Summary. - This paper explores the validity of the statement that one-third of the world's households are headed by women. It examines the implications of using ...
W&d Development, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp. 505-520, 1996 Copyright 0 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved 0305-750X/96 $15.00 + 0.00
Pergamon
0305-750X(95)00149-2
Women Heading Households:
Some More Equal than
Others? ANN VARLEY *
University College London, U.K. Summary. - This paper explores the validity of the statement that one-third of the world’s households are headed by women. It examines the implications of using economic criteria to define household headship and of recent interest in woman-maintained households and concealed woman-headed households. There is a danger of underplaying the diversity of woman-headed households and of marginalizing older women by identifying woman-headed households with single mothers of dependent children. Ultimately, too narrow a focus on particular household types undermines our ability to further a truly gendered analysis of the household in development research and practice. Copyright 0 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd
is one of exaggerating
their numbers. This is undesirable because it may suggest that those advocating a policy focus on woman-headed households lack confidence in the validity of their case and therefore resort to quantitative exaggeration to bolster what they subconsciously fear to be weak arguments. A second, and more important, risk is that of inadvertently marginalizing certain groups of women - in particular, older women. Gender planning discussion of womanheaded households tends to underplay their heterogeneity by overemphasizing the single mother with young dependent children. Rather than challenging the notion that women’s “natural” role in life is motherhood, this emphasis on single mothers is in danger of reinforcing it. Finally, too narrow a focus on particular household categories undermines our ability to develop a truly gendered analysis of the structure and functioning of families and households. This will be illustrated with reference to observed relationships between gender, headship and household extension.
1. WOMAN-HEADED HOUSEHOLDS IN THE GENDER AND DEVELOPMENT LITERATURE
Woman-headed households occupy a special place in the literature on gender, development and planning. The need to pay attention to their needs has become one of the fundamental principles of gender planning (Moser, 1993; Young, 1993), partly because such households challenge the assumption in “Western planning theory . . that the household consists of a nuclear family of husband, wife and two or three children” (Moser, 1993, p. 15). The assumption that the nuclear family household is “natural” is connected to the belief that it is “natural” for women’s role in life to be defined as (exclusively) that of wife and mother, and challenging these associated ideas is therefore a central part of the feminist project (Collier, Rosaldo and Yanagisako, 1982; Harris, 1984; Moore, 1988). Woman-headed households underline household heterogeneity and can be interpreted as the product of women rejecting the patriarchal constraints on their lives by “opting out” of the nuclear family (Tinker, 1990, p. 11). Consequently, they have even come to dominate the literature in certain fields, such as the international literature on gender and housing (Varley, 1993). The argument for giving womanheaded households special attention is strengthened by the observed relationship between female headship and poverty, which has prompted leading thinkers in the field to advocate a progressive strategy of “antipoverty interventions that target female headship” (Buvinic and Gupta, 1993, p. 24). In this paper, I argue that current thinking on woman-headed households runs three risks. The first
2. DEFINITIONS
AND SOURCES
This paper explores a number of statements that have been made about woman-headed households on the basis of census data, and examines the implica*I am grateful to two anonymous referees for their very perceptive comments on this paper, on which I have drawn heavily in revising the conclusion (in particular), although responsibility for the opinions expressed in the final version clearly remains with me. Final revision accepted: September 2, 1995. 505
506
WORLD DEVELOPMENT
tions of different ways of defining household headship. Since the point is to compare different approaches, there is no particular need to establish a priori definitions either of the household or of household headship. Indeed, some would argue that “the boundaries and functions of households cannot be delineated on a priori grounds but must be empirically determined in every case” (Netting, Wilk and Amould, 1984, p. xxiv; added emphasis). In this context, feminist scholars and planners in particular find themselves on the horns of a dilemma. On the one hand, their exposure of conflicting agendas and unequal power relations within the household has led some to describe it as “a figment of the statisticians’ imagination” (Rogers, 1980, p, 64) and to call for its rejection as the unit of economic analysis (Ashworth, 1992). The concept of the head of household - a single decision maker representing members’ shared interests - is regarded as particularly inadequate and inappropriate, especially when this role is automatically ascribed to the senior male (Bruce and Dwyer, 1988; Rosenhouse, 1989; Young, 1993). On the other hand, concern about “the apparent trend of increasing detachment of women and children from men’s income” (Moser, 1993, p. 18) and labor markets in which the odds seem to be almost universally stacked against women (Stichter, 1990) leads to a demand for more information about woman-headed households to assist in targeting anti-poverty programs. A philosophical rejection of the concept of head of household is therefore accompanied by a pragmatic need for more information about headship. This dilemma can be illustrated by changing practices in some census agencies. Since the 1980s Italy and Switzerland (following the example of France, the United States and Canada) have ceased to use the traditional “head of household” concept. Their publications now offer a better disaggregation of family households, but insufficient information about people living alone for the overall percentage of households headed by women to be calculated.’ Thus, rejection of the head of household concept may reduce our ability to discuss a group ascribed particular policy relevance by many analysts. For the sake of clarity, however: the concept of a household informing this paper is that established by international guidelines which broadly define a household as a number of individuals who live together and provide the basic needs for themselves, their children and relevant others (i.e. those who live under one roof and share a common pot) (Young, 1993, p. 114). For the most part, “households are constituted round relationships centred on marriage and parenthood” (p. 114), but both “family” and “nonfamily” (particularly single person) households are considered.* There are two major approaches to defining the meaning of “head of household.” First, “a person who
controls the maintenance of the household - that is, exercises the authority to run the household” (United Nations, 1973, in Youssef and Hetler, 1983, p. 226). Second, “the “main supporter” (chief earner) of the household” (p. 226). In practice most census agencies have allowed respondents to define who is the head of their household, with the result that “definitions of. . . household head are neither clear nor consistent” (Chaney, 1984, p. 103). Consequently, “a major impediment to studying . . female headship has been the lack of quality data”3 (De Vos, 1994, p. 178). It is generally argued that most census data reflect the conventional assumption that a woman will be recognized as household head only if she has no resident male partner. In this paper, such “conventional” definitions are compared with “economic” definitions focusing on the person who earns or contributes the most to household welfare (as indicated in the phrase “woman-maintained” households).4 The distinction between “economic” and “conventional” approaches to household headship also lies behind much of the discussion about de facto as opposed to de jure woman-headed households, although different authors use different criteria to define de facto woman-headed households. Some stress the male partner’s temporary absence, for example, as the result of migration in search of employment opportunities; but in theory, men working elsewhere could continue to be the main contributor to the household budget. Others stress the male partner’s limited contributions to the budget, thus mirroring the “economic” approach to defining headship outlined above. Much of the census information to which reference is made is now rather old, coming from the mid-1980s at the latest. This is because the most recent major international survey of the census data available is the United Nations 1987 Demographic Yearbook Special Topic: Household Composition (United Nations, 1989).
3. A FLAWED ORTHODOXY? In the literature on gender and development, the argument that one-third of the world’s households are headed by women has come close to achieving the status of an orthodoxy. Its evolution can be traced in the following
quotations.
