Advertisement

Human Ecology

, Volume 32, Issue 3, pp 365–382 | Cite as

Participation in a Gendered Environment: The Case of Community Forestry in India

  • Manjusha Gupte
Article

Abstract

Women are important stakeholders in natural resource policies since rural women in developing countries are responsible for most of the collection of food, fuel, and firewood for commercial and domestic use. When it comes to the management of these natural resources, gender inequality due to societal traditions could limit the ability of women to participate in policy-making, even when they are not formally excluded. This paper analyzes the effect of gender stratification on women's participation by undertaking an empirical study of a participatory environmental policy program in Indian villages. It endeavors to answer the question of how gender stratification affects participatory environmental policy-making. Using the case study of a community forestry program, it finds that women are still marginalized in decision-making, even in participatory environmental policies. Gender stratification continues to impinge upon forms of democratic decision-making in developing societies. Using facilitating policy tools that seek to empower such marginalized groups would be one way of making participation meaningful for all groups in society.

community forestry developing countries gender participation social stratification 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Agrawal, A. (1994). Small is beautiful, but could larger be better? A comparative analysis of five village forest institutions in the Indian Middle Himalayas. Paper presented to the FAO Forestry Working Group on Common Property, Oxford Forestry Institute, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
  2. Agrawal, A., and Gibson, C. (eds.). (2001). Communities and Nature: Ethnicity, Gender, and the State in Community-Based Conservation, Rutgers University Press, Piscataway, NJ.Google Scholar
  3. Agarwal, B. (1992). The gender and environment debate: Lessons from India. Feminist Studies 18(1): 119–156.Google Scholar
  4. Agarwal, B. (2000). Conceptualizing environmental collective action: Why gender matters. Cambridge Journal of Economics 24(3): 283–310.Google Scholar
  5. Barber, B. (1984). Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age, University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  6. Basu, A. (1992). Two Faces of Protest: Contrasting Modes of Women's Activism in India, University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  7. Bhatt, Y., and Banerjee, M. (1999). We are the government in our village: Tribals' struggle for local governance. Availalbe from www.ids.ac.uk/ids/civsocGoogle Scholar
  8. Brewer, G., and DeLeon, P. (1983). The Foundation of Policy Analysis, Dorsey Press, Illinois.Google Scholar
  9. Cornwall, A. (2000). Making a Difference? Gender and Participatory Development, UNRISD, Geneva.Google Scholar
  10. DeLeon, P. (1992). The democratization of the policy science. Public Administration Review 52: 125–129.Google Scholar
  11. Desai, N., and Krishnaraj, M. (1987). Women and Society in India. Ajanta, Delhi.Google Scholar
  12. Dryzek, J. (1990). Discursive Democracy, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  13. Dryzek, J. (1997). The Politics of the Earth: Environmental Discourses, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  14. Fishkin, J. (1991). Democracy and Deliberation: New Directions for Democratic Reform, Yale University Press, New Haven.Google Scholar
  15. Gadgil, M., and Guha, R. (1995). Ecology and Equity: The Use and Abuse of Nature in Contemporary India, Routledge, London.Google Scholar
  16. Ghate, R. (2000). Joint Forest Management: Constituting new commons. Paper presented at the Eighth Conference of the IASCP, Bloomington, IN.Google Scholar
  17. Hayward, B. (1995). The greening of participatory democracy: A reconsideration of theory. Environmental Politics 4: 215–235.Google Scholar
  18. Jackson, C. (1993). Environmentalisms and gender interests in the Third World. Development and Change 24(4): 649–671.Google Scholar
  19. Jain, D. (1996). Panchayat Raj: Women Changing Governance. www.undp.org/gender/resources/mono5.html.Google Scholar
