced to poverty, unemployment or prostitution.
Cash cropping for export and the growing investment of giant agricultural multinational corporations, or agribusiness, in developing countries has also led to a decline in food production for local needs. Countries which, before the declaration of the first Development Decade, were able to feed their own populations, are now forced to import food to meet their domestic needs.
Twenty years ago, the developing .countries were self sufficient in food. Now they import 80 million tons of food grains each year; 10% of total consumption. According to the FAO, this could well reach 145 million tons by the end of the eighties.
Lured by the need for foreign exchange earnings and with multinational companies influencing much of their investment policies, many developing countries have neglected domestic food production in favour of cash crop production. The rate of growth of domestic food production in the Third World declined throughout the seventies, particularly in Africa. Such policies have had an economic cost. Twenty years ago Zaire was a net food exporter. Today she spends $300 million each year, or one-third of her total export earnings, on food imports.3
trickle-down
The World Food Conference in 1974 called for increasing food production through the modernization of agriculture and the use of "inputs" including farm machinery, high yielding varieties of seeds (HYVs), chemical fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, sophisticated irrigation systems and other technology. The green revolution is the best known of these attempts. It is also widely acknowledged to have failed because inputs, sold mostly by multinational corporations, exceeded outputs.
The majority of farmers in the third world are poor and often landless. The better off farmers are able to strengthen their position through the use of high input agriculture while the poorer ones, who cannot afford these inputs, become further impoverished. The hope of development planners that economic growth benefitting a few in society would "trickle down to the masses, has proven an illusion:
The growth that has occurred has done next to nothing to remove world poverty. More people are now living in a condition of utter destitution and starvation than at the beginning of the seventies.
The increase in the number of the poor is not because economic growth has failed to keep pace with the growth in population (only nine countries have shown a persistent, negative per capita growth during the last twenty years). Nor is it simply that economic growth has missed certain sections of the population; though that is a large and important factor It is that, in many countries, the poor now constitute a larger proportion of the total population than they did at the start of the sixties. A process of empoverishment ha occurred in the Third World which economic growth, in the context of acute inequality — in incomes, in land, in access to work — has accelerated.
The process of growth seems to be forcing more an more people into a position of economic vulnerability Economic prosperity has not simply missed these people they have been systematically marginalised or proletarianised. Their ability to supply their own basic needs has been gradually but unrelentingly reduced.4
approaches to the issue
Following the World Food Conference, three main approaches to the food problem emerged, according to a document from & the United Nations Research Institute for Social Development ;(UNRISD). These are identified as the "neo-malthusian," the "enlightened official wisdom" and the "radical" approaches.
"The 'neo-malthusian' approach views the fundamental problem as race between population growth and increased agricultural ." The basic solution is population control and the improvement of agricultural technologies. Distribution of food is viewed as a separate problem to be dealt with later.5
The "enlightened official wisdom" approach allows for a number of variables in addition to population growth and technology. Some of these are: prices and markets for agricultural commodities, inputs, income levels, investment in food- related activities and facilities, consumption and distribution patterns of food supplies among and within countries, economic growth rates,rural poverty and cooperation among nations. While this approach emphasizes technology, it does not ignore political and economic forces at the national level.
It recommends stabilizing agricultural commodity and in put prices; increased credit; investment in agriculture; improvement of inputs, food processing, distribution, storage and marketing; education, training and nutrition programs. This approach also appeals for a new international economic order, agrarian reform, more rapid development, people's participation, less extravagant food consumption in rich countries and the satisfaction of people's basic needs.6
The third approach is the "radical" one which maintains that the real problem is poverty caused by the exploitation of the poor by both rich industrialized countries and the elites in the developing countries. This approach argues that "not much can be done about feeding the hungry until existing economic, social and political relationships have been fundamentally reformed." The radicals see "profit-hungry" multinationals as playing leading role in exploiting the poor. They see food aid and trade "primarily as political weapons of the powerful to maintain their power." They criticize "enlightened official wisdom" for not really altering existing power relationships among nations and classes.7
The UNRISD document maintains that Food Security now and during the foreseeable future fo all social groups every where is the issue"8
Global analyses and approaches are insufficient. Solutions to the world food problem can only be found through more careful study of food systems In their social contexts.
basic human needs approach
At the World Employment Conference in 1976, the International Labour Organisation (ILO) initiated the Basic Human Needs (BHN) approach to development. The needs identified were:
- minimum requirements of a family for private consumption: adequate food, shelter and clothing, certain household equipment and furniture;
- essential services provided by and for the community at large, such as safe drinking water, sanitation, public transport, and health and educational facilities.