Around the world today, one out of three households is headed, de facto, by a woman . in parts of Latin America it is as high as 50 per cent (Tinker, 1976, p. 3 1). United Nations figures estimate 30 percent of all households in developing countries are headed by women (Chaney, 1984, p. 101). It is estimated that today one-third of the world’s households are headed by women. In urban areas, especially in
WOMAN-HEADED
Latin America and parts of Africa, the figure reaches 50% or more (Moser, 1989, p. 1802). We know, for instance, that 30 to 50 per cent of the world’s households are led by women (Sayne, 1991, p. 48). . . data indicate that one out of every three women is opting out of patriarchal families to head her own household (Tinker, 1990, p. 11). . more than half the poor urban households [in large cities of the Third World] have a woman as head of the family (Muller and Plantenga, 1990, p. 11). It is estimated that one third of the World’s households are headed by women . in some rural (sic) areas of Latin America and Africa, the number of female-headed households reaches 50 per cent (United Nations, 1991b. p. 40). In at least 30 per cent of all households globally women are the primary source of income (O’Connell, 1994, p. 67). Almost one third of all the households on earth are headed by women. At least one third of families have a woman as their only income earner (UNICEF, Children First!, Spring 1994, p. 13). one of every three households in the world has a woman as its sole breadwinner (1998 International Year of the Family publicity on “The changing family structure”). More than the orthodoxy of the idea that one-third of the world’s households are headed by women, these
quotations demonstrate how by repeated citation the figure is being chalked up further and further. Moreover, the figure of one-third has now slipped sideways into the discussion on woman-maintained households (including those maintained solely by a woman).5 In both cases it seems that this figure is now becoming a minimum: the real figure, it is suggested, is higher still. It is difficult to identify the source from which the original argument was taken. Tinker (1976) and Chaney (1984) do not provide bibliographic references to the source of their information.6 In her ground-breaking paper on gender planning, Moser (1989) cites a 1978 publication, Woman-headed Households:
The
Ignored
Factor
in Development
507
HOUSEHOLDS
Planning
by Mayra Buvinii: and Nadia Youssef with Barbara Von Elm. This study is important because the authors used a methodology intended to overcome the problems associated with census definitions of head of household, but which still employed a conventional rather than economic approach to defining household headship. Census data on marital status were used to define “potential” women heads of household as all widowed, divorced or separated women and single mothers, while the total number of “potential” heads included these women plus all males who were ever married or currently in consensual unions (Buvinic, Youssef and Von Elm, 1978, pp. 37-38). The results indicated that 18.5% of potential household heads in developing countries were women (Table 1). Thus, “Buvinic and Youssef s calculations . would suggest a figure nearer a sixth for the Third World” (Townsend and Momsen, 1987, p. 52). It is unclear, therefore, how Buvinic ef al. (1978) could be interpreted as indicating that one-third of the world’s households are headed by a woman.’ Moreover, it is worth noting that their measure identifies potential heads of family rather than household. They exclude never-married women and men without children living alone. As they point out, in developing countries.“female heads are much more likely to be family rather than mere household heads” (p. 38). We may nevertheless query the effect of excluding nevermarried people.* The existence of young unmarried men living in single-person or other nonfamily households as a result of male labor migration in some parts of the world, plus widespread cultural restrictions on unmarried women doing the same, suggest that including never-married men and women without children would somewhat reduce the percentage of potential woman-headed households reported. More recently, a 1991 United Nations publication, The World’s Women 19761990: Trendy cmd Statistics, has started to be widely cited in comrection
with assertions that one-third of the world’s households are headed by women. Textually, this publication reports that:
Table 1. Potential women heads of household as aperxentage of all potential hetrds of household, various years 1%X-76* Regional headings as in Buvinii- , Youssef and Von Elm (1978) 8
Nt
Table 2
North Africa + Middle East Sub-Saharan Africa Asia Caribbean Central America South America All
15 18 14 8 7 I1 73
17.1 21.5 19.0 14.8 16.5 17.5 18.5
Regional headings as in 7G
N:
Africa Asia Latin America + Caribbean
21.5 18.7 17.1
22 25 26
All
I x.5
73
Source: Author’s calculations from data in Buvinit. Youssef and Von Elm (1978). pp. 87-95 *For definitions, see text. fN = number of countries for which data are provided.
508
WORLD DEVELOPMENT Women-headed households . . make up over 20 per cent of all households in Africa, the developed regions and Latin America and the Caribbean (United Nations,
1991a, p. 17). This statement, however, is supported by a graph which has been reproduced elsewhere (O’Connell, 1994, p. 69). It is headed by the phrase “Up to 30 per cent of households are now headed by women” (United Nations, 1991a, p. 18) which presumably refers to the values for major world regions depicted on the graph (see Table 2). The only regional value approaching 30% is for Latin America and the Caribbean. Scrutiny of the figures for individual countries cited in this publication reveals, however, that the percentages depicted on the graph are based on a simple arithmetic average of all available values for each region (Table 2). Consequently, the few thousand households of the Caribbean islands of St Kitts and Nevis (which, at 46% have the highest recorded proportion of woman-headed households) are given the same weight in determining the regional value as the 25 million plus households of Brazil (14% of which are recorded as being headed by a woman). Table 2 also shows recalculated regional values allowing for different national population sizes. For the developed countries, the percentage of households headed by women is slightly higher when recalculated. In other regions is it slightly lower, and giving the correct weight to Latin American nations reduces the regional value sharply by over 10 percentage points. Overall, one in five households is recorded as headed by a woman in countries for which the relevant data are available. Excluding developed countries, the overall figure is 15.0%, i.e. according to available data, one in six households in developing countries is headed by a woman, not one in three. (No figures were available for some of the world’s largest populations:
China, India, the former Soviet Union, Nigeria, Egypt, Mexico and Germany.) Clearly, these calculations do not overcome the limitations of census data that have been extensively discussed elsewhere (Buvinic, Youssef and Von Elm, 1978; Youssef and Hetler, 1983; Massiah, 1983; Chaney, 1984). Where respondents are asked to identify the head of household, there is likely to be bias in favor of men in Middle Eastern and Latin American societies, and possibly the opposite in sub-Saharan Africa (Buvinic, Youssef and Von Elm, 1978). Moreover, census data are very unlikely to deal adequately with de facto women heads of household who “maintain households . . but are not recognized as such because of cultural prescriptions that identify the man as the main breadwinner and household authority” (BuviniC and Gupta, 1993, p. 11). The “potential heads of household” method cannot solve this problem (Buvinic, Youssef and Von Elm, 1978, p. 37). As such, the problem of defacto women heads of household may provide the answer to the question of why arguments about one in three households being headed by a woman are put forward when census data indicate figures nearer one in five, and why the term “woman-maintained” is regarded as describing the situation “more accurately” (O’Connell, 1994, p. 67). It seems likely that the statements cited above are based on an implicit formula: one-fifth on conventional grounds + the rest on economic grounds = one-third of all households. This position deserves close attention, particularly as a policy focus on woman-headed households is often justified on the grounds of their being poorer than others because of the additional difficulties women and especially single mothers of young children face in achieving a decent income.9 We may question, however, whether the existence of large
Table 2. Percentage of households headed by women in major world regions, various years 1971X35* Regional headings as in United Nations ( 1991 a)
N
Developed regions Africa Latin America + Caribbean Asia + Pacific All
20 16 25 17 78
Percentage of all households UnitedNations (1991a) 23.6 20.8 29.0 14.0 22.7
headed by women, according to: Author’s calculationst 24.5 19.1 18.2 13.0 20.5
Source: United Nations (199 1a), Table 2 and Chart 1.11, plus author’s calculations. *No figures are shown on Chart 1.11 in United Nations (1991a) but those read from the graph coincide with the values shown here, calculated as described in the text. tValues recalculated using data from the same sources -mostly, the United Nations Demographic Yearbook 1987. In seven cases the number of woman-headed households is estimated from the percentage given in United States Census Bureau publications (Chamie, 1985; Chaney, 1984; Newman, 1984) cited in United Nations (1991a, Table 2), plus the number of households for those countries given in the Demographic Yearbook. (In order to include the more recent household counts, the assumption is made that the percentage of woman-headed households remained the same). In eight cases, both the percentage and the number of households are from the US publications, and the number of woman-headed households is estimated from these data.
