Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

Transnational Development, Women and

Although gender is usually considered to be an aspect of individual behavior and attributes, scholars of society note that all social processes are gendered. All the major social institutions of society manifest gender divisions and their attendant norms and expectations of behavior. This is especially the case with respect to the development underdevelopment continuum around the world. The “development regime” is an amalgam of political-economic institutions. Studying women and transnational development helps explain how access to material and political resources within this regime ultimately affects the gendered division of labor and thus cultural norms with respect to behavior deemed appropriate by virtue of one's sex.

This entry provides a historical, conceptual, and theoretical context from which to understand gender and transnational development. It begins with a discussion of the different ways scholars define Third World and development. Then, it discusses how development and thus underdevelopment are gendered, looking specifically at the economy, politics, and the body. Next, it explains the main theoretical paradigms for understanding development, starting with modernization, dependency, and world system theory, and then moves to the gendered theories; women in development (WID); women and development (WAD); gender and development (GAD); and women, culture, and development (WCD). This entry concludes with a note on women's transnational mobilization.

What is the Third world?

Third World is a highly contentious term. Feminist academics such as Chandra Mohanty, Ann Russo, and Lourdes Torres are some of the pioneering scholars in critical analysis of the Third-World discourse. The Third World refers to Latin America, the Caribbean, Africa, and Asia (excluding Japan.) The term emerged after World War II, when a large number of countries gained their independence from colonial powers. By the 1960s and 1970s, it described countries that shared a series of characteristics, namely, poor, nonindustrial, peripheral to the global system, and ex-colonial. However, since then, the Third World has grown increasingly diverse and thus the concept significantly less useful. Other terms have thus emerged. For example, economists tend to use “less-developed countries” (LDCs) in contrast to the developed countries of the “First World.” For many, LDC is inadequate as it furthers the paternalistic First World/Third World relationship based on, among other things, the notion that the Third World is poor due to its own incompetence. International relations experts often use the term South or Global South, which stems from the geopolitical split that puts the more industrialized countries in the Northern Hemisphere, and vice versa. Often, South and North are preferred, since they are based on shared geography rather than oversimplified assumptions about common political and cultural characteristics. Yet these terms are also inadequate, since not all Third-World countries are in the Southern Hemisphere, and vice versa.

Cultural critics often use the term postcolonial, in part because it captures a shared history of colonialism. Like the others, this term has also been criticized for oversimplifying and homogenizing the diverse experiences of colonialism. For example, much of Latin America achieved independence significantly earlier than most African nations, thus minimizing the similarities in national experience implied by the blanket term. Additionally, the use of postcolonial has been criticized for downplaying the perseverance of a colonial presence in so-called independent nations.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading