THE SOCIAL RELATIONS APPROACH

Gender analysis has been defines as the systematic methodology for examining
the differences in roles and norms for women and men, girls and boys; the different
levels of power they hold; their differing needs, constraints, and opportunities; and
the impact of these differences in their lives (March et al., 1999). Gender analysis
is an indispensable tool for understanding the context and advancing gender
equality. As a result, several gender-analysis frameworks have been developed
and these include Harvard Analytical or Gender Roles Framework, Moser Gender
Planning Framework, Gender Analysis Matrix, Socio-Economic and Gender
Analysis, the Women’s Empowerment Framework and the Social Relations
Approach (Warren, 2007). This essay is on the Social Relations Approach (SRA)
developed by Naila Kabeer in 1994 at the Institute of Development Studies, Sussex
University, UK. This SRA is regarded as the strongest of gender-analysis
frameworks. According to Mills (2013), SRA is a broader and structural approach to
gender-analysis useful in policy making and development programmes.

Unlike other gender-analysis frameworks which focus on roles and responsibilities,

SRA is a consciously feminist approach which focuses on power relations (March
et al., 1999). SRA is intended as a method of analysing existing gender inequalities
in the distribution of resources, responsibilities, and power, and for designing
policies and programmes which enable women to be agents of their own
development (Hillenbrand et al., 2014). The Social Relations Approach uses
concepts rather than tools to concentrate on the relationships between people and
their relationship to resources and activities and how these are re-worked through
'institutions' (Kabeer, 2012). It aims to capture the complexity of gender–power
relations, the gendered nature of institutions and the interactions between policies
and practices at different institutional locations.

1
Kabeer (1994) states that a narrow application of the Social Relations Approach
examining a particular institution will highlight how gender inequality is formed and
reproduced in individual institutions. While a broader application focusing on a
number of institutions in a given context will reveal how gender and other
inequalities cross-cut each other through different institutions' interaction, thus
producing situations of specific disadvantage for individuals (Kabeer and
Subrahmanian, 1996). The SRA also aims to give a fuller picture of poverty by
recognising and highlighting the interacting and cross-cutting inequalities of
gender. By doing so, the framework concentrates on structural analysis, material
poverty, marginalisation, and powerlessness, and how those have evolved (Miles,
2016).

There are key theoretical perspectives behind the approach. The framework is
based upon three main theoretical concepts. The first concept is that development
as increasing human well-being. According to Kabeer (1994), development is
primarily about increasing human well being. In this sense, human well-being is
seen as concerning survival, security, and autonomy. According to this concept,
development is not simply about economic growth or improved productivity
(Kabeer, 2012). Therefore, development interventions must be assessed not only
in terms of technical efficiency, but also in terms of how well they contribute to the
broader goals of survival, security, and human dignity. Importantly, it follows from
this that the concept of production does not just include market production but all
the activities which contribute to human well-being including all those tasks which
people perform to reproduce human labour (caring, nurturing or looking after the
sick), those which poor people carry out to survive and those which people perform
in caring for their environment which ultimately assures their livelihoods
(Hillenbrand et al., 2014).

The second concept refers to social relations. Kabeer (1994) describes 'social
relations' as structural relationships that create and reproduce systemic differences

2
in positioning different groups of people. Based on the SRA, social relations
determine who people are, their roles and responsibilities and claims they make;
they determine human rights, and the control that people ave over resources. In
short, social relations determine people’s roles, rights, responsibilities and claims
over others (Kabeer, 2012; Mills, 2013). According to Kabeer (1994), while poor
people rely on networks of social relations to survive, social relations produce
cross-cutting inequalities. Miles (2016) citing Kabeer (1994) states that gender
relations are one type of social relations (sometimes known as the social relations
of gender). According to Mills (2013), social relations change as they are not fixed
or immutable and changes at the macro level can bring about change in social
relations.

