![]()
Part I:
Postcommunist Constructions of Gender and Sexuality![]()
Chapter 1
Gender Inequalities in a Nationalist, Nontransitional Context in Serbia, Emphasizing Vojvodina, During the 1990s
Tatjana Ðurić-Kuzmanović
Introduction
Some previous analyses of development in Serbia have focused on one dimension: the economy. In contrast, my approach is that development in any country has to be treated as a multidimensional process of continuously solving numerous, complicated social problems, understanding that these solutions, at the same time, produce new and more complicated questions (Hettne, 1990). In this chapter, I discuss the process of development in Serbia, emphasizing Vojvodina, during the 1990s, as a multidimensional process that includes important changes of social, political, and cultural structure and economic development as well.
One of the biggest universal trends since the 1970s has been the increasing equality between women and men; however, there is still a long way to go. Feminist critique redefined the existing paradigm of development, not only to consider gender equality but to include basic human needs and ecological issues as well. The significance of social conditions for development and the need for nonexploitative development add to the need for a multidimensional feminist analysis of development.
Contrary to the globalization process,1 during the 1990s the ex-socialist regime in Serbia was leading the country into isolation, rejecting transition, and producing an absence of development, which I call “state-directed nondevelopment.” In this chapter, the word transition is used to mean a process of transforming the existing economic and social system into a parliamentary democracy and a market economy based on private ownership. In Eastern Europe, economic transition has generally meant the liberalization of bureaucratic management of the economy, wide-scale privatization, and economic restructuring (Ðurić-Kuzmanović and Žarkov, 1998). Serbia failed to meet even these limited traditional conditions of transition. Namely, economic reform introduced by the last federal government of socialist Yugoslavia failed at the end of 1990; and the three most developed Yugoslav republics, Slovenia, Croatia, and Serbia, were already acting as economically independent states (Ðurić-Kuzmanović, 1995).
Unlike the concepts of transition in the Big Bang, Shock Therapy, and gradualism models, the concept of transition in Serbia was unique. The Serbian socialist government refused the reforms that could have led to a market economy and to parliamentary democracy and created a context of state-directed nondevelopment (Ðurić-Kuzmanović, 1997). This had destructive economic consequences, i.e., economic chaos (Lazić, 2000, p. 10) and the political conditions of war and nationalism internally and isolation from the external world. In this context it was difficult for anybody to realize her or his potential, and women also suffered systematic gender oppression.
With the victory of the Democratic Opposition of Serbia in October 2000, The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) took a wobbly first step away from state-directed nondevelopment and isolation toward parliamentary democracy and integration with the world. From the point of view of most citizens, the expected radical economic reforms in Serbia have been realized slowly.2 As in other countries in transition (Kandiyoti, 2000), significant changes in women’s social status and position in society, politics, and the economy, especially in the labor market, have begun and are expected to continue. In this text, I will identify general trends seen during the 1990s in Vojvodina and the rest of Serbia, and will discuss the significance of gender equality and political and social conditions for the economic and social development of Serbia. In this chapter I refer to Serbia as the region including Vojvodina, central Serbia, and Kosovo when data are available for this region. Unless specified, Montenegro is excluded because its economic and political systems were different during the 1990s.3
A Gendered Approach to Theories of Development and Transition
As opposed to neoliberal economic theory (Myint, 1987), development economics often explores the problem of economic inequality and the gendered aspects of this inequality. Referring to development economics helps one refrain from making the same assumptions and mistakes in Serbia that were made by some ruling regimes and international agencies in the third world. At the same time, I see the need to rethink the concept of transition and associated transformation theories and to consider alternative points of view that extend current development theories (Dube, 1988). Development theories, strategies, and politics have limited their effectiveness and produced some undesirable results in reality because they have incorporated the perspectives of vulnerable groups inadequately. Specifically, this chapter highlights the way in which gender perspectives can be incorporated to strengthen both theory and practice during transition.