WOMAN-HEADED
numbers of woman-maintained households can justify arguments about women heading one in three of all the world’s households. The first objection is that, whatever the criticisms leveled at methodologies for identifying household members in census or survey questionnaires,‘O the difficulties of identifying those who earn an income and their contributions to the household budget are undeniably greater still. These difficulties are further increased if it is accepted that definitions of economic activity based on paid production overlook many of women’s contributions to household welfare and should therefore be broadened to include at least the processing of primary products and preferably housework and child-rearing as well (Dixon-Mueller and Anker, 1988). Consequently, although the United Nations favors economic responsibility for household maintenance as the key to defining the household head, “it is not recommended that this definition be applied because of the difficulty of collecting the information needed to determine economic responsibility” (United Nations, 1969, in Youssef and Hetler, 1983, p. 225). In short, the data needed to assess the proportion of the world’s households maintained primarily (let alone solely) by women are simply not available.” If woman-headed households are indeed underreported in census data, we must rely on guesswork to decide whether they are underreported by one-third, one-half, or whatever; but one would not guess this from the confidence with which figures are currently being presented. A second problem concerns the exact meaning of this idea that the head of household bears primary economic responsibility for its welfare. It appears to leave no room for two (or more) people bearing equal responsibility for household welfare, and raises questions about where the line should be drawn. How much more than her partner must a woman contribute in order to count as head of household? The third problem is one of inconsistency. If economic responsibilities are the key issue, justifying the inclusion of married women who support their household, it is necessary, to be consistent, to exclude those households in which the (unpartnered) women is not the main provider, because that function is fulfilled by another household member or members. We do not know what proportion of unpartnered women are the main providers for their household. Nor do we know to what extent those who are not the primary provider will already have been excluded when headship is defined by respondents. Question marks abound; but when arguments about economic responsibilities are used to justify assertions that census data underestimate the proportion of households headed by women, no attention is paid to the possibility of a countervailing effect. The figure always appears to go up, never down. The next section attempts to throw further light on
so9
HOUSEHOLDS
these points by means of a brief review research findings from Mexico.
4. ILLUSTRATIONS
of some
FROM MEXICO
The main publications of the Mexican census do not provide information about the sex of the household head. A recent occasional publication by the census office, L.a Mujer en Mhico, however, reports that in 1990 17.3% of Mexico’s 16.2 million households were headed by women (INEGI, 1993).‘? Excluding people living alone, the proportion was 15.7%, almost identical to the 15.3% reported in 1970 (INEGI, 1993, pp. 1 l&l 12)” In districts of 50,000 people or more. 17.2% of households (excluding single person households) were headed by women, as opposed to 12.7% in those of less than 2,500 people (p. 112). Again excluding single-person households, the Federal District of Mexico City had 19.7% of its households headed by women, more than any of the Mexican States, and the highest proportion of separated, divorced and widowed women. In all, women headed 21.9% of the Federal District’s households (pp. 113, 115). This is likely to be the highest figure for any urban area in Mexico, but the figure for Mexico City as a whole will almost certainly be lower (Varley, 1995)‘” We may suggest, therefore, that according to census data one in five households in Latin America’s largest city is headed by a woman. Tables 3-5 present information concerning 100 low-income households headed by a woman householder in surveys in the cities of Guadalajara and Puebla.15 In each city, a young self-help settlement containing mostly owners, an older self-help settlement containing both owners and tenants, and a central area with a high tenant population were studied, and households selected at random from the owner/tenant population of each area.16 It was therefore entirely a matter of chance that the number of households identified as headed by a woman householder totalled 100. Table 3 shows the percentage of households in each area which could be considered as headed by a woman. The focus on housing and concern about the implications of the “head of household” concept led to the identification for each household of one or two “householders”: the person(s) who originally bought or rented the house. Where there was a couple, both were recognized as householders. The figures presented here therefore refer to women householders without a resident partner. This approach excludes women who do have a resident partner but carry the main economic responsibility for household welfare, but it has two advantages. First, a consistent definition was used. Second, the oldest generation in a three-generation household was not automatically overlooked in favor of the next generation, as tends to occur in many surveys in which younger
510
WORLD DEVELOPMENT
members are identified as the head(s) of household because they are economically active. Table 3 shows that one half of these households consisted of a woman and her “children” (mostly in their teens or 20s). A further quarter involved extensions to this basic group, mostly resulting from the addition of grandchildren and sons- or daughters-inlaw, or less frequently the householder’s mother or father. Perhaps more surprisingly, as many as onesixth involved a (generally late middle-aged or elderly) woman living on her own, although this is often regarded as very unusual in Mexico.” The remainder involved other arrangements, such as siblings sharing a house. In all, 30% of these women had at least one child under the age of 15 living with them, and 46% of the households contained at least one person under this age (including other relatives as well as the householder’s own children). Thus, the majority of these households were unlikely to consist of women with dependent children, largely because they were mostly headed by middle-aged or older women: 67% of the women heading these households in Guadalajara, and 57% in Puebla, were aged 50 or over. Survey respondents were also asked about who was responsible for earning an income and contributing to the household budget. Particular care was taken to ask women who initially said they did not “work’ whether or not they “helped” with household finances, for example, by taking in washing. The results are shown in Table 4, without any attempt to quantify the income or contributions of those involved. They raise important questions about the implications of head-
ship definitions based on economic criteria, since in over half the households in question the householder was not earning any income. The same applies when single-person households are excluded. If, therefore, definition of headship rested on the “main breadwinner” role, the majority of these women could not qualify as household heads. The significance of this finding can be better appreciated if we consider the relationship between absence of a male partner and household extension. In the survey as a whole, 18.2% of households were found to be extended; but 35.0% of woman-headed households were extended.ls Given that most extensions involve adult offspring starting their own families (Varley, 1993). they are clearly related to the life course, but Table 5 shows that at all ages, women without a resident male partner were more likely to live in extended households than those with a partner. It seems that woman-headed households are more likely to be extended.19 This helps to explain why, although woman-headed households were smaller, the average number of members earning an income was not dissimilar (Table 5). Consequently, womanheaded households had lower dependency ratios than otherszO As a number of people commented in a follow-up study,*’ family members stay together for reasons of mutual support and solidarity, and cultural values emphasize the moral obligation for people (especially sons) to support their mothers. Married children may remain in the household in order to ensure their mother’s economic welfare (Chant, 1985b).z2 Consequently, household extension is likely to reduce the number of households which can be
Table 3. Households headed by women householders in two Mexican cities (number of households)
Woman Area and tenure group
living alone
Woman + offspring
Woman + offspring + others
Other
%‘r
Guadalajara Young settlement owners (53) Older settlement owners (56) Older settlement tenants (52) City center tenants (58)
0 3 3 5
5 3 7 13
6 1 5 5
1 1 0 0
12 13 16 19
Puebla Young settlement owners (49) Older settlement owners (64) Older settlement tenants (42) City center tenants (52)
0 0 1 4
3 6 8 6
2 3 3
0 2 2 1
5 14 15 12
16 62
51 52
26 56
J 54
13 54
All (54) Mean age of head (to nearest year)
1
Source: Author’s questionnaire survey (see Gilbert and Varley,l991). Numbers in the totals row (“All”) are also percentages, as a total of 100 households headed by women householders were surveyed. Figure given after name of each area is the mean age of the women householders heading their household in this area, to the nearest year. ‘IPercentage of all households surveyed in this area/tenure group in which the woman householder had no resident male part ner.
WOMAN-HEADED
511
HOUSEHOLDS
Table 4. Household members earning an income in households headed by women householders in two Mexican cifies (number of households)* Area and tenure group
Head only
Guadalajara Young settlement owners Older settlement owners Older settlement tenants City center tenants Puebla Young settlement owners Older settlement owners Older settlement tenants City center tenants All Excluding women living alone Mean age of head (to nearest year)
Head + others
Others only
None of these
6
6 3 I
0 2
2 4
5 24 15 (18%) 48
2; 22 (26%) 49
II 3 7 4 4 45 44 (52%) 58
I 1 0
1 0 3 9 3 (4%) 58
Source: Author’s questionnaire survey. *Numbers in totals row (“All”) are also percentages, as a total of 100 households headed by women householders were surveyed. The mean age is for all householders considered in this table including women living alone. Figures refer to the number of households in which the persons indicated were earning an income. The stze of their contributions to the household budget, and other sources of income such as pensions and remittances from relatives living elsewhere, are not taken into consideration, although they were clearly crucial for households in the extreme right-hand column.
recognized as headed by an unpartnered woman on economic grounds. The implication for the wider arguments discussed in this paper is that it cannot be assumed that women heading households without a resident male partner also maintain their households, since cultural values emphasizing family solidarity can counteract the necessity for them to enter the labor market in order to survive.