The strategy for attaining these basic needs would include:
- increased employment for the poorest groups in society;
- capital intensive investment in socially appropriate technology;
- more social services financed through progressive taxation;
- attempts to decrease differences in consumption patterns between social groups;
- the creation and support of institutions which promote people's participation.9
The World Bank also promoted the Basic Human Needs Approach, but with more emphasis on the economic aspects and less on people's participation. "In the World Bank's model, the emphasis is given to increasing the share of the poor in new income, rather than in an initial redistribution of assets followed by & high growth rates. Basic Human Needs in this model become more a guide for distributing income than a fully fledged strategy ; for development."10
Many third world countries see the emphasis on basic human needs of peoples within countries as an attempt by development agencies and industrialized ;nations to divert attention from the inequities within ;the world economic system and between rich and poor countries. Their efforts to deal with the inequities in distribution of income, food, goods and services nationally are hindered by an unbalanced distribution of resources on the international level. The focus on basic needs is a way to avoid dealing with demands for a New International Economic Order, according to this point of view.
the new international economic order
The Declaration and Action Program on the Establishment of a New International Economic Order (NIEO) was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1974. Proposed by the Group of 77, it came as the result of the growing realization that the enormous gap in wealth between rich and poor nations is due in large part to an international economic system which fosters these imbalances.11
The NIEO would encompass many elements: an increased share of world industrial and agricultural production for developing countries; negotiations and agreements on raw material and commodity prices; cooperation among developing countries to include greater flow of technology, trade and communications among themselves, balancing off dependency on the present North-South flow; fairer trade regulations; reform of the International Monetary System; development assistance, including finance and transfer of technology from developed to developing countries regulation of multinational corporations; and third world control of its own natural resources. Since 1974, there has been much debate and negotiation, but little progress in achieving the demands of the NIEO. The North is reluctant to make concessions, although supporters of the NIEO stress that it is a mutually beneficial system, that the peace and security of the world will be threatened as long as the international economic system favors rich nations over poor.
An official from the United Nations Institute of Training and Research (UNITAR) states:
While the NIEO focusses largely on inequities between countries, the basic needs approach focusses on inequities
within countries. To meet basic needs on a sustained basis in developing countries would require considerable investment and the expansion of production. It is interesting, therefore, that the pressure for the basic needs-oriented development has come from UN special agencies, and development research and donor agencies of the industrialized countries. It is a reaction to the pressure from the developing countries for a NIEO whose purpose is to re· move the so-called "assymetry" in international economic relations between developed (consumer) and developing (producer) countries.12
strategies for 1980s
Not until the end of the 1970s was in-depth international attention given to two essential elements of rural development: land and agrarian reform. The World Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development(WCARRD) in 1979 recommended that governments take steps to ensure more equitable access of farmers to land, rural services and inputs. This was also the first intergovernmental conference since International Women's Year to give serious consideration to the special needs and situations of rural women and to call for their "integration into development."13
The approaches to development in the 1980s do not differ radically from those proposed in the 1970s: they stress the importance of making the NIEO a reality, of improving economic growth and of continuing to modernize agriculture.
The seventies demonstrated how "growth-alone" strategies can worsen poverty. Nevertheless substantial levels of economic growth are a necessary precondition for the abolition of poverty in the Third World. To this end, and in order to strengthen their economies and move away from the precarious dependence on agriculture and the export of raw materials, developing countries need annual growth rates well in excess of the dismal 5% or so currently predicted for the immediate future. The world's poorest countries in particular, need a substantial injection of resources to climb out of the economic stagnation they suffered throughout the seventies.14
The Brandt Report, entitled North-South: A Program for survival recommends increasing food production through more modernization, mechanization and the use of high yield seeds, pesticides, chemical fertilizers and other high technological inputs. It also calls for massive aid and transfer of resources from the developed to the developing world.15
Agriculture: Toward 2000, a report of the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, "proposes a strategy for development of world agriculture to the end of the century, with particular reference to developing countries."According to this report, it will be necessary to, increase food production if hunger and malnutrition are to be eliminated in the world. Food production can be increased only through increased modernization, mechanization and the...:. use of more inputs. It will require more investment in agriculture and incentives, including higher prices for produce, for farmers. At the same time, attention should be given to the distribution of income and access to resources among the rural populations.
AT 2000, as the report is often called, stresses the importance of increasing crop production for export by developing countries. It discusses the issues of international trade policies and commodity prices and the importance of these. It also maintains that continued financial and technical aid must be given by developed countries to developing ones and that food aid will also remain necessary.
The report touches on the issues of population growth and its relationship to hunger,asserting that lower birth rates in developing countries would relieve some of "the problems relating to hunger, but would not basically change the problems of world agriculture or the policies needed. On the controversial issue of feeding cereals to animals in a world where millions of people go hungry, the report feels that the facts and solutions put forward by people who argue that less cereal should be given to animals and more to people are too simple.17
women's basic needs and the NIEO
Will the Basic Needs Approach and the NIEO benefit women? There is some doubt about this. Devaki Jain of the Institute of Social Studies, New Delhi, questions the usefulness of either the NIEO or the Basic Needs Approach for women, as these "gloss over the institutional, legal and political aspects of inequality" and do not deal with necessary attitudinal changes.18
Since the Basic Needs Approach is supposed to help the poorest and neediest among the rural population, why does it not improve the lot of overworked, neglected and impoverished women?
One of the general criticisms of the BNA is that it does not stress the need for the redistribution of land and other forms of wealth. This criticism can be made in even stronger terms as it applies to women. There is not even a mention of a redistribution of resources between the sexes.... But until women's direct access to resources is specified, there can be no real realignment of economic opportunities ...between the sexes. This leads directly to a second criticism: women, especially rural women traditionally produce a wide range of goods and services. The ILO document distinguishes requirements for the satisfaction of basic needs provided by the family from those provided by the community. But some of the latter, such as water, power, health and sanitation, are met entirely by women, and as such are viewed as exacting no economic or human cost. At what stage, then, or under what social impetus, are these demands on women's time and energy to be transferred to the community?19
A meeting of the Asian and Pacific Centre for Women and Development criticized the Basic Needs Approach because:
In the examination of the basic needs of a community, the household or family cannot be taken as the basic unit of analysis. For just as between households there is an inequality in the distribution of goods and services, so too within households there is an imbalance in distribution .... (The Basic Needs Approach) offers nothing towards raising of the community's consciousness about the myths and beliefs which stifle the lives of women; it; does not encourage the growth in women of individual attributes other than motherhood or femininity; it does not lead as such to self-confidence and self-esteem nor to an increased consciousness of their strengths and abilities; it does not recognise their need for economic and psychological independence."20
The meeting identified some of women's "critical needs": lightening their workload; increasing their access to income; recognizing their already considerable contribution to economic and social life; education as a liberating force, and health. Women must identify for themselves their critical economic, cultural and psychological needs and for this they must have opportunities for consciousness raising among themselves and for organizing and mobilizing.21
Similar criticism can be leveled at the NIEO. Increasing use of technology and capital intensive investment may result, if present patterns continue, in the elimination of women from the wage labor force. The danger exists "that in taking advantage of better export returns, productivity improvements in rural areas will concentrate on export crops, and since their production is usually under the control of men-using family labour -rural women will not share equitably. The custodial role of male heads of household could also be strengthened and the backstop gardening status of women confirmed."22
integrating women in development
Because women's needs were largely neglected by development planners and policy makers during the first and second Development Decades, and because their situations have deteriorated, attempts have been made to integrate women in development. These range from recommendations in development documents, to directing special projects programs to women, adding women's components to existing programs, allocating resources to such projects and components, and recruiting women in development agencies.
The question -ls integrating women into development the answer? - must be raised. Elise Boulding says that "in one sense, what has already been accomplished in the first world is precisely 'development' and the integration of women into it." Yet first world women have a subordinate position in this development, with unequal wages, the full burden of household and child care, and a lack of social services.
