User:Kazushige Kobayashi/sandbox

Wikipedia Article: Gender and development

IA 039 Gender and International Affairs

December 18 2013

Geneva Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies

Summary of Contributions

This sandbox reflects the latest version of my contribution to the article (on 18 December 2013) and ready for evaluation.

• I was primarily responsible for writing Smart Economics section; however, I also wrote introductory paragraph. In the end, I also wrote Alternative Approaches section out of necessity to balance our view.
• Informed by various textbooks regarding gender and development, I have structured and restructured the entire article not to miss important approaches while being aware of alternative perspectives.
• Made comments to every single part of the article, and extensively edited format and style of the article to improve the visual and contents coherence.
• Led facebook group discussions, coordination, and distribution of tasks. I also presented concerns and issues on behalf of our team at office hours.
• Edited reference sections entirely to incorporate all the cited sources and also added further readings.

Written Contributions

My prime responsibility was to write Smart Economics section; but subsequently I have also written two other parts to increase coherence and quality of the overall article. The writing below is identical to the writing of the article; please also see the actual Wikipedia article[1] for the original format.

Introduction

The pre-World War II period saw flourishing movements of various forms of feminism; however, the nexus between (economic) development and women was not clearly articulated until the second half of the 20th century. Women first came into focus in development as objects of welfare policies, including birth control, nutrition, pregnancy, and so forth. "In 1962 the UN General Assembly asked the Commission on Women's Status to prepare a report on the role of women in development. Boserups's path breaking study on Women's Role in Economic Development was published in 1970." These events marked monumental moments in developing liberal paradigm of women in development, and the welfarist approach still remains dominant in development practices today. This article scrutinizes various approaches in gender and development, but primarily covers the dominant liberal approaches starting from WID, WAD, GAD and neoliberal frameworks. There is significant overlapping among these approaches (for example, WID can be seen as an early version of neoliberal framework), but intellectually important to shed light to the differences they manifest.

Smart Economics

Theoretical Approaches

Advocated chiefly by the World Bank, smart economics is an approach to define gender equality as an integral part of economic development and it aims to spur development through investing more efficiently in women and girls. It stresses that the gap between men and women in human capital, economic opportunities, and voice/agency is a chief obstacle in achieving more efficient development. As an approach, it is a direct descendant of the efficiency approach taken by WID which “rationalizes ‘investing’ in women and girls for more effective development outcomes.” As articulated in the section of WID, the efficiency approach to women in development was chiefly articulated by Caroline Moser in the late 1980s. Continuing the stream of WID, smart economics’ key unit of analysis is women as individual and it particularly focuses on measures that promote to narrow down the gender gap. Its approach identifies women are relatively underinvested source of development and it defines gender equality an opportunity of higher return investment. “Gender equality itself is here depicted as smart economics, in that it enables women to contribute their utmost skills and energies to the project of world economic development.” In this term, smart economics champions neoliberal perspective in seeing business as a vital vehicle for change and it takes a stance of liberal feminism.

The thinking behind smart economics dates back, at least, to the lost decade of the Structural Adjustment Policies (SAPs) in the 1980s. In 1995, World Bank issued its flagship publication on gender matters of the year Enhancing Women’s Participation in Economic Development (World Bank 1995). This report marked a critical foundation to the naissance of Smart Economics; in a chapter entitled ‘The Pay-offs to Investing in Women,’ the Bank proclaimed that investing in women “speeds economic development by raising productivity and promoting the more efficient use of resources; it produces significant social returns, improving child survival and reducing fertility, and it has considerable intergenerational pay-offs.” The Bank also emphasized its associated social benefits generated by investing in women. For example, the Bank turned to researches of Whitehead that evidenced a greater female-control of household income is associated with better outcomes for children’s welfare and Jeffery and Jeffery who analyzed the positive correlation between female education and lower fertility rates. In the 2000s, the approach of smart economics came to be further crystallized through various frameworks and initiatives. A first step was World Bank’s Gender Action Plan (GAP) 2007-/2010, followed by the “Three Year Road Map for Gender Mainstreaming 2010-13.” The 2010-13 framework responded to criticisms for its precursor and incorporated some shifts in thematic priorities. Lastly but not least, the decisive turning point was 2012 marked by its publication of “World Development Report 2012: Gender Equality and Development.” This Bank’s first comprehensive focus on the gender issues was welcomed by various scholars and practitioners, as an indicator of its seriousness. For example, Shahra Razavi appraised the report as ‘a welcome opportunity for widening the intellectual space’.