5. UNDERPLAYING THE DIVERSITY WOMAN-HEADED HOUSEHOLDS
OF
The findings presented above suggest that if economic definitions of headship are preferred, a considerable number of midlife and older women who would conventionally be regarded as household heads will have to be excluded from this category - at least, in urban Mexico. In this context, findings from two other Latin American studies are worth citing. In Peru, Rosenhouse (1989, p. 20) found that 60% of 883 women reported as heading their households in the World Bank Living Standards Measurement Survey were aged 50 or over; their mean age was 53 years. The head was the main or only income earner in 56% of the woman-headed households, i.e. 44% would not be recognized as woman-headed on economic grounds. The mean age of urban women reported as heading their households in the 1984 Brazilian annual household survey was 51 years, and only one-third of
them were single mothers with children (Barros, Fox and Mendonca, 1994). Using data for three metropolitan areas, the authors of the Brazilian study calculated that if the person earning the most were to be recognized as head, rather than the person named by respondents, “17 percent of those classified in the survey as female-headed would move to the male-headed classification, but only 7 percent of those classified as maleheaded would be classified as female-headed” (p. 7). In such circumstances, it seems that economic definitions of headship may exclude relatively more women heads than they include by comparison with respondent-based definitions. Clearly, this is not the end of the story: for example, income earned is not the same as contributions to the household budget, and what holds for certain parts of urban Latin America may not hold elsewhere. It is equally clear, however, that not all women without a resident male partner can be regarded as the economic mainstay of their households. In few cases is it safe to say of existing macro-level data that “the main earners of woman-headed families are by definition women” (Buvinii: and Gupta, 1993, p. 4). There is an urgent need for further research on the extent to which women are becoming responsible for providing the major contribution to the household budget, but arguments about woman-maintained households do not at present provide adequate justification for the assertion that one in three of the world’s households is headed by a woman.
512
WORLD DEVELOPMENT
Table 5. Selected characteristics
Age of woman householder
of households with and without a male householder, by age of woman householder, Mexican cities
Percentage extended WHH$ OHH$
No. of members* WHH OHH
in two
No. earning an income* WHH OHH
Dependency ratio*? WHH OHH
Guadalajara Up to 29 years 30-39 years 40-49 years 50-59 years 60 years/more All N
50 36 28 29 33 58
5 6 21 20 17 11 306
-
4.6 6.0 8.2 6.2 3.6 5.8 305
1.4 1.9 1.8 1.5 1.7 58
1.1 1.3 2.6 2.2 1.3 1.6 304
-
3.9 4.6 4.7 3.3 4.1 58
2.2 1.2 1.9 1.1 1.5 52
3.3 4.1 2.9 2.2 1.5 3.3 295
Puebla Up to 29 years 30-39 years 40-49 years 50-59 years 60 years/more All N
67Il 259 36 25 50 38 42
10 18 28 22 19 18 313
4.7Y 4.8¶ 5.1 3.8 3.2 4.1 42
4.5 5.8 6.7 6.0 4.3 5.5 313
l.O¶ 1.8¶ 1.9 1.6 1.3 1.6 42
1.3 1.5 2.1 2.1 1.6 1.6 313
2.8% 1.89 2.4 1.7 1.6 1.9 38
3.0 3.3 2.8 2.1 1.6 2.9 301
Source: Author’s questionnaire survey. Table excludes 33 households with no female householder, and other missing cases as appropriate. *Mean values. TDependency ratio: no. of dependents for each member earning an income (excluding households where there are no members earning an income). $WHH - Households without a male householder. §OHH - Households with a male householder. mss than five observations.
The point of this paper, however, is not the figure which we should be citing: one-fifth, one-third or whatever. The critical point it seeks to make is that current discourse on woman-headed households in the field of gender and development runs the danger of marginalizing certain groups of women, particularly older women. Almost two decades ago, BuviniC, Youssef and Von Elm (1978, p. 10) argued that: The typical contention that female heads of household are older women who have adult children able to support them is not borne out by recent empirical findings.
They sought to challenge complacency on the part of policy makers by emphasizing the existence of women with economic responsibilities toward other household members, particularly dependent children. The Latin American experiences discussed above, however, showed that many women heading their households are indeed older women with adult children, and its seems that, in the two decades that have passed since BuviniC, Youssef and Von Elm wrote their report, the pendulum has swung the other way, such that it is now older women who are in danger of being left out of the debate.
There is obviously no conscious intention in the gender and development literature to marginalize older women or to underplay the diversity of womanheaded households. On the con&q, many authors have taken pains to point out that women heading households constitute “a heterogenous group that defies stereotyping” (Barros, Fox and Mendonca, 1994; see also BuviniC, Youssef and Von Elm, 1978; Youssef and Hetler, 1983; Moser, 1993). Household heads include single women in employment; nevermarried, widowed, divorced or separated mothers with or without dependent children; and elderly women living alone or with an unmarried daughter or son; and this does not exhaust all the possibilities. Yet statements about the heterogeneity of woman-headed households are not always followed by an effective recognition of their diversity in empirical research or policy formulation. As Kennedy and Peters (1992, p. 1083) have argued, understanding of gender and development issues “has been obscured by the tendency to treat female-headed households as a homogeneous group.” In particular, I would suggest that the concept of “woman-headed households” is often used as if it meant “single mothers with dependent children.” Demographers De Vos and Arias (1995, p. 2)
WOMAN-HEADED
have also noted that “when talking of female-headed households many people are really talking about women-headed households that contain dependent children.” This use of “woman-headed households” as shorthand for “single mothers with dependent children” is understandable in two respects. First, “most national and international agencies [believe] that both concern and funding should focus on women of childbearing age,” since they constitute a large share of the female population in developing regions and “bear the burden of reproduction in the family” (Sennott-Miller, 1989, p. 11). Second, although the World Bank (1990, p. 4) argues that “intervention to assist women . . is justified on grounds of equity alone,” the essentially feminist thrust of this argument may not be acceptable to the skeptical or prejudiced. The efficiency argument is a safer card to play: a policy focus on women is justified because shifting resources towards them will improve family welfare. It is then women’s role as caretakers for others that will make them attractive to policy makers, and the woman with dependent children is the caretaker par excelZence.z3 The emphasis on a particular group of womanheaded households and the growing preference for discussing woman-maintained households reinforce each other, since it is women with dependent children but no other household members who are most likely to be solely responsible for household survival (uhless they receive support from kin elsewhere, for example). This emphasis helps to explain why the possible transmission of disadvantage to the children of single mothers figures prominently in the literature on woman-headed households, and it is also evident in the kind of arguments used to explore and explain the poverty of such households. For example, Buvinie and Gupta (1993, p. 4) report that woman-headed households, “despite their smaller size in comparison to other types of households, often carry a higher dependency burden . . they tend to contain a higher ratio of non-workers than do other households.” As Barros, Fox and Mendonca (1994, p. 17) have shown, this is more likely to be the case for mothers with young children than where older women have grownup children entering the labor market (and where, in the cases described above, woman-headed households have a lower dependency ratio - Table 5; see also Rosenhouse, 1989, p. 35).24 Similarly, arguments about greater time and mobility constraints affecting women who head their households again center on the assumption that childcare is a central issue in their lives. Indeed, Buvinic and Gupta acknowledge the specificity of the findings they review by concluding that “the evidence indicates that female-headed families with children to support tend to be disproportionately represented among the poor” (p. 6; added emphasis). An explicit focus on single mothers has informed