This is not a model of development, or of the integration of women into development, that one would care to commend to other countries... What are women to do?To cooperate with those who wish to integrate them into the present international order is to destroy all their hope for a different future. But even the much-heralded "new" international economic order, to the extent that its third world authors have revealed their intentions, does not promise to be very different from the old -not for the poor, least of all for women. It only offers the opportunity for more third-world women to become marginalized labor in the modern sectors of their national economies, or continue as rural landless laborers (which most of them already are) at slightly higher wages.
Many women around the world are coming to this realization. This dawning can even be traced at the level of intergovernmental conferences during the International Women's Decade.
The declaration of International Women's Year and the International Women's Year Conference in 1975, the declaration of a Women's Decade and the Mid-Decade Conference on Women in 1980 all focused attention on women and development.
The World Plan of Action for the UN Decade for Women called for:
- the involvement of women in the strengthening of international security and peace through participation at all relevant levels in national,' intergovernmental and UN bodies;
- furthering the political participation of women in national societies at every level;
- strengthening educational and training programs for women;
- integrating women workers into the labor force of every country at every level, according to accepted international standards;
- more equitably distributing health and nutrition services to take account of the responsibilities of women every where for the health and feeding of their families;
- increasing governmental assistance for the family unit;
- directly involving women, as the primary producers of population, in the development of population programs and other programs affecting the quality of life of individuals of all ages,in family groups and outside them, including housing and social services of every kind.
The Report of the World Conference of the United Nations Decade for Women: Equality, Development and Peace, held in 1980 reviews the progress (or lack of it) in achieving these goals and sets forth a plan of action for the second half of the Women's Decade. The report shows a significant advance in recognizing that legislation and equal rights alone are not enough; that employment for women, for instance, can result in greater exploitation rather than independence; that sexist attitudes and prejudices play an important role in discrimination against women.It &sets forth a considerable number of recommendations, particularly in regard to employment, health and education.
The Decade for Women produced not only paper but a Voluntary Fund for small projects in developing countries and the establishment of an International Research and Training Institute for the Advancement of Women (INSTRAW). The derisory amounts allotted to these programs, however, indicate a lack of real commitment on the part of governments and international development agencies towards improving the lives of over one half of the world's population.
Women have put in an enormous amount of effort in bringing about the Women's Decade conferences and plans of action and in getting WCARRD to focus on the needs of rural women. Their work is commendable. How much concrete improvement this sort of effort can bring is always debatable. Women can use the recommendations to urge governments and development agencies to implement them, but governments can, and have, used such forums and recommendations to ease their consciences, to make a display of supposed concern for the well-being of women, and to absolve themselves from taking any serious steps to stop the oppression of women. Nonetheless, as Mallica Vajrathon of Thailand points out, "we should not ignore the fact that in global terms and especially in developing countries, there are many feminists who are working in the governments and many at high policy levels
.... It is now up to us to see to it that the programme of action is in operation by different countries, different development groups, networks of women's organizations and individuals.
Some feminists have serious doubts about the possibility of achieving very much through international intergovernmental conferences and recommendations, plans of action, and work at the governmental level. Their priority is organizing and mobilizing women on the local level. This need not be an either/or proposition. Feminists working on all levels could profit from increased communication, linking and supporting each other.
feminism and development
The feminist movement in the first world has, on the whole, taken little part in the debate about women and development.
Feminists in industrialized countries tend to look at development as an issue concerning only the third world. Preoccupied with particular issues which have been ignored and neglected in their own countries -child care, reproductive rights, violence against women -they often fail to make the connections between these issues and the political, economic and patriarchal structures which dominate the whole world. Thus they run the risk of remaining in a ghetto of so-called ''women's issues."
This is unfortunate. The feminist movement has an important contribution to make on both the theoretical and the practical levels by demonstrating the inter relatedness of oppressive political, economic and sexist institutions and by working for the transformation of all of these at the same time. At an international workshop on Feminist Ideology and Structures in the First Half of the Decade for Women, feminists from both developing and developed countries asserted that ''the oppression of women is rooted in both inequities and discrimination based on sex and in poverty and the injustices of the political and economic systems based on race and class." They identified the long term feminist goals of the women's movement:
First the freedom from oppression for women involves not only equity, but also the right of women to freedom of choice, and the power to control their own lives within and outside of the home. Having control over our lives and bodies is essential to ensure a sense of dignity and autonomy for every woman.
The second goal of feminism is... the removal of all forms of inequity and oppression through the creation of a just; social and economic order, nationally and internationally. This means the involvement of women in national liberation struggles, in plans for national development, a in local and global strategies for change.
