This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Dr. Kirti Pandey Department of Sociology D.D.U. Gorakhpur University, Gorakhpur 273001
Social development is a bigger and more legitimate goal. We do not need to justify social development for promoting educational consciousness among women. Social development is necessary to enable society to solve its own problems including the problem of women’s education. Modern development theory suggests that just as physical capital (machines) augments people’s economic productivity, so human capital acquired though education improves the
productivity of individuals. Confidence has grown in the belief that education affects economic growth because many studies have shown the positive correlation between country’s
educational efforts and its economic status and causality has been attributed to education. If female schooling raises human capital productivity and economic growth as much male
schooling does, then women’s disadvantage in education is economically inefficient. Thus from the point of view of economic efficiency, the gender gap in education is undesirable. While the economic benefits of educating girls are similar in size to the economic benefits of educating boys. Recent findings suggest that the social benefits from investing in female education are far greater than those from investing in male education. Especially
female education has powerful effects on the total fertility rates (hence on population growth) and the infant mortality rate and the female disadvantage in child survival and on child health and nutrition. There are many development constraints such as social, economic, poetical, cultural etc. in general; gender discrimination is one of the significant constraints among socio cultural problems. It has affects the society as a whole. Biological differences between men and women do not very but the social roles that they are required to play vary from one society to another and fluctuate over time. Further the nature f gender discriminations and patterns of inequality vary among culture attributes and opportunities associated with being male and female. In most societies men and women differ in activities they undertake an access and control of resources and in participation in decision-making. These inequalities are a
constraints in growth because they limit the ability of women to develop and exercise their full capabilities not only for their own benefits but also for the society as a whole. Alarmingly lower rate of literacy among females is directly related to the general
condition of gender discrimination. The extent of bias in education and also in health in the different states of India has been looked in this paper. indicating the presence of anti-female bias, the being particularly
pronounced in some of the northern state. Social and cultural factors are important factors explaining the existence and extent of bias. it has also been suggested that there can be economic explanations of the observed bias. One hypothesis is that the female child will be considerably more valuable and hence treated better if she is potential source of future income. Whether gender bias has an economic explanation or not has important policy implications. it can be argued that social and cultural factors are deep-rooted and hence less tractable to policy instruments. On the other hand the appropriate policies can effectively change economic opportunities of women. Thus, if gender bias can be at least explained in terms of different economic opportunities for the two sexes, then there is a greater scope for policies in reducing gender discriminations. An analysis has been started with the observation that if deep-rooted cultural factors are the major determinates of gender bias, then regions or states which exhibit a high level of bias in education should also be the regions of states, where there is a high level of bias in health. The level of poverty or income levels are likely to be positively correlated with the level of mortality for the simple
reason that poorer households can afford lower or worse qualities of nutrition and healthcare. Similarly, gross enrolment ratios are also likely to be in poorer households for at least two reasons.
