The World Bank's employment programs in Ecuador and beyond: Empowering women, domesticating men, and resolving the social reproduction dilemma

The World Bank is trying to fix a problem embedded in its gender policy. Having prioritized the effort to get women into paid employment the institution must account for the work women already do---the labor of social reproduction. This dissertation explores the solutions to that problem enacted by Bank staff. I ask if the institution has addressed the problem posed by unpaid caring labor, if it has generated answers to that problem, why it has generated those answers, and whether those answers are good ones. I rely on software-aided analysis of policy documents and examination of Bank gender efforts in Ecuador. The Ecuador chapters explore the relationship between the Bank and the state in economic reform, and the role of gender policy entrepreneurs in the institution. Through interviews and fieldwork I examine gender policy in floriculture, and in a loan for indigenous and Afro-Ecuadorian people.; I argue that the Bank's prioritization of women's employment was caused by three factors: (1) work was linked to efficiency, productivity and natural market adjustment. (2) work was framed as a "keystone" linked to other development goals. (3) work was seen to empower women. These factors coalesced to ensure that employment appeared the best policy choice for the institution, fulfilling the requirements of mainstream technocrats and progressive development activists. I then turn to the social reproduction dilemma embedded in the effort to get women into work. I contest assumptions that the Bank ignores this issue, and I identify three policies proposed to deal with the problem: (1) Providing state supported maternity leave and childcare. (2) Saving time through restructuring schedules, new technology, and infrastructure. (3) Restructuring heteronormativity to encourage a two-partner model of love and labor, wherein women work more and men care better. The second and third policy options are privileged by the institution, because they demonstrate productivity benefits, they are quantifiable, they are tied to other development desirables, and they appear to empower women. Childcare seems to lack these attributes. Finally I critique the endorsed solutions, arguing that they represent a heteronormalizing push to domesticate poor men and teach women rational love.