29

It is stated that giving women equality and control over their reproduction reduces the poverty in any community. Christopher Hitchens:

"We already know the cure to poverty...it's quite simply, the empowerment of women."

While I tend to believe this person -- I would like to have more facts and explanations about it.

Is there any factual evidence for such an assertion? And if there is -- what are the explanations for it?

Andrew Grimm
  • 38,859
  • 36
  • 141
  • 342
Kostya
  • 637
  • 6
  • 9
  • In one of his talks or articles he actually gives some evidence. I don’t recall where and it’s probably not enough to convince a skeptic but it may serve as a starting point. – Konrad Rudolph May 25 '11 at 11:54
  • I read that people arguing for the abolition of slavery in the USA claimed that slavery hindered the southern economy. Also, without any hard data, I'd warn people that there may be a correlation between women's emancipation and curing poverty without it necessarily being a causal relationship. – Andrew Grimm May 25 '11 at 12:37
  • 1
    See also The Girl Effect: http://www.girleffect.org/question – Borror0 May 25 '11 at 13:13
  • 5
    How are we to measure _empowerment_, _cure_ and _poverty_? I mean, can poverty even _be_ cured? – MrHen May 25 '11 at 13:50
  • 4
    It's rather than a cure, one of the necessary parts to move a country into modern society, which is a prerequisite for it becoming wealthy, with the exception for finding some natural resource and being able to make money from that without succumbing to internal strife. – Lennart Regebro May 25 '11 at 14:13
  • @MrHen: Measuring absolute poverty is relatively easy. And hence also how "cured" a country is. Empowerment is probably trickier. – Lennart Regebro May 25 '11 at 14:14
  • @MrHen - depends on your definition. If you mean "poverty" as in "no worries about having food, water and shelter", then it can - once someone invents extremely cheap energy source (cheap fusion?), perfects biomass agriculture (algae?) and 3-D printing takes off. If you mean "poverty" as in "some asshole thinks that anyone not having the same perfect life as everyone else in society and access to EVERYTHING (e.g. cable TV) is poverty", of course you can't end it - there will always be 10% poorest society members. – user5341 May 25 '11 at 14:16
  • 1
    @MrHen Absolutely yes, poverty can definitely be cured. There are millions of examples of people who were poor, and now they are not. If you are asking can poverty be eradicated completely, that's a different question. – DJClayworth May 25 '11 at 14:22
  • 2
    @Andrew Grimm: Slavery will be a drag on any modern economy. It lowers the pay for free workers, and is a disincentive for investing in any sort of mechanization or other serious labor-saving measures. – David Thornley May 25 '11 at 15:51
  • 1
    -1, I think this question is way off-topic on this website. According to the [FAQ](http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/faq), you shouldn't ask open-ended and argumentative questions. – Mihai Rotaru May 25 '11 at 17:01
  • 5
    "Is there any factual evidence for such an assertion?" is not argumentative. Nor, strictly, open-ended. – DJClayworth May 25 '11 at 17:15
  • 1
    The assertion: "We already know the cure to poverty...it's quite simply, the empowerment of women." The question asks for factual evidence supporting this assertion. I could argue that there are better ways of fighting poverty - it's not something you simply 'cure' by giving money to women. It is not a simple issue, and this isn't a site for dissecting such complicated matters. One should ask "practical, answerable questions". – Mihai Rotaru May 25 '11 at 21:46
  • 2
    "Empowering women" even "economically empowering women" is not the same as "simply giving money to women". – DJClayworth May 26 '11 at 13:51
  • @DJClayworth - the problem is, of course, that **a large portion** of people who talk about "empowering women" sadly mean precisely the latter. – user5341 May 26 '11 at 14:11
  • 1
    @DVK I would be fascinated to see the references you use to back that statement up. – DJClayworth May 26 '11 at 14:24
  • @DJC - first link on Google I hit (http://tycoonwomen.com/?page_id=2) immediately talks about "wealth redistribution" – user5341 May 26 '11 at 15:16
  • Not much on that website is about curing poverty. – DJClayworth May 26 '11 at 15:32
  • 1
    @DJClayworth - the scholarly article cited in your answer provides a definition of empowerment on pages 8-9; it lists three items, the first being _economic empowerment_. The second one is not much different from the first ( increased well-being: access to savings and credit facilities ) and the third one is social and politic empowerment - hard to imagine without the first. – Mihai Rotaru May 26 '11 at 16:21
  • Factual counter-evidence abounds. For example, New Zealand was first to give women voting rights, but poverty continues to exist there. I suspect that what Hitchens actually meant is that every education begins with one's mother, and empowered mothers will see to it their offspring get education and freedom from abuse, which is a good start for improving one's lot. –  May 25 '11 at 13:04
  • 1
    I suspect that Hitchens didn't mean for the comment to be taken quite that literally. He probably meant that the best way for a nation to become wealthy is to give women equal rights and respect. – Borror0 May 25 '11 at 13:11
  • 4
    Empowerment also means much more than just voting rights. – Lagerbaer May 25 '11 at 14:12
  • He's talking specifically about economic empowerment. – DJClayworth May 25 '11 at 14:17
  • There's also the definitions of "curing", and "poverty". Barring a Socialist utopia, people will have varying wealth, and there will always be those at the low end. Is a person who has access to adequate food, water, housing, clothing, medical care, and education truly in poverty? – David Thornley May 25 '11 at 15:56
  • The poverty that Hitchens is specifically talking about here is where people don't have those. – DJClayworth May 25 '11 at 17:12
  • @DJC - of course, in a larger context, "empowering women" is VERY far from the most effective way of addressing the problem. (i don't want to bother looking for scholarly references, just look at US history pre-1900s). – user5341 May 26 '11 at 15:44
  • Actually no. Privatization of marriage is the key to eliminate poverty. Poverty will always be there as long as poor males breed more kids than the rich. –  Feb 28 '12 at 01:32
  • My interpretation of his words had to do with giving women opportunities primarily in three areas. The opportunity to receive an education, the opportunity to choose with whom they may wish to engage in intimacy with, and the opportunity to be in control of their own reproduction through access to family planning, contraceptives and the option to terminate a pregnancy should the expecting mother feel that that is the best course of action. My understanding was that Hitch believed that poverty could be mitigated if women only had the children they wanted to have when they were ready to have the –  Oct 18 '16 at 04:06
  • One related thing we know with a high degree of certainty is that empowerment of women (or at least giving them equal education to men) dramatically lowers the birth rate and decreases child mortality. This has been a big part in major poverty reduction in many countries. – matt_black May 29 '18 at 12:25

3 Answers3

25

Hitchens doesn't mean that empowerment of women is the only issue with regard to poverty, and he certainly isn't talking about "women's suffrage". What he is talking about is this:

In many places in the world where there is endemic and widespread poverty, women have essentially zero economic resources. Their only tasks are the raising of children and manual labour in either the home or fields. For these and other reasons women are hugely more likely to be poor than men.

One of the most effective ways that has been found for dealing with this poverty is the encouragement of small businesses. Often this has been done through Microfinance, and it's been widely noted that (for whatever reason) women have been the most effective recipients of Microfinance. Again for whatever reason, these businesses also appear to raise the economic level of the community they live in.

Here is a scholarly article looking at exactly this question. Here are some others:

Oddthinking
  • 140,378
  • 46
  • 548
  • 638
DJClayworth
  • 57,419
  • 26
  • 209
  • 195
  • 3
    I think that it's a correct statement in general as far as economics of it; but where is the proof that this is what Hitchens meant? The only relevant quote of his I found was very different in context than micro-finance: "access to contraceptives and reproductive rights as the only thing that is known to cure poverty" – user5341 May 25 '11 at 15:13
  • I heard Hitchens in one of his debates with Tony Blair, and he used the phrase quoted above. He certainly wasn't restricting himself to reproductive rights, though he may have been focussing on them because he wanted to score points off Tony Blair (a Catholic). – DJClayworth May 25 '11 at 15:28
  • did he ever mention micro-finance at all? – user5341 May 25 '11 at 15:38
  • Not if I recall. The question asked about factual evidence to support the assertion, and this is it. It's unlikely that Hitchens, an intelligent and informed person, meant something for which there is no supporting evidence when there is an interpretation that has a lot of supporting evidence. – DJClayworth May 25 '11 at 17:14
  • Additionally the "empowering of women" is not limited to microfinance; that's merely one example. – DJClayworth May 25 '11 at 17:18
  • Am I the only one that read the last sentence in the second paragraph as "women are hugely more likely to be poor than to be men"? Recommend rewording to "women are hugely more likely than men to be poor." Thanks :-) – mellamokb Oct 20 '11 at 13:16
13

Since no answer showed actual economics research, I'll present at least one.

http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/~mdo738/research.html#femalepower

Does Female Empowerment Promote Economic Development? Matthias Doepke, Michele Tertilt ; April 2011

Abstract

Empirical evidence suggests that money in the hands of mothers (as opposed to their husbands) benefits children. Does this observation imply that targeting transfers to women is good economic policy? We develop a series of noncooperative family bargaining models to understand what kind of frictions can give rise to the observed empirical relationships. We then assess the policy implications of these models.

We find that targeting transfers to women can have unintended consequences and may fail to make children better off. Moreover, different forms of empowering women may lead to opposite results. More research is needed to distinguish between alternative theoretical models.

user5341
  • 31,075
  • 8
  • 130
  • 178
  • 2
    -1, I wouldn't exactly point to that as definitive research, it is a set of theoretical economic models applied to empirical findings in the existing literature. The conclusion is basically, "we should gather more evidence to test these models." – user7116 May 26 '11 at 18:47
  • 3
    @sixlettervariables - so, an inconclusive research is worse than answers that show NO research whatsoever? I didn't notice you downvoting a single one of those. – user5341 May 27 '11 at 02:05
  • You should be skeptical that I downvoted you...I have too few rep. I *would* have downvoted you. Most theoretical economic research is about as useful as no research, but I'm just skeptical of research with a retrospective model. – user7116 May 27 '11 at 02:54
  • Another useful reference would be The Wealth and Poverty of Nations by David S. Landes, noted economic historian, which provides evidence (if I recall correct) that supports the conclusion that female employment increases economic development. – Brian M. Hunt Jul 19 '11 at 21:02
  • 1
    If you had chosen slightly different highlighting you might have shown s different conclusion: "Empirical evidence suggests that money in the hands of mothers (as opposed to their husbands) benefits children." – DJClayworth Sep 04 '13 at 20:22
2

In Canada they are arguing that:

  • Most poor people are girls
  • Girls use their wealth (money, health, and education) to better their families

"And yet research is also clear that when girls reach their full potential, through improved status, better health care, and education, it is the most effective development tool for society as a whole. As a country's primary enrolment rate for girls increases, so too does its gross domestic product per capita."

-- Kofi Annan, former UN Secretary General

Learn More.

ChrisW
  • 26,552
  • 5
  • 108
  • 141
  • 7
    The assertion in the asnwer is not shown to be supported by research. A quote from a political figure a proof does not make – user5341 May 26 '11 at 14:06