First, poorer households are less likely to be able to afford the costs of education. This must an impact on educations. Thus poverty is unlikely to be a major determinant of gender discrimination. The situation is more complicated in the discrimination of health. Here two indicators have been used-infant and child mortality rates. Except in Bihar, Haryana, Punjab and Uttar Pradesh infant mortality rates do not reveal any bias against girls. In several other states male infant mortality rates are actually significantly higher than female mortality rates. However the fact that male infant mortality rates are relatively higher may simple reflect the biological superiority of female in the neonatal stage. Moreover an overwhelming majority of infants in India are breast fed, and there is no evidence suggesting that gender affects the number of duration of breast feeds. So it is not surprising that infant mortality figures do not reveal any discrimination against girls. To the best of our knowledge there has been a little work on the determinants of gender bias in education. This is quite surprising in view of the fact that at least in India the bias against girls is more pronounced in education. Another Lacuna in the literature is that there has been very little analysis of the time series evidence on the incidence of the gender bias in education and health in India. These provide motivation for the present
paper. In this paper we want to examine the extent of any bias against girls in education and health and how the bias (if it exist) has changed over time and we analysis the possible
determinants of gender bias in education in selected states. As far as education is concerned we have used gross school enrolment data published by the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India. Enrolment statistics by various stage of education primary, middle and high school are published on an annual basis. Gross enrolment is calculated as the ratio of the total number of students enrolment in the relevant stage by the estimated populations in a specified age group. Thus the primary section is defined as class 1-5 with the corresponding age- group being 6-11 years while 6-8 with age11-14 constitute the middle school. Of course the data on gross enrolment is somewhat misleading since the enrolment ratio does not take into account drop out rates which may be as high as 60 percent in the terminal stages of primary education. While a comparison of averages indicated the presence or absence of discrimination, it says nothing about how many existing bias has changed overtime. In the case of education female disadvantage will increase with an increase in the amount by which the female enrolment ratio falls short of the male ratio. It means that female disadvantage (or advantage) will tend to higher if the absolute values of the male and female rates are
high. as far as the gender discrimination in education is concerned the enrolment ratio shows that the bias against girls is widespread. It has been found that there is a significant bias against girls ion all 15 states at both the primary and middle school levels. A popular hypothesis is that female workforce participation has a negative impact on female disadvantage. More than one reason has been advanced for this direction of causality. First higher workforce participation increases the economic worth of girl children and so arises the returns to investments in girls. Of course greater the worth of females the lower should be the cost of marrying off girls. That is dowry payments should be lower in regions where female workforce participation is higher. Thus the workforce participation rate for females is particularly unlikely to be an exogenous variable in this context since discrimination against girls in education can result in more female children being sent out to work. It has been found that the increase in percapita income has a positive and significant effect on female enrolment in the primary school. In middle school, the effects of this variable on enrolment are neutral acrossthe two sexes. Hence, it has no effect on female disadvantage in middle schools. There has been a significant trend decline in female disadvantage in education. This has come about through a significant higher rate of expansion of female enrolment. Also
female disadvantage has been in the middle school than in primary school. There is no discrimination against females so far as infant mortality is concerned. Although an increase in female literacy has a beneficial effort on mortality the effect is neutral across the two sexes. Hence female literacy has no significant impact on female disadvantage in mortality. Increasement in female literacy by improving knowledge of elementary hygiene, as well as awareness about the importance of proper nutrition and health care can increase the absolute survival probabilities of both sexes. Another route through which female literacy can have the same effect on absolute survival probabilities is via total fertility. Increases in female literacy are associated with lower fertility because fewer children mean more resources per child. Our result do not substantiate the hypothesis that greater female workforce participation reduces female disadvantage in health by improving their economic worth. Indeed the absolute mortality rate of both boys and girls worsens with increasing female participations in the labour force with girls, suffering more than boys.
1- Altekar, A.S. 1978 The Position of Women in Hindu
Civilization. Second Edition Delhi: Moti Lal Banarasi Das
2- Allen, Michael 1982, ‘ The Hindu View of Women’ In M-Allen and and S.N. Mukherjee (eds.) Women in India and Nepal, Canberra: Australian National Univesity. 3- Bennet, L. and M. Acharya (1981) ‘ The Rural Women of Nepal’ Report of the project on the Status of Women in Nepal. Vol II part9. 4- Basu Alka (1992) Culture, The States of Women and Demographic Behavior, Oxford: Clareden Press. 5- Bardhan P.K. 1988, ‘ Sex Disparity in Child Survival in Rural India’ in P.K. Bardhan and T.N. Srinivasan (eds), Rural Poverty in South Asia, New York. 6- Chanana, Karuna (ed) 1988. Socialsation, Educational and Women: Exploration in Gender Identity. New Delhi: Orient Longman. 7- Datta Bhaskar, and Panda Manoj ‘ Gender Bias in India’ Journal of Quantitative Economics, Vol. 16 No. 1Jan. 2000, Indian Econometric Society. Shivam Offset Press, New Delhi
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?