The power of numbers in gender dynamics: illustrations from community forestry groups

Abstract

Is solidarity and a collective articulation of interests a necessary condition for the socially disadvantaged to have a voice in institutions of local governance, as some commentators argue? Or can their inclusion in sufficient numbers equally serve this purpose, as implied in the global lobbying for quotas? Also, by what process can numbers transform into solidarity? And how can the impact of inclusion in local institutions move beyond the local? Answers to these questions would be relevant in many contexts, not least in emerging global debates on the social and solidarity economy (SSE). This paper argues that the power of numbers and implicitly shared interests can, in themselves, go a long way towards improving outcomes for the disadvantaged, although a conscious recognition and collective articulation of shared interests can further enhance effectiveness. The shift from implicitly shared interests to their collective expression, however, will require a concerted engagement with intra-group dynamics and processes of group formation and democratic deliberation. These aspects have been relatively neglected in existing SSE debates, which have focused mainly on a group's interaction with outside-group agencies rather than on intra-group interaction. The paper examines within-group dynamics through the prism of gender and class. Drawing on the author's empirical results relating to community forestry groups in South Asia, it demonstrates that a critical mass of ‘women-in-themselves’ can make a notable difference even without a ‘women-for-themselves’ social consciousness. It also explores how horizontal linkages across local groups and their vertical representation via federations can enhance impact beyond the local.

Keywords:

• critical mass
• social and solidarity economy
• group dynamics
• gender
• community forestry
• federations
• South Asia

This is a significantly revised version of a paper presented at a conference on Social and Solidarity Economy, organized by the United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD), Geneva, 6–8 May 2013. I am grateful to Peter Utting and to the journal's anonymous referees for their comments on the earlier version.

Notes

¹See the range of articles presented at the conference on Social and Solidarity Economy, UNRISD, Geneva, 6–8 May 2013.

²See, for example, Kanter (1977), Flammang (1985), Dahlerup (1988), Thomas (1994), Studlar and McAllister (2002) and Bratton (2005). See Agarwal (2010) for additional references.

³See, for example, Dahlerup (1988), Carroll and Taylor (1989), Saint-Germain (1989), Thomas (1994), Lovenduski (1997), Wängnerud (2000), Swers (2001), Bratton and Ray (2002), Studlar McAllister (2002) and Bratton (2005).

⁴In 2007, 19 countries had one-third or more women in their national parliaments (Goetz 2009), and India and Pakistan have one-third reservations in village councils. In other countries, women's groups have been demanding one-third quotas in their legislatures (see Norris and Inglehart 2001; Goetz 2009).

⁵I have used the terms ‘threshold effect’ and ‘critical mass’ interchangeably. Among the few who have empirically tested critical mass using cross-country analysis are Bratton and Ray (2002) and Studlar and McAllister (2002).

⁶See for example the results of a time-use survey of 12,750 households for six Indian states (Government of India 2000). On women's participation in the care economy globally, see Folbre (2011).

⁷See especially Lukács (1971) for an elaboration of the term ‘false consciousness’. However, the view that the oppressed have a false perception of their real economic interests – and raising their consciousness about their true interests is necessary for change – can be found in many writings within social and political theory. See, for instance, Sen (1990), who makes this type of argument in relation to women in ‘traditional societies’, and Agarwal's (1997) critique of Sen's thesis.

⁸See also Scott (1985) and Agarwal (1994) on covert resistance by the disadvantaged, which indicates that they are well aware of their situation but lack the ability to overcome the material constraints they face. The challenge of moving from individual self-interest to a collective articulation of that interest remains.

⁹For a more detailed discussion on the background to this shift, including the property rights debate, see Agarwal (2010, Chapter 4).

¹⁰For India, see Bahuguna (2004). Nepal's figures are computed from its forest department database (Government of Nepal 2000).

¹¹Some of the groups in my sample, especially those in Panchmahals district of Gujarat, originated as informal self-initiated groups before the JFM programme was launched.

¹²For instance, even better-off rural households are usually highly dependent on the collection of firewood as fuel: see Narain et al. (2005) for India, Government of Nepal (2004) for Nepal and Chaudhuri and Pfaff (2003) for Pakistan.

¹³Information gathered by the author during a field visit to IDS sites in 1998.

¹⁴Personal communication to the author by a project officer of the organization.

¹⁵See, for instance, examples in Agarwal (1994).

¹⁶The ability of federations to function effectively may also vary by the nature of the resource. Forest federations are likely to face fewer constraints than, say, federations of water users, since collective action issues are likely to be less complex in the management and distribution of forest products than those linked with managing water bodies which require the maintenance of water channels and the distribution of water among head-enders and tail-enders, large and small farmers, and so on. (I am grateful to Peter Mollinga, SOAS, London, for brainstorming with me on this issue. Our discussion continues.)

Additional information

Bina Agarwal is Professor of Development Economics and Environment at the School of Environment, Education and Development, University of Manchester. She was earlier Director of the Institute of Economic Growth, Delhi. She also holds the position of past-President (2014–2016) of the International Society for Ecological Economics and is a member of the Future Earth Science Committee. A multiple award-winning author, her publications include several books, in particular A field of one's own: gender and land rights in South Asia (1994, 1995) and Gender and green governance (2010, 2013). A three-volume compendium of her selected papers is forthcoming from Oxford University Press. Website: www.binaagarwal.com