Other international organizations, particular UN families, have so far endorsed the approach of smart economics. Examining the relationship between child well-being and gender equality, for example, UNICEF also refereed to the “Double Dividend of Gender Equality.” Its explicit link to a wider framework of the Millennium Development Goals (where the Goal 3 is Promoting Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment) claimed a wider legitimacy beyond economic efficiency. In 2007, the Bank proclaimed that “The business case for investing in MDG 3 is strong; it is nothing more than smart economics.” In addition, “Development organisations and governments have been joined in this focus on the ‘business case’ for gender equality and the empowerment of women, by businesses and enterprises which are interested in contributing to social good.” A good example is “Girl Effect initiative” taken by Nike Foundation. Its claim for economic imperative and a broader socio-economic impact also met a strategic need of NGOs and community organizations that seeks justification for their program funding. Thus, some NGOs, for example Plan International, captured this trend to further their program. The then-president of the World Bank Robert B. Zoellick was quoted by Plan International in stating “Investing in adolescent girls is precisely the catalyst poor countries need to break intergenerational poverty and to create a better distribution of income. Investing in them is not only fair, it is a smart economic move.” The global financial meltdown and austerity measures taken by major donor counties further supported this approach, since international financial institutions (IFIs) s and international NGOs received a greater pressure from donors and from global public to design and implement maximally cost-effective programs.

Criticisms

From mid-2000s, the approach of smart economics and its chief proponent –World Bank– met a wide range of criticisms and denouncements. These discontents can be broadly categorized into three major claims; Subordination of Intrinsic Value; Ignorance for the need of systemic transformation; Feminisation of responsibility; Overemphasized efficiency; and Opportunistic pragmatism.This is not exhaustive list of criticisms, but the list aims to highlight different emphasis among existing criticisms.

Smart economics’ subordination of women under the justification of development invited fierce criticisms. Chant expresses her grave concern that “Smart economics is concerned with building women’s capacities in the interests of development rather than promoting women’s rights for their own sake.” She disagrees that investment in women should be promoted by its instrumental utility: “it is imperative to ask whether the goal of female investment is primarily to promote gender equality and women’s ‘empowerment’, or to facilitate development ‘on the cheap’, and/or to promote further economic liberalization.” Although smart economics outlines that gender equality has intrinsic value (realizing gender quality is an end itself) and instrumental value (realizing gender equality is a means to a more efficient development), many points out that the Bank pays almost exclusive attentions to the latter in defining its framework and strategy. Zuckerman also echoed this pint by stating “business case [which] ignores the moral imperative of empowering women to achieve women’s human rights and full equal rights with men.” In short, Chant casts a doubt that if it is not “possible to promote rights through utilitarianism.”

A wide range of scholars and practitioners has criticized that smart economics rather endorse the current status-quo of gender inequality and keep silence for the demand of institutional reform. Its approach “[d]oes not involves public action to transform the laws, policies, and practices which constrain personal and group agency.” Naila Kabeer also posits that “attention to collective action to enable women to challenge structural discrimination has been downplayed.” Simply, smart economics assumes that women are entirely capable of increasingly contributing for economic growth amid the ongoing structural barriers to realize their capabilities.

Sylvia Chant (2008) discredited its approach as ‘feminisation of responsibility and/or obligation’ where the smart economics intends to spur growth simply by demanding more from women in terms of time, labour, energy, and other resources. She also agrees that “Smart economics seeks to use women and girls to fix the world.” She further goes by clarifying that “It is less welcome to women who are already contributing vast amounts to both production and unpaid reproduction to be romanticised and depicted as the salvation of the world.”

Chant is concerned that “An efficiency-driven focus on young women and girls as smart economics leaves this critical part of the global population out.” Smart economics assumes that all women are at their productive stage and fallaciously neglects lives of the elderly women, or women with handicaps. Thus she calls for recognition of “equal rights of all women and girls -regardless of age, or the extent of nature of their economic contribution.” Also, its approach does not talk about cooperation and collaboration between males and females thus leaving men and boys completely out of picture.

Chant emphasize that “The smart economics approach represents, at best, pragmatism in a time of economic restructuring and austerity.” Smart economics can have a wider acceptance and legitimacy because now is the time when efficiency is most demanded, not because its utilitarianism has universal appeal. She further warns that feminists should be very cautious about “supporting, and working in coalition with, individuals and institutions who approach gender equality through the lens of smart economics. This may have attractions in strategic terms, enabling us to access resources for work focusing on supporting the individual agency of women and girls, but risks aggravating many of the complex problems that gender and development seeks to transform.”

