State of Knowledge on Gender and Resilience

Resource-poor people face multiple risks and disturbances across social, economic, health, political and environmental spheres. Included among these are conflict, public health threats, corruption, climate change and natural resource degradation. The concept of resilience provides a useful framework for considering potential solutions to these intersecting challenges. This is particularly the case in situations where structural problems and inequalities — such as chronic poverty and gender gaps — underlie persistent and recurring shocks. Growing evidence shows that men and women have different exposure to shocks and stressors, and different preferences and capacities in terms of their responses. This stems from gendered social, cultural and institutional contexts that shape such factors as their livelihood activities, roles and bargaining power. Importantly, these factors are intrinsically linked with women’s empowerment levels, including their ability to access resources and make strategic life choices to improve their overall wellbeing.

Because shocks and stressors occur in local contexts with different power structures, institutions and sociocultural norms, it is difficult to generalize the different ways men and women are affected and choose to respond. Men’s and women’s experiences and reactions largely depend on the types of overlapping shocks and stressors they are exposed to. This brief highlights some of the key gendered dimensions of resilience, drawing on evidence from the literature, including systematic reviews and global indicators, where available, as well as case-study examples that highlight important linkages. The evidence summarized is intended to guide the development and implementation of gender-sensitive resilience interventions focusing on key programming areas of interest to Feed the Future’s Center for Resilience.

The concept of resilience has allowed researchers, policymakers and practitioners to think more broadly about potential solutions to the confluence of challenges facing vulnerable communities, particularly in developing countries, where structural problems and inequalities, such as chronic poverty and gender gaps, underlie persistent and recurring shocks and stressors. Development and humanitarian efforts tend to converge around a working definition of resilience as the ability of people, households, communities, countries and systems to mitigate, adapt to, and recover from shocks and stresses in a manner that reduces chronic vulnerability and facilitates inclusive growth. This approach (a) prioritizes investments that build adaptive capacities, such as expand- ing economic opportunities, education, environmental sustainability, diverse livelihoods and nutrition and health services, while (b) also reducing risk through investments in assessment tools, early warning systems, disaster risk reduction, preventing conflicts and safety nets. Evidence is emerging suggesting that women’s empowerment and good governance underpin these efforts to build capacities and reduce risk, leading to more resilient systems, reduced vulnerability and inclusive growth.

Growing evidence shows that men and women are differently exposed and have different preferences and capacities to respond to shocks and stressors. Examples of these include some of the biggest threats facing the global community — such as climate change, Covid-19 and conflict — given the different social, cultural and institutional contexts that shape gendered livelihood activities, roles and bargaining power. Contextual factors and varying levels of exposure to shocks and stressors intersect with all aspects of women’s empowerment, including access to resources and the ability to make strategic life choices, leading to improvements in wellbeing. Thus, resilience approaches require studying and understanding the local context to ensure (a) that interventions build on existing capacities and risk-management institutions, and (b) that they support people and institutions in pursuing their preferred strategies.

Research can highlight the extent to which interventions that support women’s empowerment, reduce risk and increase the resilience capacities of men and women are compatible and mutually reinforcing. To what extent and in what ways does women’s empowerment lead to more resilient systems? To what extent might investments intended to increase resilience capacities also provide a pathway for women’s empowerment? By answering these questions policies and interventions can be designed in ways that take advantage of the synergies between increasing women’s empowerment and building resilience while addressing the gendered risks, constraints and local opportunities.

Because shocks and stressors occur in local contexts with different power structures, institutions and sociocultural norms, it is difficult to generalize the different ways men and women are affected and choose to respond. Moreover, men’s and women’s experience and reactions largely depend on the types of overlapping shocks and stressors they are exposed to. This brief highlights some of the key gendered dimensions of resilience, drawing on evidence from the literature, including systematic reviews and global indicators, where available, as well as case-study examples that highlight important linkages. The evidence summarized in the report is intended to guide the development and implementation of gender-sensitive resilience interventions focusing on key programming areas of interest to Feed the Future’s Center for Resilience.

The linkages between gender and resilience

• Men and women face different risks and have different levels of exposure and sensitivity to shocks and stressors.

• Women tend to be more exposed and sensitive (though not always) to natural disasters, such as droughts, storms and earthquakes. Outcomes depend on contextual factors, such as gendered participation in high-risk occupations.

• Given their different livelihood roles, men and women experience climate shocks and stressors differently and, hence, may be affected differently by climate change.

• Men and women are exposed to different types of risks, shocks and stressors, and their exposure to the same types of disturbances differs. For example, women are more likely to experience gender-based violence.

• Sensitivity to particular shocks and stressors is also gendered and can change throughout the life cycle, with implications for gender equality over the long run.

• Men and women have different resilience capacities. Measures of women’s empowerment are also important indicators of women’s resilience capacities.

• Addressing gender disparities in access to and control over resources and assets, like land, would facilitate women’s empowerment and increase women’s resilience capacities.

• Increasing women’s access to services, like extension, information and financial services, is also essential for building women’s resilience capacities.

• Expanding women’s employment and income-earning opportunities can diversify livelihood sources and increase resilience outcomes both for women and their families.

• Increasing women’s bargaining power and agency in their households and communities can lead to choices that reflect women’s needs and preferences and increase women’s contribution to addressing shocks and stressors.

• More research is needed to demonstrate and measure the linkages between women’s empowerment, gender equality and resilience.

• Gender-sensitive policies, programs and investments can address structural inequalities while increasing resilience capacities and outcomes (transformative capacity).

• Investments in women’s economic empowerment may also increase overall resilience to shocks and stressors.

• Greater investments are needed to strengthen the capacity of implanting agencies to deliver gender-sensitive programming.