  20. Jejeebhoy, S. (2000). Women's autonomy in rural India: Its dimensions, determinants, and the influence of context. In Presser, H., and Sen, G. (eds.), Women's Empowerment and Demographic Processes, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  21. Kann, M. (1986). Environmental democracy in the United States. In Kamieniecki, S., O'Brien, R., and Clarke, M. (eds.), Controversies in Environmental Policy, SUNY Press, New York.Google Scholar
  22. Kothari, A., Pathak, N., Anuradha, R. V., and Taneja, B. (eds.) (1998). Communities and Con-servation: Natural Resource Management in South and Central Asia Sage, New Delhi.Google Scholar
  23. Mansbridge, J. (1980). Beyond Adversary Democracy, Basic Books, New York.Google Scholar
  24. Ministry of Environment and Forests (1990). Circular on involvement of village communities and voluntary agencies for regeneration of degraded forest lands, MoEF No. 6–21/89-F.P.Google Scholar
  25. Ministry of Environment and Forests (2002). Joint Forest Management: ADecade of Partnership, Government of India, New Delhi.Google Scholar
  26. Morrell, M. (1999). Citizen's evaluations of participatory democratic procedures: Normative theory meets empirical science. Political Research Quarterly 52(2): 293–322.Google Scholar
  27. Murali, K. S., Sharma, M., Jagannatha Rao, R., Murthy, I. K., and Ravindranath, N. H. (2000). Status of participatory forest management in India: An analysis. In Ravindranath, N. H., Murali, K. S., and Malhotra, K. C. (eds.), Joint Forest Management and Community Forestry in India: An Ecological and Institutional Assessment, Oxford and India Book House, New Delhi, pp. 25–58.Google Scholar
  28. Pateman, C. (1970). Participation and Democratic Theory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  29. Pathak, N. (2000). Joint Forest Management and Gender: Women's Participation and Benefit-Sharing in JFM in India, Unpublished paper, Adithi and Kalpavriksh.Google Scholar
  30. Przeworski, A., and Teune, H. (1970). The Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry, Wiley-Interscience, New York.Google Scholar
  31. Ravindranath, N. H., and Sudha, P. (2000). The need for assessment of self-initiated community and Joint Forest Management systems in India. In Ravindranath, N. H., Murali, K. S., and Malhotra, K. C. (eds.), Joint Forest Management and Community Forestry in India: An Ecological and Institutional Assessment, Oxford and India Book House, New Delhi, pp. 1–24.Google Scholar
  32. Sarin, M. (1996). Joint Forest Management: The Haryana Experience, Centre for Environment Education, Ahmedabad, India.Google Scholar
  33. Sarin, M. (1998). Who is Gaining? Who is Losing? Gender and Equity Concerns in Joint Forest Management, Working Paper, Society for the Promotion of Wastelands Development, New Delhi.Google Scholar
  34. Skocpol, T., and Somers, M. (1980). The uses of comparative history in macrosocial inquiry. Comparative Studies in Society and History 22: 174–197.Google Scholar
  35. Subramaniam, M., Gupte, M., and Mitra, D. (2002). Organizing across the local, national and international level by creating transnational spaces: Evidence from India. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Sociology Association, Chicago, IL, August 19–22.Google Scholar
  36. Sundar, N., and Jeffery, R. (1999). Introduction. In Jeffery, R., and Sundar, N. (eds.), A New Moral Economy for India's forests?: Discourses of Community and Participation, Sage New Delhi, pp. 15–54.Google Scholar
  37. Sundar, N., Jeffrey, R., and Thin, N. (2001). Branching Out: Joint Forest Management in India, Oxford University Press, New Delhi.Google Scholar
  38. Thompson, J. (1995). Participatory approaches in government bureaucracies: Facilitating the process of institutional change. World Development 23(9): 1521–1554.Google Scholar
  39. Vidyarthi, L., and Rai, B. (2000). The Tribal Culture of India, Concept Publishing, New Delhi.Google Scholar
  40. Weaver, M. A. (2000). Gandi's daughters: India's poorest women embark on an epic social experiment. The New Yorker 75(41): 50–61.Google Scholar
  41. Yin, R. (1984). Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Manjusha Gupte
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Political SciencePurdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA

Personalised recommendations