Alternative Approaches

Other approaches with different paradigms have also played a historically important role in advancing theories and practices in gender and development.

Marxism and Neo-Marxism

The structuralist debate was first triggered by Marxist and socialist feminists. Marxism, particularly through alternative models of state socialist development practiced in China and Cuba, challenged the dominant liberal approach over time. Neo-Marxist proponents focused on the role of the post-colonial state in development in general and also on localized class struggles. Marxist feminists advanced these criticisms towards liberal approaches and made significant contribution to the contemporary debate.

Dependency Theory

Dependency theorists opposed that liberal development models, including the attempt to incorporate women into the existing global capitalism, was in fact nothing more than the "development of underdevelopment." This view led them to propose that delinking from the structural oppression of global capitalism is the only way to achieve balanced human development. In the 1980s, there also emerged "a sustained questioning by post-structuralist critics of the development paradigm as a narrative of progress and as an achievable enterprise."

Basic Needs Approach, Capability Approach, and Ecofeminism

Within the liberal paradigm of women and development, various criticism have emerged. The Basic Needs (BN) approach began to pose questions to the focus on growth and income as indicators of development. It was heavily influenced by Sen and Nussabaum's capability approach, which was more gender sensitive than BN and focused on expanding human freedom. The BN particularly proposed a participatory approach to development and challenged the dominant discourse of trickle down effects. These approaches focused on the human freedom led to development of other importnat concepts such as human development and human security. From a perspective of sustainable development, ecofeminists articulated the direct link between colonialism and environmental degradation, which resulted in degradation of women's lives themselves.

References

Sources

The sources below includes ones cited in other part of the article (written by other team members); but I took responsibility in sorting out and formatting all references.