At the Mid-Decade Conference on Women and at then governmental Forum held parallel to this, a lack of communication between the "women and development" community and feminists was evident. Summing up the experience the Anita Anand from India writes: "The feminists who have worked on the theory and praxis of feminism and the roots of oppression of women have been isolated for too long from the mainstream women's movement. Meanwhile, groups working on issues overtly affecting women have failed to inject a feminist perspective in their work. There was lively and often heated discussion among women from different parts of the world as they grappled with this problem.
Some women from industrialized countries felt that conference was too "politicized." Feminists from the world argued that it is impossible to separate women's issues from political issues. Mallica Vajrathon writes:
Many of the women from the developing countries were puzzled when they were accused of "politicizing the conference."They asked, "Why is the politicization of conference such a bad thing?Aren't we supposed top participate in politics; and who said that the issues that are concern to women are not political; that political should not be discussed at the Conference on the Decade of Women?" ... Why is the issue of transformation of society not of any concern to women when they compose of the citizens of the society? It is dangerous indeed for feminists to limit the issue which women should be concerned with only to the issue of discrimination on ground of biological differences and leave the issue national formation and international politics only for men to talk about. The male establishment would be just delighted to keep women busy with issues of their bodies and psychology,
Feminists also made the point that "the problem with the UN official conference in Copenhagen was not that it was 'politicized,' but that it failed to consider issues from a feminist political perspective or even in terms of how they were specifically viewed or affected by women. "
Misunderstandings about feminism were also rampant at the conference and could be summed up in the statement which appeared as the quote of the day in the daily Forum paper: "To talk feminism to a woman who has no water, no food and no home, is to talk nonsense." About this, Anita Anand writes:
This phrase ... was typical of how not only the media, but ardent proponents of integrating women into development of societies have viewed feminism. While it is true that certain basic needs - food, clothing, shelter - are essential and must be met before people can critically analyse their situations, it is not true that feminism is an "ism" or that it is a luxury for women. It is a basic approach to life. Feminism is an ideology that offers a holistic concept of how a society should be shaped in order to help all people realize their full potential. As such, it does not separate the political, social and economic elements of a society (and as they pertain to the struggle of women) ;or put any one ; of these elements firs ....
In any struggle, historically, women have been made to believe that struggles against racism, imperialism and colonialism are more important and the struggle against patriarchy has been relegated to the lowest status, if recognized at all. Simply, women have been asked to choose between working on women's issues ... or the "real issues." This artificially created priority has been a source of tension in and among women who want to work for a better society, as well as against the oppression of women ....
Women from developing countries are forced to defend the oppression of poverty as a major agenda item to be worked on. Women from developed countries, learning from their experiences, make a case of having to work against the oppression of sexism and of challenging the patriarchal system .... With conscious attempts to bring women from different economies together, to work on building feminist theory and praxis based on their experiences, much progress has been made, and there is a mutual respect and understanding of each other's agenda. From this process has emerged a consciousness that the struggle must be waged on both fronts, simultaneously, against poverty and sexism.
Concentrating on one without work on the other is meaningless.
A consciousness is also emerging of the need for women to join together globally to overcome their exploitation and oppression This is not to say that there is any one approach or strategy to be followed everywhere. Women in any given place will decide themselves how best to mobilize and liberate themselves. Since so many of the elements they must deal with are global - international economic and political systems, multinational corporations, development and population control policies -women will also have to tackle these issues on a global level. Women are profiting from the exchange of experiences and ideas and by giving each other support and solidarity. As Mallica Vajrathon says:
The strength of the Women's Movement lies in the variety of strategies and actions; aimed at the existing structure that needs to be changed at both local and international levels. The feminist network around the world will be able to bring richness of experiences of liberation struggles from one part of the world to the other throughout this coming decade, to achieve the ultimate aim of development-which is the constant improvement of the well-being of the entire population on this planet.
The following sections of this article focus on development policies in rural areas and how these affect women food producers in particular, and on some attempts to improve women's situations through the use of appropriate technology and income generating projects. These issues are examined in the light of feminist questions and insights. This article also looks at some of the actions and directions women are taking in organizing and mobilizing around these issues.