The approach also assumes social relations determine rights, roles, resources and
assets and responsibilities and these need to be addressed in development
planning (Miles, 2016). Social relations also determine what tangible and intangible
resources are available to groups and individuals. According to Kabeer (2012),
poverty arises out of people's unequal social relations, which dictate unequal
relations to resources, claims, and responsibilities. In other words, people do not
start at the same point in the social system and as a consequence they have very
different capacities to take advantage of change or the status quo (Hillenbrand et
al., 2014). As noted by Kabeer (1994), poor people in general and poor women in
particular, are often excluded from formal allocations of resources, so they draw on
other resources determined by their social relations which play a critical part in their
survival strategies. For example, poor women often rely on networks of family and
friends to manage their workload. Hence, resources of this kind, available through
social relations, can be so important that some would say that 'poverty' is being
alone'. Often, poor people have access to resources mainly through social
relationships based on patronage and dependency, where they have to trade in
their autonomy in return for security (Hillenbrand et al., 2014).

3
Thirdly, the SRA relies on the concept of institutional analysis. Miles (2016) defines
institutions as a framework of rules for achieving certain social and economic
goals. Kabeer (1994) argues that the underlying causes of gender inequality are
not confined to the household and family but are reproduced across a range of
institutions, including the international community, the state, and the market place.
Thus institutions exist at macro (international community), meso-level (the state,
the market) and micro-level (community, household). Hence, the state, the market,
the community and family/kinship are defined as the four key institutional locations
of social relations (Kabeer and Subrahmanian, 1996). According to Kabeer (1994),
the market is a key mechanism for producing and reinforcing gender inequality
whilst the community perpetuates myths that women are subservient to men.
These institutions ensure production, reinforcement and reproduction of social
relations and thereby create and perpetuate social difference and social inequality
(Kabeer, 1994).

Miles (2016) also adds that institutions are not ideologically neutral, nor are they
independent of one another but changes in one institutional sphere will impact
others. The operation of institutions reflects different gender policies, which are
determined by the extent they recognise and address gender issues such as
gender-blind, gender–neutral, gender-aware, gender–specific or gender–
redistributive issues (Kabeer, 1994). The SRA states that all institutions possess
five distinct, but inter-related, dimensions of social relationships: rules, resources,
people, activities and power (Hillenbrand et al., 2014). These dimensions are
significant to the analysis of social inequality in general, and gender inequality in
particular. Examining institutions on the basis of their rules, practices, people,
distribution of resources, and their authority and control structures, help to
understand who does what, who gains, who loses (men or women). This is called
undertaking an institutional analysis (Hillenbrand et al., 2014).

4
However, the SRA challenges two myths about institutions on which much
prevailing planning is based: (i) that they are ideologically neutral and (ii) that they
are separate entities and that therefore a change to one of them will not affect the
others (Milles, 2016). Challenging the myth of ideological neutrality, Kabeer (1994)
argues that institutions produce, reinforce, and reproduce social difference and
inequalities. Few institutions admit to ideologies of gender or any other form of
inequality. Instead, each institution has an 'official' ideology which accompanies all
its policy and planning. The 'official' ideologies which tend to dominate planning
practice are based on the assumptions that the state pursues the national interest
and national welfare, the market pursues profit maximisation, the community is
about service provision and family/kinship is about altruism (Hillenbrand et al.,
2014). In doing so, Kabeer (1994:22) argues that, in order to understand how
social difference and inequalities (in roles, responsibilities, claims, and power) are
produced, reinforced, and reproduced through institutions, there is need to move
beyond the official ideology of bureaucratic neutrality, and scrutinise the actual
rules and practices of institutions to uncover their core values and assumptions.

The SRA also challenges the myth of the independence or separateness of

institutions. It asserts that they are inter-related, and that a change in the policy or
practice in one institution will cause changes in the others (Hillenbrand et al.,
2014). For instance, it is often assumed that a change in one sphere for example,
an intervention which provides inputs to enable men in the community to grow
more cash crops will be self-contained and will not have an impact on the other
spheres such as the household. However, changes in policy or practice on the part
of the state and market affect relationships within the family, and changes within
the family also have an impact on the market and the state (Hillenbrand et al.,
2014). Therefore, development planners and practitioners must therefore pay
attention to the interactions between institutions. In planning an intervention which
deals with institutions such as the household or the community, the NGOs will first
need to know what the state's policies are, and who is setting the agenda for the

5
country where it aims to work (Kabeer, 2012). They must also recognise that
institutions are capable of change indeed they adapt constantly, in order to respond
to change in the external context.