• Bertrand, Tietcheu (2006). Being Women and Men in Africa Today: Approaching Gender Roles in Changing African Societies.
• Bradshaw, Sarah (May 2013). "Women’s role in economic development: Overcoming the constraints". UNSDSN. UNSDSN. Retrieved 22 November 2013.
• Chant, S. (16 August 2012). "The disappearing of 'smart economics'? The World Development Report 2012 on Gender Equality: Some concerns about the preparatory process and the prospects for paradigm change". Global Social Policy 12 (2): 198–218. doi:10.1177/1468018112443674.
• Chant, Sylvia; Sweetman, Caroline (November 2012). "Fixing women or fixing the world? ‘Smart economics’, efficiency approaches, and gender equality in development". Gender & Development 20 (3): 517–529. doi:10.1080/13552074.2012.731812.
• Development Assistance Committee (DAC), 1998, p.7
• Eisenstein, Hester (2009). Feminism Seduced: How Global Elites Use Women’s Labor and Ideas to Exploit the World. Boulder: Paradigm Publishers. ISBN 1594516596. Retrieved 25 November 2013.
• Elizabeth Wilson. Women and the Welfare State. Routledge.
• Elson, Diane; Pearson, Ruth (27 September 2013). "Keynote of Diane Elson and Ruth Pearson at the Gender, Neoliberalism and Financial Crisis Conference at the University of York".Soundcloud. Retrieved 27 November 2013.
• Frank, Andre Gunder (1969). Capitalism and underdevelopment in Latin America : historical studies of Chile and Brazil (Rev. and enl. ed. ed.). New York: Monthly Review P. ISBN 0853450935.
• Fraser, Nancy (2012). "Feminism, Capitalism, and the Cunning of History". Working paper. Fondation Maison des sciences de l'homme. p. 14. Retrieved 2 November 2013.
• ILO. Employment, growth, and basic needs : a one-world problem : report of the Director-General of the International Labour Office. Geneva: International Labour Office. 1976.ISBN 9789221015109.
• Irene Tinker (1990). Persistent Inequalities: Women and World Development. Oxford University Press. p. 30. ISBN 978-0-19-506158-1.
• Jackson, edited by Cecile; Pearson, Ruth (2002). Feminist visions of development : gender analysis and policy (1. publ. ed.). London: Routledge. p. Jeffrey, P., & Jeffrey, R. (1998). Silver Bullet or Passing Fancy? Girl’s Schooling and Population Policy. ISBN 0415157900.
• Kabeer, Naila (2003). Gender mainstreaming in poverty eradication and the Millennium development goals a handbook for policy-makers and other stakeholders. London: Commonwealth secretariat. ISBN 0-85092-752-8.
• Koczberski, Sarah (1998). "Women In Development: A Critical Analysis". Third World Quarterly (Taylor & Francis, Ltd.) 19 (3): 395-410.
• March, Smyth & Mukhopadhyay 1999, pp. 55.
• McRobbie, Angela (2009). The Aftermath of Feminism: Gender, Culture and Social Change. London: Sage. ISBN 0761970622. Retrieved 25 November 2013.
• Merchant, Carolyn (1980). The death of nature : women, ecology, and the scientific revolution : a feminist reappraisal of the scientific revolution(First edition. ed.). San Francisco: Harper & Row.ISBN 0062505718.
• Mies, Maria; Bennholdt-Thomsen,, Veronika; Werlhof, Claudia von (1988). Women : the last colony (1. publ. ed.). London: Zed Books.ISBN 0862324556.
• Moser, Caroline O.N. (November 1989). "Gender planning in the third world: Meeting practical and strategic gender needs". World Development 17 (11): 1799–1825.doi:10.1016/0305-750X(89)90201-5.
• Moser, Caroline (1993). Gender Planing and Development. Theory, Practice and Training. New York: Routledge. p. 3.
• Moser, Caroline O.N. (1995). Gender planning and development : theory, practice and training(Reprint. ed.). London [u.a.]: Routledge.ISBN 0415056209.
• Nalini Visvanathan ... [et. The women, gender and development reader (2nd ed. ed.). London: Zed Books. p. 29.ISBN 9781848135871.
• New York Times. [Accessible onhttp://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/11/giving/11VIDEO.html?_r=0 "Nike Harnesses ‘Girl Effect’ Again."]. New York Times, November 10, 2010. Retrieved 1 December 2013.
• Parpart, Jane L., Patricia Connelly, and Eudine Barriteau. 2000. Theoretical Perspectives on Gender and Development. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre.
• Pearce, Samir Amin. Transl. by Brian (1976).Unequal development : an essay on the social formations of peripheral capitalism (al-Ṭabʻah 4. ed.). Hassocks: Harvester Pr. ISBN 0901759465.
• Plan International.Summary_ENGLISH_lo_resolution.pdf ‘Because I Am a Girl: The State of the World’s Girls 2009. Girls in the Global Economy. Adding it All Up.’. Plan International. p. 11 and 28.
• Prügl, Elizabeth (14). "If Lehman Brothers Had Been Lehman Sisters...: Gender and Myth in the Aftermath of the Financial Crisis". International Political Sociology 6 (1): 25. doi:10.1111/j.1749-5687.2011.00149.x.
• Rankin, Katharine N. (2001). "Governing Development: Neoliberalism, Microcredit, and Rational Economic Woman". Economy and Society (Fondation Maison des sciences de l'homme) 30: 20. Retrieved 2 November 2013.
• Rathgeber, Eva M. 1990. “WID, WAD, GAD: Trends in Research and Practice.” The Journal of Developing Areas. 24(4) 289-502
• Razavi, S.80256B42004CCC77/(httpInfoFiles)/E90770090127BDFDC12579250058F520/$file/ Extended%20Commentary%20WDR%202012.pdf‘World Development Report 2012: Gender Equality and Development: An Opportunity Both Welcome and Missed (An Extended Commentary)’. p. 2.
• Razavi, Shahrashoub; Miller, Carol (1995)."From WID to GAD: Conceptual shifts in the Women and Development discourse". United Nations Research Institute Occasional Paper series (United Nations Research Institute for Social Development) 1: 2. Retrieved 22 November 2013.
• Reeves, Hazel (2000). Gender and Development: Concepts and Definitions. Brighton. p. 8. ISBN 1 85864 381 3.
• Robert Connell (1987). Gender and power: society, the person, and sexual politics. Stanford University Press. ISBN 978-0-8047-1430-3.
• Roberts, Adrienne; Soederberg, Susanne (June 2012). "Gender Equality as Smart Economics? A critique of the 2012 World Development Report". Third World Quarterly 33(5): 949–968.doi:10.1080/01436597.2012.677310.
• Sen, Amartya (2001). Development as freedom(1. publ. as an Oxford Univ. Press pbk. ed.). Oxford [u.a.]: Oxford Univ. Press.ISBN 0192893300.
• True, J (2012). Feminist Strategies in Global Governance: Gender Mainstreaming. New York: Routledge. p. 37.
• UNICEF (2006). The state of the world's children 2007: women and children: the double dividend of gender equality. United Nations Children's Fund.
• UNU. The quality of life a study prepared for the World Institute for Development Economics Research (WIDER) of the United Nations University (Repr. ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1995. ISBN 9780198287971.
• Van Marle 2006, pp. 126.
• "World Bank Gender Overview". World Bank. World Bank. 3 May 2013. Retrieved 5 November 2013.
• WDB about page". Women’s Development Business. WDB. 2013. Retrieved 28 November 2013.
• World Bank (1995). Enhancing Women’s Participation in Economic Development(Washington, DC: World Bank). p. 22.
• World Bank 2010.
• World Bank. "Applying Gender Action Plan Lessons: A Three-Year Road Map for Gender Mainstreaming (2011- 2013).". World Bank Report. World Bank. Retrieved 1 December 2013.
• World Bank. "World Development Report 2012: Gender Equality and Development.".World Development Report. World Bank. Retrieved 1 December 2013.
• World Bank. Global Monitoring Report 2007: Millenium Development Goals: Confronting the Challenges of Gender Equality and Fragile States (Vol. 4). World Bank-free PDF. p. 145.
• Young, edited by Kate; Wolkowitz, Carol; McCullagh, Roslyn (1984). Of marriage and the market : women's subordination internationally and its lessons (2nd ed.). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. p. Whitehead, A. (1984) ‘I’m hungry, mum: the politics of domestic budgeting.’.ISBN 9780710202932.

