Despite impressive growth in Asian developing economies in the last two decades, the vast majority of the world’s poor live in this region. According to one estimate, about 750 million- 800 million poor inhabit this region. Given the magnitude of the problem, poverty alleviation has become almost synonymous with economic development for most poorer Asian economies. While efforts are being made to alleviate poverty, it is being increasingly argued that, as there is a gender dimension to the poverty problem, these efforts should be gender focused.

This paper critically reviews the existing theoretical and empirical literature on the gender and poverty nexus. The data and the empirical studies reviewed in this paper are drawn essentially, but not exclusively, from Asian developing countries. On the basis of this review, the paper examines the conceptual basis for a gender-focused approach to poverty alleviation and the types of programs and policies required to achieve this objective. It appears that there are two lines of arguments being advanced for this gender focus.

First, it is argued that women are poorer, and more deprived, than men. Therefore, there is a need for gender focus for reasons of equity. A related but distinct argument which is made in favor of special intervention for the female poor is that gender-neutral policies bypass the female poor because of additional economic, social, cultural and informational constraints facing them.

Second, even if women are equally poor as men¾ that is, there is no sense of special deprivation¾ one can justify greater social sector investment targeted toward women than men if the social rate of return on investment in women is higher than that in men. This argument makes a case for greater social investment in women¾ in their health, nutrition, education and training¾ on account of efficiency. The implicit assumptions behind the efficiency argument are that there is a market failure which leads to a sub-optimal allocation of investment in health, nutrition, education and training, and that the problem of sub-optimality is more acute when it comes to investment in women vis-à-vis men. the main thrust of the efficiency argument is that there is a rationale, and indeed a compelling one, for government intervention in the social sector, particularly when it comes to social sector investment for women.

The arguments for public intervention in favor of women are essentially empirical. Therefore, the validity of the above arguments needs to be judged against empirical facts. These facts differ from country to country. The magnitude of relative deprivation of women (vis-à-vis men) is likely to be different between countries. Similarly, differentials in social returns on investment in women relative to men may vary from country to country.

The nature of policy intervention is likely to vary from country to country. The nature of policy intervention depends inter alia on the type of market failures and the source of deprivation. The sources of deprivation of the female poor are likely to be different notwithstanding some measure of commonalities across countries. In some countries, they may be essentially sociocultural; in others, they may be predominantly economic. And even in terms of economic causes, the sources maybe different, requiring different types of interventions and remedies. Similarly, all countries, both developed and developing, experience some measure of market failures, especially when it comes to social sectors. In all countries, governments undertake public investments in social sectors presumably, among other things, to remedy those market failures. While it is being increasingly acknowledged that many female-focused projects have higher social returns, the differentials in returns will vary across countries. Likewise, different investments in female projects will have different social returns within the same country. As a consequence, the emphasis on public investment in social sectors, as well as its composition, will vary from country to country depending on the variations in social, economic and political developments.

An important point that emerges from the present review is that many assertions about gender and poverty are not nearly as obvious as some people claim, nor are they universally applicable. The empirical foundations of many of those assertions remain fragile due to the dearth of gender segregated data. Indeed, a good part of the current literature is based on folklore, more on anecdotal evidence than on rigorous empirical analysis.

Be that as it may, if the objective is to ensure gender equity¾ to ensure equality I the level of welfare between sexes¾ as the lesson of history tends to indicate, public policy has to play an important role. In this connection, it may be noted that the concept of equity between sexes has a much broader connotation than equality in the levels of income or in the labor force participation ratio. Equity in this broader sense would require pursuing gender-focused policies that eliminate gender discrimination but at the same time preserve the basic values and norms of individual societies. While gender-neutral growth-oriented policies cannot effectively alleviate all types of discrimination against women, they may lay the groundwork for change. However, if the goal is to alleviate poverty¾ be it male or female¾ there is strong evidence that sustained growth is extremely effective in combating poverty.

Finally, it appears that much of the gender disparity stems from inequity in the intrahousehold allocation of resources, an area which cannot be directly influenced by the government. The rules of intrahousehold allocation are shaped perhaps partly by economic forces, and partly by norms and values of the society. While economic forces can be manipulated by government policies, the norms and values do not change swiftly and easily in sympathy with government policies. In this sense some aspects of gender disparity are much more resilient and somewhat disappointing to deal with as far as public policies are concerned.