Bandingkan metode
Tinjau metode pilihan Anda berdampingan; baris yang berbeda akan disorot.
| Gender Budgeting Analysis× | Social Relations Approach× | |
|---|---|---|
| Bidang | Gender Studies | Gender Studies |
| Keluarga | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Tahun asal≠ | 2002 | 1994 |
| Pencetus≠ | Diane Elson (analytical tools); Debbie Budlender, Diane Elson, Guy Hewitt & Tanni Mukhopadhyay (Commonwealth synthesis) | Naila Kabeer |
| Tipe≠ | Policy and fiscal gender analysis method | Applied gender analysis framework |
| Sumber perintis≠ | Budlender, D., Elson, D., Hewitt, G., & Mukhopadhyay, T. (2002). Gender Budgets Make Cents: Understanding Gender Responsive Budgets. Commonwealth Secretariat, London. ISBN: 9780850926811 | Kabeer, N. (1994). Reversed Realities: Gender Hierarchies in Development Thought. Verso, London. ISBN: 9780860915843 |
| Alias≠ | Gender-Responsive Budgeting, Gender Budget Analysis, GRB | Social Relations Framework, Kabeer Social Relations Approach |
| Terkait | 4 | 4 |
| Ringkasan≠ | Gender budgeting analysis, also called gender-responsive budgeting (GRB), is a method for examining government budgets to reveal their differing impacts on women and men and to reallocate resources toward gender equality. It is emphatically not about creating separate budgets for women; instead it applies a gender lens to the whole of public revenue and expenditure, using a set of analytical tools — pioneered by Diane Elson — including gender-aware policy appraisal, beneficiary assessment, expenditure incidence analysis, revenue incidence analysis, and the gender-aware budget statement, and it links fiscal choices to the often-invisible unpaid care economy. | The Social Relations Approach, developed by Naila Kabeer at the Institute of Development Studies in the early 1990s, is a framework for analysing gender inequality as a product of social relations embedded in institutions rather than as a matter of women's roles alone. It treats human well-being and empowerment as the goal of development, examines how four key institutions — the state, the market, the community, and the family or kinship — produce and reproduce inequality through their rules, resources, people, activities, and distribution of power, and traces the causes of inequality at immediate, underlying, and structural levels. |
| ScholarGateSet data ↗ |
|
|