Further reading

• Benería, L., Berik, G., & Floro, M. (2003). Gender, development, and globalization: Economics as if all people mattered. New York: Routledge.
• Visvanathan, N., Duggan, L., Nisonoff, L., & Wiegersma, N. (Eds.). (2011). The women, gender, and development reader. 2nd edition. New Africa Books.
• Ruble, D. N., Martin, C. L., & Berenbaum, S. A. (1998). Gender development. Handbook of child psychology.
• Golombok, S., & Fivush, R. (1994). Gender development. Cambridge University Press.
• Janet Henshall Momsen (2009). Gender and Development. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-0-415-77562-5.
• Lise Østergaard (1992). Gender and development: a practical guide. Routledge. ISBN 0-415-07132-1.
• Raana Haider (1996). Gender and development. American University in Cairo Press.

Category:Women's rights Category:Development

Interactions and Comments

Discussions have also taken place outside of this talk page and more importantly on our facebook group; but the below shows all major comments I have made. See also the talk page of our article [2].

Hi Samuele Ro FeministGeekOBE Quentin.Ncs Simonfuerstenberg!! To improve our article quality, I made substantial editing to the article formats; please see changes below and suggest further improvements if necessary. ● The first paragraph after our Gender and development From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia title was remaining the old one (i.e. it said that this article talks about GAD, which is no longer true). So I put an overview of the approaches we have examined as introductory paragraph, please feel free to add or amend if necessary. ● I have read through other literature and textbooks in library, and found that our exclusive focus on economic literature may not fully represent the diversity of contemporary debates; so, I made a new (but brief) section to highlight other important approaches (Marxism for example), to demonstrate that the dominant discourse is not the sole approach. I believe this change is necessary regarding Wikipedia's policy of neutrality by balancing (incorporating different views instead of mainstreaming or advocating a specific stance). ● Our different subsections did not have coherent structure; so I made changes to format and sections to have the same components as much as possible; however, your writing was not changed to substantial degree.

Hi Samuele Ro ! Thank you for adjusting your part! I read through your part, and realized that probably your section and my smart economics section in the end fit together, since you specifically addressed the issues of institutions and economic policies. So I edited some styling, please see and revise if you have better idea! ● I moved my section into yours and created the Neoliberal Approaches section, I think now it fits better. ● Your second section can be categorized as financial crisis and economic policy, which was an important component missing from our neoliberal argument (many argued that financial crises are absent from neoliberal approaches). So I amended the title to emphasize it without changing your writing, what do you think?