HOUSEHOLDS
513
recent interest in “concealed woman-headed households,” meaning “woman-maintained families who often reside as subfamilies in larger households” (BuviniC and Gupta, 1993, p. 3) - in particular, young single mothers living with their parents (BuviniC et al., 1992). Such subfamilies are common in Latin America, where 1970s World Fertility Survey data for six countries revealed that more than half the unmarried women with children under the age of 15 did not head their own household (De Vos and Richter, 1988). Interestingly, as with woman-maintained households, the interest in concealed womanheaded households has led to calls for estimates of the proportion of woman-headed households to be revised upward. In case studies from Argentina and Mexico, Falh and Curutchet ( 199 1) and Peiia ( 1992) have suggested that the percentage of woman-headed households may double if such “concealed households” are included. Again, the method by which such estimates are derived needs careful consideration. Clearly, the additional units identified should also be added to the total number of households. In addition, if motherchild subfamilies are counted as separate units, it may be argued that so too should other subfamilies, such as young couples with children (Varley, 1994). More importantly, although the introduction of another subgroup may appear to emphasize the diversity of woman-headed households, there is a danger of further conflating “woman-headed households” with “single mothers of dependent children.” The rationale for calling mother-child subfamilies “concealed woman-headed households” is the belief that these single mothers will be responsible for supporting their children. In some studies, it seems to be taken for granted that “these women have to assume responsibility for taking care of and raising their children, as well as guaranteeing economic support” (Falli and Curutchet, 1991, p. 29); alternatively, evidence from individual cases is extrapolated to all the others.The most rigorous study, however, a survey of poor adolescent mothers in Santiago de Chile, found that approximately two-fifths of them were providing economic support to their children between the ages of three and five (BuviniC et al., 1992, p. 277). Although this study included partnered as well as unpartnered adolescent mothers, and women housed independently as well as those living with their parents, an overall figure of three-fifths not providing economic support for their children suggests that many of the single-mother subfamilies would fail to qualify as woman-maintained households.2s The Mexican study discussed above also recorded the existence of younger single mothers living in extended households generally headed by their parent(s).2b The sample surveys identified a total of 18 women aged 30 or under with children living in extended households, but only five living independently.” Overall, single mothers living independently
514
WORLD DEVELOPMENT
had a mean age of 52 years (Table 3), whereas Table 6 shows that the mean for those living with their parents or in-laws was 28. One quarter of the women living with their own parents were not earning an income, making it difficult to consider them concealed heads of household on economic grounds. Table 6 also records two other groups of women who are mothers - the householders’ mothers and sisters - as a reminder that women with young or dependent children are not the only “mother-child” units in extended households. To assume, therefore, that single mothers living in an extended household are directly responsible for supporting their children, and to overlook the existence of other subfamilies which could potentially be classed as concealed woman-headed households, underplays the diversity of woman-headed households - as will policy recommendations based on such assumptions. The implications of these policy recommendations may also be questioned. Targeting “concealed households” for economic assistance may enable at least some to become independent: Policymakers should be aware ventions increased apparent families (BuviniC
. that successful inter-
on behalf of these mothers may lead to demand for housing and could produce an sharp rise in female-headed households as subare enabled to afford independent housing er al., 1992, p. 290).
The reason for this particular
group of women being targeted is that they are mothers. Pragmatically, this may be justified, but the implications bear consideration. For example: the childless sisters of these prospective policy beneficiaries do not, it seems,
require support enabling them to become independent. They are presumably to remain where they are, in their parents’ home, until marriage or motherhood earns them too the right to “independence” - a curious sort of independence? Another issue raised by policies targeting womanheaded households returns us to the subject of older women. There are a considerable number of elderly women living in the household of a married son or daughter, in Latin America as elsewhere (De Vos, 1990). But the literature has not largely concerned itself with these older women. Indeed, they may be explicitly excluded from consideration as potential policy beneficiaries. Rosenhouse (1989, p. 5) criticizes definitions of household headship which “overstate the number of households headed by women by classifying nonworking older women supported by sons, daughters, or other relatives as heads.” Reviewing a study by Jain (1992), BuviniC and Gupta describe the difficulties of targeting woman-headed households in India: Using data from the 1981 census , . [Tamil Nadu] state officials were not able to distinguish female-maintained households from those headed by widows. Further, the
widows who were identified were often not economically active and therefore did not tit the definition of the targeted population (BuviniCand Gupta, 1993, p. 21). The implication of insisting that a widow be economically active in order to qualify for assistance is that the dependence of older women on their relatives is not a problem. But is their welfare guaranteed? To assume that it is implies a model of the benevolent family working for the good of all its members that
Table 6. “Concealed woman-headed households” and householder’s mothers*
Area and tenure group Guadalajara Young settlement owners Older settlement owners Older settlement tenants City center tenants Puebla Young settlement owners Older settlement owners Older settlement tenants City center tenants
All Mean age (to nearest year)
Householder’s daughter + offspring7
Householder’s sister + offspring
4 2 4 2
0 0 0
2 3 6 2 25 28
1 1
1
0 0 3 37
Householder’s
mother
3 0 2 3
7
6 1 4 26 68
Source: Author’s questionnaire survey. *Figures refer to the persons indicated, not the households in which they lived. One household contained two daughters in their 20s with young children; another, the women’s elderly mother plus the man’s sister and her children. tin two cases, a woman abandoned by her husband still lived with his parent(s); they are counted with the householder’s daughters because they are of the same generation.
WOMAN-HEADED HOUSEHOLDS has been rejected by feminist researchers with reference to domestic violence or child abuse. The assumption is also at odds with the experiences recorded in an international literature on conflict within multigenerational households (Varley, 1993) and on abuse of the elderly (particularly women) within the home (Whittaker, 1995). Thus, the well-being of older women is by no means guaranteed by their living with a married daughter or son. In short, current thinking on woman-headed households is in danger of marginalizing older women and women who either live alone or might like to do so. One reason why this matters is that women’s greater longevity means older women are more likely to be household heads without a male partner (Sennott-Miller, 1989). In this context, it is worth recalling that demographic ageing is not confined to the most industrialized countries. In Latin America, the female population aged 60 years and over grew at 3.19% p.a. in the early 198Os, compared with a growth rate of 2.3% p.a. for the female population as a whole (ECLAC, 1991). In parts of the region, the elderly population is likely to increase by factors of four to six during 198G2025 (Sennot-Miller, 1989). The response to these observations may well be that needs are infinite and priorities must be set. While that may be so, I return to the question: why is it single mothers with young children who are singled out as the priority for research and policy initiatives, when (actual or potential) woman-headed households are such a diverse category? The implication of some of the policy thinking on woman-headed households is that women are either someone’s “child” (the dependant of their male partners or their own parents) or someone’s mother. Is this the basis of a progressive strategy?
6. CONCLUSIONS It has been argued that some approaches to woman-headed households in the gender and development literature run the risk of imposing a one-dimensional image of women as single mothers of dependent children onto these households. This fails to acknowledge the diversity of woman-headed households and reproduces an essentialist view of women, “a definition of ‘woman”’ which is crucially dependent on the concept of ‘mother’ (Moore, 1988, p. 25). It is ironic that a policy-oriented approach to womanheaded households which is feminist in inspiration should run the danger of giving renewed life to an essentialism long criticized by feminists. The recommendations that follow from this analysis are, first, that researchers and policy analysts should reconsider the assumption that economic definitions of headship are necessarily better than conventional ones. But there is little or no point in trying to
51s
develop an all-encompassing definition of headship. Just as the wide range of functions associated with “the domestic” do not all overlap neatly in a unitary household, it is unrealistic to expect all the possible attributes of headship to coincide in a single person or to regard that person as the impartial representative of others’ interests. It is therefore necessary to define the head of household in a way which suits the purposes of a given study or policy. As Rosenhouse (1989. p. 45) writes: If the concept of headship is to be policy relevant, indicators of headship should be constructed to reflect that aspect of the concept being examined. If housing is the focus of concern, for example, the household and its head(s) should be defined in relation to tenure: who “holds” the house (Varley, 1994)? If, on the other hand, we are concerned about the “detachment of women and children from men’s income” (Moser, 1993, p. 18), then headship should be defined in terms of economic contribution to the household. Rosenhouse (1989, p. 25) proposes a delinition of the “working head . on the basis of who work[s] the greatest proportion of hours.“?* It should be noted that such an approach permits and indeed requires the introduction of a notion of “joint headship.” Two objections may be raised to this proposal. The first is that it may make target groups even more difficult to identify because of a lack of data collected using a particular definition of headship. However: Viewing the household merely as a convenient conduit for data collection rather than as a conceptual construct runs the danger of leaving important questions unasked and hence unanswered (Kabeer and Joekes. 199 I. p. 2).
If these questions are asked, and it is found that they cannot be answered using existing data, the worst strategy is to pretend otherwise and try to force square data into a round concept. We cannot assume that conventionally defined (reported) woman-headed households are woman-maintained households, or that adding woman-maintained households to the number of woman-headed households identified in census data can justify much-cited figures for the proportion of the world’s households headed by a woman. A second objection may be raised on the grounds of (injconsistency: recommending economic definitions of headship surely contradicts what has been said about the dangers of marginalizing certain groups of women? Where I differ, however, from those who see concepts such as the “working head” as the solution to the problem is in adding, as a necessary corollary, a plea for more explicit consideration to be given to (some) women whose economic position within the household is that of dependant rather than caretaker. In this context, (other attributes of) household headship may still be highly relevant. It would be possible
516
WORLD DEVELOPMENT
to explore, for example, whether a woman’s being recognized as household head because she is the oldest member or because she owns the house makes any difference to the way she is treated by other members and consequently to her well-being (Varley, 1994). What is required, therefore, is a flexible approach to defining headship and an explicit recognition of the needs of older women heads (or non-heads) who are not responsible for supporting the household. We need this in order to avoid the household’s becoming “an end rather than a means” as a result of “over-concretized thinking in development practice” (Guyer and Peters, 1987, p. 210). A fixation on particular types of household encourages a static approach overly concerned with structure and boundaries at the expense of process and change (Guy and Peters, 1987; Netting, Wilk and Amould, 1984) - for example, with statistical incidence of woman-headed households at a given time rather than the processes by which women leave and re-enter relationships changing the form, internal functioning and external relations of their household. Ultimately, such a fixation on household type also undermines a truly gendered analysis of household structure and functioning. Two examples are given below. First, it has been shown that, in urban Mexico at least, woman-headed households are more likely to be extended in form than others. What is it about such households that makes their boundaries so much less rigid? Second, as feminist scholars have emphasized, the household “is not independent in its resources and decision-making capacity from wider society” (Roberts, 1991, p. 64). The importance of women’s roles in maintaining the social networks which help poor households to survive is well established, but a recent Mexican study has suggested that womanheaded households are less able to mobilize such networks (Willis, 1993). What, then, are the implications of policies which may lead to the segregation of “concealed woman-headed households” from the extended households in which they currently reside? Some of the younger mothers in question may be entirely dependent on their parents and siblings for emotional and practical, as well as financial, support, and some may not have any desire for things to be otherwise. As Rapp (1991, p. 203) has commented: It is a common experience for a woman to go from being someone’s child to having someone’s child in under a year. This is not exactly a situation that leads to autonomy. Where single mothers in extended households are employed, their ability to earn money could well depend on childcare support from other members; moreover, their ability to provide such support may be
important to others.29 The existence of social networks means that such exchange of resources may not be prevented by a single mother’s moving to other (nearby) accommodation; but nor is it likely to be facilitated by such a move. We may also question whether the ability to mobilize social networks outside the extended household is increased or decreased by dividing it in two. In short, policies enabling single-mother subfamilies to become independent households may undermine support networks operating both within and beyond the extended household. These support networks are themselves gendered. To underline the importance of this point: the Mexican study described above found that 17.5% of extended households contained a single daughter/in-law and her children, but that 34.3% of extended households headed by a woman contained such a subfamily.30 This suggests that the “queen bee” household of the Caribbean and the Atlantic lowlands of some other Latin American countries may also be found in Mexico’s major cities, although we cannot as yet tell whether or not these households are formed because “young women become pregnant without marrying or leaving homes headed by their mothers” (De Vos and Richter, 1988, p. 215). Thus, although feminist scholars have rightly criticized the “romanticized” idea of “automatic and inevitable mechanical solidarity” between household members (Wolf, 1990, p. 62), solidarity networks operating both within and between households are themselves gendered. To restrict analysis to identifying particular types of household as targets for antipoverty strategies may therefore undermine a truly gendered analysis of development. Finally, there is one further danger to the current emphasis on woman-headed households. This paper has argued that a focus on single mothers of dependent children risks making some other women heading their households - in particular, older women and women living on their own - “invisible.” There is also a danger of rendering “invisible” those women who live in households conventionally regarded as headed by a man (Varley, 1993). Comparisons based on sex of the household head, for example, may begin by referring to households, but they can soon turn into a comparison of “women” and “men,” as if there were no women present in households headed by men -or at least, none capable of taking significant decisions. This is more than a problem of linguistic short-cuts. It illustrates the power of the dominant ideology of the household to influence the thinking of researchers who reject that ideology. Constant vigilance is required if feminist scholars’ efforts to deconstruct the household are not to reproduce some of the ways of thinking which we seek to challenge.
WOMAN-HEADED
HOUSEHOLDS
517
NOTES 1. Moreover, the replacement “person of reference/householder” come the bias toward men.
of “head of household” by does not necessarily over-
2. The concept has been subject to much debate in recent years, but most reviews conclude that “it is important. not to go too far and ditch the concept of the household as a unit altogether” (Evans, 1991, p. 59). since it is a site of overlapping sets of relations and functions, although the extent of that overlap is particularly questionable in an African context (Guyer and Peters, 1987).
7 _
Translation
by author of this article.
4. The highest earner is not necessarily, highest contributor to the household budget.
of course, the
5. Space precludes separate discussion of urban and rural households, but 1980s census data for Latin America show 21-23% of urban households in Guatemala, Peru and Uruguay being headed by a woman, and 34% in Cuba (UN, 1989). Most Latin American studies report urban figures of under 25% (Rosenhouse, 1989; Varley, 1993). 6. Elsewhere in her text, Chaney (1984) cites a number of United Nations publications, but none appear to be the source of the figure in question. The only likely possibility is United Nations (1980) which cites BuviniC, Youssef and Von Elm (1978) (see text and note 7). Rogers (1980, p. 76) cites Tinker (I 976) and adds “See also United Nations documents for the Mexico Conference of the International Women’s Year, 1975.” The Mexico meetings led to the publication, in which Tinker’s paper appears plus a bibliography (Buvinic, 1976). No U.N. document cited in these publications, however, fits Rogers’ description or otherwise appears a likely candidate. The most we can say is that the origin appears to have been United Nations documents discussed in the Mexico City conferences, but that the exact source remains unknown (and probably unavailable). 7. Except perhaps by rough and ready averaging of the maximum (48%) and minimum (10%) figures calculated by Buvinic, Youssef and Von Elm (and cited in United Nations, 1980, p. 8)? They indicate, in the same sentence, however, that the overall average is 18% (p. 1). 8. No distinction is here made between those who are formally married and those living in consensual unions, and “single” is used to mean that a person lacks a resident partner, not that s/he is unmarried. 9. For reviews of the literature on this subject, Buvinic and Gupta (1993) and Chalita Ortiz (1992).
see
10. For example, that “people, when asked to describe their household composition, have a tendency to enumerate ‘normal’ conjugal family members” (Fonseca, 1991, p. 135).