In addition, the SRA places gender at the centre of development theory and
practice. According to March et al. (1999), gender inequality is caused by structural
and institutional forces through (i) rules (how things get done), (ii) activities (what is
done), (iii) resources (what is used and/or produced), (iv) people (responsibilities,
other inequalities, who is in/out) and power (who decides, whose interests). Kabeer
(1994) asserts that institutional behaviour is governed by rules which may be
official and written down. These rules may be unofficial and expressed through
norms, values, laws, traditions, and customs. According to March et al. (1999), the
rules allow or constrain what is done, how it is done, by whom it will be done and
who will benefit.

It asserts that there are systemic and structural causes of gender inequality, and
requires their root causes to be addressed. As provided by Kabeer (2012), to tackle
gender inequality, the emphasis must not be on women’s integration into
development but rather that the social structures, processes and relations which
give rise to women’s disadvantaged position, be transformed. Therefore, ending
women’s subordination goes beyond reallocating economic resources, to involve a
redistribution of power (Kabeer, 1994; March et al., 1999). The SRA advocates that
strategies can be adopted at state, market, community and family levels to reverse
gender inequality. For instance, the state might improve returns to women’s work
and secure better working terms and conditions for them through enacting and
enforcing legislation and also reward firms which implement gender-sensitive
policies and practices. The state may also increase women’s political participation
regarding employment practices which impinge on their well-being (Miles, 2016).

At market level, industries might appoint regulators to supervise the implementation

of best practice codes on gender issues and industry regulators might also

6
encourage firms to provide training so that more women in low-skilled and low-
waged industries can enhance their skills (Kabeer, 2012). At community and family
levels, appropriate programmes in schools challenging norms and encouraging
women to be more assertive, may be developed. Non-governmental organisations
may also create space for discussion about women empowerment. According to
the approach, integral to reversing gender inequality is empowerment (Kabeer,
2012).

Empowerment is regarded as the processes through which women gain the

capacity for exercising strategic forms of agency in relation to their own lives and in
relation to the larger structures of constraint that position them as subordinate to
men (Kabeer, 2005). According to the SRA, empowerement is explored through
the dimensions of agency (the ability to define goals and work upon them),
resources (the means which enhance the ability to exercise choice) and
achievements (the outcomes of the exercise of agency) (Kabeer, 1994). However,
it is argued that empowerment is not something which can be handed over but
rather must be claimed (Kabeer, 1994:97). Kabeer (1994:14-15) believes that the
process of empowerment begins from within and is rooted in how people see
themselves. It is argued that enhancing women’s economic participation increases
living standards and raises women’s empowerment (Kabeer, 2005).

According to the SRA, collective action is integral to empowerment and women’s

allies and grassroots organisations play a crucial role in spurring women’s
collective action (Miles, 2016). Kabeer (1994) notes that collective action calls for
representation, redistribution and recognition and are more effective in challenging
the structures of oppression than individual action. Miles (2016) states that
women’s allies and grassroots organisations play a crucial role in spurring women’s
collective action. They can help women challenge the way institutions relate to
each other, create sp ace for women to politicise their demands, push for policies
which redistribute power (rather than simply resources) and exert pressure on

7
public institutions to be more responsive to women’s needs (Kabeer, 2005). They
are likely to be much closer to realities on the ground than official development
agencies and thus more able to tailor strategies to fit local needs. Kabeer (2005:17)
notes that collective struggles for representation, redistribution and recognition
have historically proved more effective in challenging the structures of oppression
than individual action.