Hi FeministGeekOBE ! I added [Theoretical Approach] title to your part to make it more coherent corresponding to other parts; but no part or word of your writing has changed. Thank you incorporating my past comments; it was not posted here so I cite it again if you missed some of them, but I see that you made changes? ● "Influenced by this work, by the late 1970s, some people working in the field of development stated to question the adequacy of focusing on women in isolation.[5] -Here, "some people" seems too generic; maybe you can identify if they are scholars, practitioners, or development agencies who began to pose such questions. ● "In an attempt to create ‘gender equity’ also referred to as gender equality, (denoting women having same opportunities as men, including ability to participate in the public sphere;[14] -Probably, distinction between equity and equality should be more clearly argued here since I do not think these two concepts are completely identical. ● "GAD policies challenge traditional construction of gender role expectations." here the world "challenge" seems to me too strong, it a bit sounds like GAD primarily intends to overthrow the existing social institutions (although I know that this is not what you mean). May be you can say like GAD policies aim to open new horizon for traditional construction of gender role expectations, this sounds less revolutionary. ● "Criticisms" I think you plan to cite more of criticisms in the near future since this is just draft? Theories and criticisms do not need to be completely balanced (400 words/400 words), but I think a better balance should be sought (but do not delete what you have written, they are good and I don't think you should cut any part). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kazushige Kobayashi (talk • contribs) 06:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Quentin.Ncs ! I have edited your section, I believe your contents were great but it looks better if you distinguish the theoretical approach and criticism to maintain the single format of the article. ● I moved [The Women in Development approach was the first contemporary movement to specifically integrate women in the broader development agenda and acted as the precursor to later movements such as the Women and Development (WAD), and ultimately, the Gender and Development approach, departing from some of the criticized aspects imputed to the WID.] into the end of theoretical approach and made [criticism] section, none of your writing was changed. ● Your part was missing links to other pages, so I put all the links (what I thought was important); please see the linked pages and confirm if the linked page matches to what you are talking of. I have checked myself and I think it's fine but maybe you meant something else, possibly.

Hi Simonfuerstenberg! I have seen your part and i liked you have emphasized distinction between WID and WAD; some textbooks (like Women, Gender and Development Reader) distinguishes these two but I think it is often confused. I did not change any part of your writing, but introduced some amendments. ● I out (intersectionality) concept in parentheses in your writing, you ahve talked about the concept in the criticism section but did not mention the name of the concept, I believe it is good if we mention since it is central concept in gender studies. ● Your part was missing links to other pages, so I put all the links (what I thought was important); please see the linked pages and confirm if the linked page matches to what you are talking of. I have checked myself and I think it's fine but maybe you meant something else, possibly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kazushige Kobayashi (talk • contribs) 06:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Guys, we should put pictures! I wanna incert this [1] but I tried and failed like 200 timess..does anybody know?? (Quentin.Ncs (talk) ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kazushige Kobayashi (talk • contribs) 02:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I just noticed that the first two parts (WID & WAD) still need some links to other articles on wikipedia. Best, Samuele Ro (talk) 17:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey Samuele Ro (talk), Kazushige Kobayashi (talk), Simonfuerstenberg (talk) and FeministGeekOBE (talk), I noticed the Sources section is not up to date. Can you please update it using the footnotes you have already created? Its just copy pasting, and removing the [1] after the footnote code to add to the resource list. (Quentin.Ncs (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC))

Hi! Samuele Ro (talk) (Quentin.Ncs (talk) I have edited the outline of our article, now it looks more coherent. Should we maintain the Theories section embracing WID WAD GAD or should we separate them to make 5 sections? What do you think? Hi Ituta (talk) I was updating this page on Monday, and it repeatedly showed "Editing Conflict" page and I could not upload my part, I tried on Tuesday but it said same....today it seems working, what do you think was the cause of this issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kazushige Kobayashi (talk • contribs) 04:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Kazu, Kazushige Kobayashi (talk I agree, we could transform that into five different sections. That would also make it easier to get an overview and to make links directly to the sub-parts.Samuele Ro (talk) 17:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Samuel! Samuele Ro (talk) There is remaining 'usage' section from the old article, I believe it is related to your part. Could you incorporate? Plus, you mention of 2012 Report but I have also mentioned it since it is the foundation of Smart Economics; probably it is better that you mention it briefly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kazushige Kobayashi (talk • contribs) 04:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Kazu. Kazushige Kobayashi (talk) Thanks a lot for your useful feedback. I have incorporated the part in question. Also, I have introduced smart economics as being part of the Bank's Gender Action Plan and will make a direct Link to your Part on SE.Samuele Ro (talk) 17:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)