I 1. The United Nations (1973, cited in Youssef and Hetler, 1983) found only six out of 36 census agencies defining the head as “chief earner,” and few studies have employed rigorous economic headship criteria.
12. The head of household by census respondents.
was the person so recognized
13. Women formed 43.4% of single-person households in 1970 and 48.9% in 1990 (INEGI, 1993, p. 114). The similarity of the 1970 and 1990 figures for woman-headed households is worth noting, in view of the widespread consensus that such households are becoming increasingly common. (Doubts about the validity of the 1980 census probably explain omission of the 1980 data from official publications). 14. The rest of the Metropolitan Area of Mexico City, which falls within the State of Mexico, includes large areas of “selfhelp” housing, in which woman-headed households are likely to be underrepresented. Moreover, the figure for the State of Mexico as a whole will be heavily influenced by the Mexico City area, and women are recorded as heading 15.0% of households in the State (INEGI, 1993, p. 113,115). 15. The surveys, of 753 households in all, were carried out for an Overseas in the mid-1980s Development Administration-funded research project (Gilbert and Varley, 1991). Guadalajarais the second largest Mexican city (population nearly three million) and Puebla, the fourth largest (population over one million). 16. “Self-help” housing is that in which construction is organized and generally undertaken largely by the residents themselves, usually on land which has been acquired illegally in order to reduce costs. In Guadalajara, the young settlement was 5-6 years old, the older settlement, approximately 30 years old; in Puebla they were 2-3 years and almost 40 years old, respectively. In both cities, the central area chosen had originated as one of the “Indian” barrios around the area drawn up for Spanish settlement. 17. These households came to 2.1% of the 753 surveyed. Nationally, women living alone constitute 2.4% of Mexican households and three-fifths are aged 60 or more (INEGI. 1993, p. 109). 1970s World Fertility Survey on married women indi18. cate that 22.3% of Mexican urban households in which the husband had less than a complete primary education were extended (De Vos, 1993). The x2 statistic for the relationship between extension 19. and sex of head (ignoring age) was significant at p < 0.001 for Guadalajara and p < 0.005 for Puebla. The finding was confirmed in a 1991-92 follow-up survey of 430 households in the four self-help settlements plus two approximately 20year old self-help settlements in Mexico City. Overall, 26% were extended, but 54% of those without a male householder were extended. These results were significant at p < O.CD5for Mexico City and p < 0.05 for Guadalajara; data for Puebla did not meet the conditions for the chi-square test. Chant (1985b, p. 648) reports similar findings from a survey of 244 households in younger self-help settlements in Queretaro: “one-third of the female-headed units contained additional relatives [compared with] only one-fifth of the households headed by males.”
WORLD DEVELOPMENT
518
20. Findings by Chant (1991, p. 192) are less consistent but also suggest, overall, that households headed by women are likely to have lower dependency ratios than others. 21.
See note 19.
22. In a study of household extension and older people in Latin America, De Vos (1990, p. 93) concludes that “[among the unmarried] women, who traditionally have been more economically dependent . were more likely than men to live in extended family households.” 23. She is not, however, the only sort of woman to head a household whose other members are dependent children. Bush, Cliffe and Jansen (1986) note the importance of older women in southern Africa taking responsibility for grandchildren whose parents are working in urban areas. 24. Jain (1992, in BuviniC and Gupta, 1993. p. 21) notes that poor households headed by widows tended to have lower dependency ratios than those headed by men. 25. The same source shows approximately three-quarters of the maternal grandparents, and three-fifths of the biological fathers, providing support for the children. 26. The youngest unmarried mothers are the least likely to head their own household (De Vos and Richter, 1988; BuviniC er al., 1992). This does not mean they follow a trajectory from living in an extended household to becoming
household heads, because single motherhood is not necessarily a permanent condition. According to 1976 data, by the age of 50,28% of Mexican women had seen the end of their first marriage, but almost half of them had remarried (Quilodran, 1991). 27. A further option for some is to live as separate households sharing their parents’ plot but cooking separately and maintaining separate budgets. Membership of such households was not studied in 1985-86, but in the 1991-92 survey (note 19), only one person out of 124 sharing with their owner parents was a single mother. Single women, it seems, are expected or prefer to live within the parental household rather than share (Varley, 1993). 28. Rosenhouse (1989) defines “hours worked” to include all market occupations and production of goods at home, but not housework. 29. The links between household structure and women’s employment in low-income communities in urban Mexico are discussed by Chant (1985a). 30. The x2 statistic for the relationship between sex of head (of these extended households) and presence/absence of a single daughter/in-law with children was significant at p < 0.005. In the 1991-92 survey (note 19), 8.9% of the extended households contained a single daughter with children, but 13.8% of woman-headed extended households contained such a subfamily.
REFERENCES Ashworth, G., “Raising gender consciousness in development,” Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Development Studies Association (Nottingham: University of Nottingham, September, 1992). Barros, R., L. Fox, and R. Mendonca, Female-headed Households, Poverty, and the Welfare of Children in Urban Brazil (Washington, DC: World Bank, 1994). Bruce, J. and D. Dwyer, “Introduction,” in D. Dwyer and J. Bruce (Eds.), A Home Divided: Women and Income in the Third World (Stanford: Standford University Press, 1988). pp. l-19. Bush, R., L. Cliffe, and V. Jansen, “The crisis in the reproduction of migrant labour in southern Africa,” in P. Lawrence (Ed.), World Recession and the Food Crisis in Africa (London: James Currey, 1986), pp. 283-299. BuviniC, M., Women and World Development: An Annotated Bibliography (Washington, DC: Overseas Development Council, 1976). Buvinii, M. and G. R. Gupta, “Responding to insecurity in the 1990s: Targeting woman-headed and woman-maintained families in developing countries,” Paper presented at the International Workshop on Insecurity in the 1990s: Gender and Social Policy in an International Perspective (London: London School of Economics and European Association of Development Institutes, April, 1993). BuviniC, M. and N. H. Youssef with B. Von Elm, Womenheaded Households: The Ignored Factor in Development Planning (Washington, DC: International Center for Research on Women, 1978).