Kabeer (1994) also put forward that there are three main institutional gender
policies that can be put in place to recognise and address gender related issues.
These are gender-blind policies, gender-sensitive policies and gender-aware
policies. Gender-blind policies are those that recognise no distinction between the
sexes and incorporate biases in favour of existing gender relations and therefore
tend to exclude women (Mills, 2013). On the other hand, gender-sensitive policies
recognise that women as well as men are development actors, and that they are
constrained in different, often unequal, ways as potential participants and
beneficiaries in the development process (Kabeer, 2012). Gender-sensitive policies
can be further sub-divided into three policy types namely gender-neutral policy
approaches, gender-specific policies and gender-redistributive policies. According
to March et al. (1999), these different approaches are not mutually exclusive, and
one may be a precursor to another. For instance, in situations where gender-blind
planning has been the norm, moving towards gender-neutral policies would be a
significant shift forward. In some situations, it may be counter-productive to start
with gender-redistributive policies, and a better approach may be a gender-specific
policy, meeting practical needs (Mills, 2013).

Just like other gender-analysis, the Social Relations Approach has its own
strengths. One of the strengths of this approach is the fact that it considers
different levels: the macro, meso and micro level. The other strength is that the
SRA encourages support to women to foster relationships of solidarity and
challenge and transform relationships which reproduce and maintain gender

8
inequality (Hillenbrand et al., 2014) The Social Relations Approach also
encourages analysis of complex realities hence it allows a deep and
comprehensive understanding of gender relations. Hillenbrand et al. (2014) also
add that the SRA helps design programmes and policies that enable women to be
agents of their own development. The appeoach also raises awareness of the
importance of institutional analysis and can be used in training. Hence, the
approach has been widely used in both theory and practice compared to other
gender analysis frameworks. According to Mills (2013), the Social Relations
Approach can be used for many purposes, including project planning and policy
development.

However, the framework has also its drawbacks and criticisms. Firstly, the SRA
may seem quite complicated, detailed and demanding. The complexity and multiple
levels of analysis, and the focus on gendered structures and institutions
challenging to apply, particularly in a participatory manner (Hillenbrand et al.,
2014). More so, emphasis of the approach on structure ignores agency (the
individual and collective choices and actions women take) and opportunities for
women’s empowerment. Mills (2016) also criticise the SRA stating that the analysis
produced by using the SRA tends to give an impression of monolithic institutions
where change will be difficult. Additionally, the framework can be used to examine
all the cross-cutting inequalities that create institutional marginalisation (Hillenbrand
et al., 2014).

In summary, the abovementioned discussion has outlined and described in detail

one of the widely employed gender analysis frameworks which is the Social
Relations Approach. The discussion dwelled on the theoretical principles,
assumptions, emphasis, aims, strengths and criticisms of the SRA. From the
discussion, it can be concluded that SRA is a broader and structural approach to
gender-analysis useful in policy making and development programmes. The SRA is
premised on three main theoretical concepts which are inctreasing human-

9
wellbeing, social relations and intitutional analysis concepts. It can also be
concluded that regardless of being a useful tool for development policy making and
putting aside its strenghs, the SRA also faces some criticisms.

10
References

Hillenbrand, E. et al., 2014. Using the Social Relations Approach to capture complexity
in women's empowerment: using gender analysis in the Fish on Farms project in
Cambodia. Gender & Development, 22(2), pp.351-368.

Kabeer, N. and Subrahmanian, R., 1996. Institutions, relations and outcomes:

Framework and tools for gender-aware planning. Brighton: Institute of Development
Studies.

Kabeer, N., 1994. Reversed realities: Gender hierarchies in development thought.

London: Verso.

Kabeer, N., 2005. Gender equality and women's empowerment: A critical analysis of the
third millennium development goal 1. Gender & Development, 13(1), pp.13-24.

Kabeer, N., 2012. Empowerment, citizenship and gender justice: a contribution to locally
grounded theories of change in women's lives. Ethics and Social Welfare, 6(3), pp.216-
232.

March, C., Smyth, I.A. and Mukhopadhyay, M., 1999. A Guide to Gender Analysis
Frameworks. London: Oxfam GB.

Miles, L., 2016. The Social Relations Approach, empowerment and women factory
workers in Malaysia. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 37(1), pp.3-22.

Mills, S., 2013. Gender and colonial space. Manchester University Press.

Warren, H., 2007. Using gender-analysis frameworks: theoretical and practical

reflections. Gender & Development, 15(2), pp.187-198.

11