Footnotes
1 Cited in Debesh Bhattacharya, "Development: State of the World at Beginning of Third Development Decade,"ACFOA Developement Dossier no.6 (August1981), p.4.
2 Towards a World Economy that Works/em> (New York: United Nations, 1980), p.26.
3 Ken Laidlaw and Roy Laishley, Crisis Decade.(London:International Coalition for Development Action, 1980), p.24.
4 lbid., p.2.
5 Food Systems and Society (Geneva: United Nations Research Institute for Social Development, 1978), p.5. This document lists a number of studies which represent this approach such as Lester Brown, By Bread Alone (New York: Praeger, 1974) and Meadows etal., The Limits to Growth(Club of Rome, 1970).
6 Ibid., pp.2-9.
7 Ibid., pp. 7-8. UNRISD identifies major proponents of this approach as Susan George, How the Other Half Dies:The Real Reasons for World Hunger (London:Penguin Books, 1976); Frances Moore- Lappe and Joseph Collins, Food First(Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1977).
8 Ibid.,p.4.
9 For a concise overview of the Basic Needs Approach, see David Pollard, "Basic Human Needs as a Strategy for Development," ACFOA Development Dossier no.6. For a review of the literature and a bibliography, see M. Rutjes, Basic Needs Approach A Survey of its Literature Bibliography no.4 (The Hague: Centre for the Study of Education in Developing Countries, 1979).
10 Pollard, "Basic Human Needs," p.15.
11 Formed in the 1960s, the Group of 77 was originally comprised of 77 countries demanding a restructuring of the world economy. It is now comprised of 118 countries in various stages of development.
12 Robert Jordan, UNITAR, cited in Dieter Brauer, "Basic Needs Strategy - A Controversial Approach to International Development Efforts,"Development and Cooperation, no.5, (1979), p.28.
13 See World Conference on Agrarian Reform Rural Development Report (Rome: Food and Agricultural Organization, 1979), especially pp.10-11.
14 Crisis Decadep.39.
15 Willy Brandt et al., North - South: A Programme for Survival, Report of the Independent Commission on International Development Issues (London and Sydney: Pan Books, 1980). A good summary of the Brandt report is given in John Langrnore, "The Brandt Report," ACFOA Development Dossier no.6, pp.18-21.
16 Agriculture Toward 2000 (Rome: Food and Agricultural Organization, 1981), p.v. This report is a revised and considerably shortened version of a report on the provisional results of a study presented to the 1979 Conference of FAO. The provisional report, which was produced in a limited number of copies, contained much more detail in regard to how the suggested strategies could be carried out.
17 The "food-feed controversy" is discussed on p.36 of Agriculture: Toward 2000.
18 Devaki Jain, "Women are Separate," Development Forum (August 1978).
19 Ingrid Palmer, "New Official Ideas on Women and Development,"IDS Bulletin, vol.l0, no.3 (April 1979), p.51.
20 The Critical Needs of Women (Kuala Lumpur: Asian and Pacific Centre for Women and Development, 1977), pp.5 and 6.
21 See Critical Needs for the discussion of these needs.
22 Palmer, "New Official Ideas," p. 52.
23 Elise Boulding, Women: The Fifth World Foreign Policy Association, Headline Series (Ne, York, J 980), pp. 48 and 52.
24 Ibid., p. 30. This booklet contains a good summary of the events around International Women's Year and of the World Plan of Action for the UN Decade for Women.
25 See the Report of the World Conference of the United Nations Decade for Women: Equality, Development and Peace (New York: United Nations, 1980).
26 Mallica Vajrathon, "Discussing the Differences," Broadsheet, p.93 (October 1981),p. 39.
27 Report of the International Workshop on Feminist Ideology and Structures in the First Half of the Decade for Women(Kuala Lumpur: Asian and Pacific Centre for Women and Development, 1979), p. I.
28 Anita Anand, "Copenhagen 1980: Taking Women Seriously," mimeographed (Washington, DC: United Methodist Church, 1980), p. 2.
29 Vajrathon, "Discussing the Differences," p.37.
30 Charlotte Bunch, "Copenhagen and Beyond: Prospects for Global Feminism," Quest: A Feminist Quarterly, vol.5,no.4 (1982).
31 Anand, "Copenhagen 1980," p.2 and p.4.
32 Vajrathon, "Discussing the Differences," p.39.