BuviniL, M., J. P., Valenzuela, T. Molina and E. Gonzalez, “The fortunes of adolescent mothers and their children: The transmission of poverty in Santiago, Chile,” Population and Development Review, Vol. 18, No. 2 (1992), pp. 269-297. Chalita Ortiz, P., “Sobrevivencia en la ciudad: una conceptualizaci6n de las unidades domtsticas encabezadas por mujeres en America Latina,“ in A. Massolo (Ed.), Mujeres y Ciudades: Participacidn Social, Vivienda y Vida Cotidiana (Mexico City: El Colegio de MBxico, 1992), pp. 27 l-297. Chamie, M., Women of the World: Near East and North Africa (Washington, DC: United States Bureau of the Census, 1985). Chaney, E. M., Women of the World: Latin America and the Caribbean (Washington, DC: United States Bureau of the Census, 1984). Chant, S. H., Women and Survival in Mexican Cities (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1991). Chant, S. H., “Family formation and female roles in Quer&aro, Mexico,” Bullefin of Latin American Research, Vol. 4, No. I (1985a), pp. 17-32. Chant, S. H., “Single-parent families: choice or constraint? The formation of female-headed households in Mexican shanty towns,” Development and Change, Vol. 16, No. 1 (1985b), pp. 635-656. Collier, J., M. 2. Rosaldo and S. Yanagisako, “Is there a Family? New anthropological views,” in B. Thome and
WOMAN-HEADED
M. YaIom (I%.), Rethinking the Family: Some Feminist Questions (New York: Longman, 1982), pp. 25-39. De Vos, S., “Am&is preliminar acerca de las madres solteras, jefas de hogar, en Brasil durante 1970 y 1980,” Notas de Poblacio’n, Vol. 22, No. 59 (1994), pp. 155-181. De Vos, S., “Is there a socioeconomic dimension to household extension in Latin America?” Journal of Comparative Family Studies, Vol. 24, No. 1 (1993). pp. 21-34. De Vos, S., “Extended family living among older people in six Latin American countries,” Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences, Vol. 45, No. 3 (1990), pp. 87-94. De Vos, S. and E. Arias, “Material well-being of mothers who head and do not head households: Colombia 1985,” Mimeo (Madison: University of Wisconsin, 1995). De Vos, S. and K. Richter, “Household headship among unmarried mothers in six Latin American countries,” International Journal of Comparative Sociology, Vol. 29, No. 34 (1988) pp. 214-229. Dixon-Mueller, R., and R. Anker, Assessing Women’s Economic Contributions to Development (Geneva: International Labour Office, 1988). ECLAC (Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean), Major Changes and Crisis; The Impact on Women in Latin America andfhr Caribbean (Santiago de Chile: United Nations LC/G. 1592-P. 1991). Evans, A., “Gender issues in rural household economics,” IDS Bulletin, Vol. 22, No. 1 (1991), pp. 51-59. Falu, A. and M. Curutchet, “Rehousing the urban poor: Looking at women first,” Environment and Urbanization, Vol. 3, No. 2 (1991), pp. 23-38. Fonseca, C. ‘Spouses, siblings and sex-linked bonding: A look at kinship organization in a Brazilian slum,” in E. Jelin (Ed.), Family, Household and Gender Relations in Latin America (London: Kegan Paul International, 1991) pp. 133-160. Gilbert, A. G., and A. Varley, Landlordand Tenant: Housing the Poor in Urban Mexico (London: Routledge, 1991). Guyer, J. I., and P. E. Peters, “Introduction - conceptualising the household: Issues of theory and practice in Africa,” Development and Change, Vol. 18, No. 2 (1987) pp. 197-214. Harris, O., “Households as natural units,” in K. Young, C. Wolkowitz and R. McCullagh (Eds.), Of Marriage and the Market: Women’s Subordination Internationally and its Lessons, Second edition (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 19X4), pp. 136155. INEGI (Instituto National de Estadistica, Geografia e Informiitica), Lu Mujer en Mexico (Aguascalientes: INEGI, 1993). Kabeer, N., and S. Joekes, “Editorial,” IDS Bulletin, Vol. 22, No. 1 (1991) pp. I-4. Kennedy, E. and P. Peters, “Household food security and child nutrition: The interaction of income and gender of household head,” World Development, Vol. 20, No. 8 (1992),pp. 1077-1085. Massiah, J., Women as Heads of Households in the Caribbean: Family Structure and Feminine Status (Paris: UNESCO, 1983). Moore, H. L., Feminism and Anthropology (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1988). Moser, C. 0. N., Gender Planning and Development:
HOUSEHOLDS
519
Theory, Practice and Training (London: Routledge. 1993). Moser, C. 0. N., “Gender planning in the Third World: Meeting practical and strategic needs,” World Development, Vol. 17, No. 11 (1989). pp. 1799-1825. Muller, M. S. and D. Plantenga, Women and Habitat: Urban Management, Empowerment and Women’s Strategies (Amsterdam: Royal Tropical Institute, 1990). Netting, R. McC.. R. R. Wilk and E. J. Amould, “Introduction,” in R. McC. Netting, R. R. Wilk and E. J. Households: Comparative and Amould (Eds.), Historical Studies of the Domestic Group (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984) pp. xiii-xxxviii. Newman, J. S., Women of the World: Sub-Saharun Africa (Washington, DC: United States Bureau of the Census. 1984). O’Connell, H., Women and the Family (London: Zed, 1994). PeAa. F. , “iA quitnes considerar mujeres jefas de familia en la investigacmn antropol6gica?,” Nueva Anfropoiogia. Vol. 12, No. 41 t 1992). pp. 159-172. Quilodran, J., Ni\,eles de Fecundidad y Patrones de Nupcialidad en M&co (Mexico City: El Colegio de Mexico, 1991). Rapp, R.. “Family and class in contemporary America: Notes towards an understanding of ideology.” in E. Jelin (Ed.). Family. Household and Gender Relations in Latin America (London: Kegan Paul International. 199 I ). pp. 1977229. Roberts. P., “Anthropological perspectives on the household,” IDSBulletin, Vol. 22, No. 1 (1991) pp. 60-65. Rogers. B.. The Domestication of Women: Discrimination in Developing Societies (London: Tavistock, 1980). Rosenhouse. S.. Identifying the Poor: Is “Headship” a Useful Concept:’ (Washington, DC: World Bank, 1989). Sayne, P. L., “Food for thought: Making women visible,” Environment and Urbanization. Vol. 3. No. 2 (1991). pp. 4656. SennortrMiller, L., “The health and socioeconomic situation of midlife and older women in Latin America and the Caribbean,” in Pan American Health Organization and American Association of Retired Persons (Eds.). Midlife and Older Women in Lotin American and the Caribbean (Washington, DC: PAHO/AARP. 1989). pp. 1-125. Stichter, S., “Women, employment and the family: Current debates.” in S. Stichter, and J. Parpart (Eds.), Women, Employment and the Family in the International Division of Labour (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1990). pp. I l71. Tinker. I., “A context for the field and for the book.” in I. Tinker (Ed.), Persistent Inequalities: Women and World Development (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990). pp. 3-l i. Tinker. I., “The adverse impact of development on women.” in I. Tinker, and M. B. Bramsen (Ed%). Women and World Development (Washington, DC: Overseas Development Council, 1976). pp. 22-34. Townsend. J. G. and J. H. Momsen, “Towards a geography of gender in developing market economies,” in J. H. Momsen and J. G. Townsend (Eds.). Geography of Gender in the Third World (New York: Hutchinson. 1987) pp. 27-81. United Nations, The World’s Women 197&19YO: Trends rmdS/atistics (New York: United Nations. 199la).
520
WORLD DEVELOPMENT
United Nations, Women: Challenges to the Year 2000 (New York: United Nations, 1991b). United Nations, Demographic Yearbook 1987. Special topic: Household Composition (New York United Nations, 1989). United Nations, Sex-based Stereotypes, Sex Biases and National Data Systems (New York: United Nations Secretariat, ST/ES4/STATI99, 1980). Varley, A., “Neither victims nor heroines: Women, land and housing in urban Mexico,” Third World Planning Review, Vol. 17, No. 2 (1995). pp. 169-182. Varley, A., “Housing the household, holding the house,” in G. A. Jones and P. M. Ward @Is.), Methodology for Land and Housing Market Analysis (London: UCL Press, 1994) pp. 12&134. The provision of Varley, A., “Gender and housing: accommodation for young adults in three Mexican cities,” Habitat International, Vol. 17, No. 4 (1993), pp. 13-30. Whittaker, T., “Violence, gender and elder abuse-towards
a feminist analysis and practice,” Journal of Gender Studies, Vol. 4, No. 1 (1995), pp. 35-45. Willis, K., “Women’s work and social network use in Oaxaca City,” Bulletin of Latin American Research, Vol. 12, No. 1 (1993), pp. 65-82. Wolf, D. L., “Daughters, decisions and domination: An empirical and conceptual critique of household strategies,” Development and Change, Vol. 2 1, No. 1 (1990), pp. 43-74. World Bank, Women in Development: A Progress Report on the World Bank Initiative (Washington, DC: World Bank, 1990). Young, K., Planning Development with Women: Making a World of Difference (London: Macmillan, 1993). Youssef, N. H. and Hetler, C. B., “Establishing the economic condition of woman-headed households in the Third World: a new approach,” in M. Buvinic, M. A. Lycette and W. P. McGreevey (Eds.), Women and Poveq in the Third World (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1983) pp. 216-243.