The introduction of gender as an analytical variable in development economics involves addressing the issues of the social construction of male and female productive and reproductive roles and their social relationships. The gender perspective challenges dominant models and seeks better solutions. Current models of economic development not only include the traditional goals of economic growth and structural changes but also assume decreasing poverty, inequality, and unemployment. However, the emphasis in using those models tends to treat these issues simplistically or in the aggregate. In addition to the traditional goals, a gendered approach to development and transition adds levels of complexity by considering changing rates of poverty, inequality, and unemployment for both genders and by evaluating the effects those changes have on gender relationships. In this chapter, I will use the alternative perspective of the gender and development (GAD) approach to discuss the significance of gender equality as a political and social requirement for the successful economic and social development of Serbia.
Previous approaches4 to incorporating women into development theories focused on the need to integrate women into the economic and social system through legal and institutional changes or on the relationship between women and development processes. Advocates of the gender and development concept emphasize the importance of using gender as the foundation for understanding the processes of societal development; however, they also stress the important influences of class, age, and race. The gender and development concept (Rathgeben, 1995)
- uses a holistic perspective, looking at all aspects of women’s lives,
- questions the basis of assigning specific roles by gender,
- advocates the visibility of women’s issues in development theory and practice,
- encourages women to accept themselves as important actors in their societies,
- welcomes men’s positive contributions to social development, and
- does not emphasize exclusive female solidarity.
Having in mind the broad and very diverse field of gender inequalities, in this chapter, I am trying to define an appropriate, adequate approach to analyzing gender inequalities in Serbia. Since the problem of gender inequalities refers to the distribution of the resources of power and authority, I apply some elements of dual system theory and neo-institutional theory5 to the study of gender relations under state-directed nondevelopment.
Morell (1999) found the subordinated position of women to be the consequence of two types of hegemony: patriarchy and an economic system of domination. Applying dual system theory to researching gender relationships in postsocialist Serbia, I conclude that Serbian women had subordinate positions in public and in private spheres as a result of these two systems. Considering the case of Serbia, I interpret women’s subordination in the context of the interactions between the interests of patriarchy and those of state-directed nondevelopment.
Also, by using the body of knowledge developed in the gender and development approach, I conclude that the dominant economic and social system in Serbia was a gendered system of domination. A gendered economic system refers to the gender-specific division of labor in various forms of social organization, such as households, government organizations, informal systems of exchange and markets. The logic of a gendered system is that it differentiates male and female spheres systematically and ranks them hierarchically. The gendered system becomes patriarchal when these differences between male and female spheres lead to systematic benefits for men and to subordination and exploitation of women (women’s work, sexuality, etc.).6
The gender and development way of thinking presented a great challenge to traditional opinion. For many governments and international agencies the improvement of women’s status meant the abolition of men’s power and privileges. Investment in women required reallocating existing resources or finding additional resources. In many situations, national and international bureaucracies had never been pressured to choose either of these options due to the lack of female political forces (Jahan, 1995).
Development policies that do not take gender relations into account have limited effectiveness. In support of this view, the World Bank Report, Engendering Development: Through Gender Equality in Rights, Resources, and Voice (World Bank, 2001) argues the following:
- The costs of gender inequality are far-reaching, affecting both men and women. Societies that discriminate on a gender basis pay a significant price in greater poverty, slower economic growth, weaker governance, and an inferior quality of life.
- Gender disparities are associated closely with poverty. Gender inequalities, particularly in human development, tend to be greatest among low-income countries and, within countries, among the poor.
- Accounting for gender differences and disparities in policy and program design can enhance the effectiveness of government interventions, both from efficiency and equality perspectives.
To promote gender equality, the report argues for a long-term strategy that focuses on reforming institutions (establishing equal rights and opportunities for women and men) and fostering economic development (providing stronger initiatives for more equal resources and participation).
Finally, to enable the formulation of gender-oriented economic policy, we need accurate, realistic, and complex measures upon which to base our analytical framework. To reflect the correct messages, these indicators should be sensitive to gender differences and should result from research comparing different groups of women among one another and comparing groups of women with men. There are some attempts to develop such a system of indicators, including quantitative and qualitative measures that show differences in female and male participation in society as well as differences in perceptions of their individual and their group’s positions in society (Evans, 1992). However, in reality, conclusions about gender inequalities and the position of women in society are usually supported with insufficient empirical data. In explaining the relationship between economic development and gender inequalities, feminist economists (very often inappropriately) have limited their definition of gender inequality to female labor participation, only because labor statistics are often the easiest to find (Goldin, 1994).
General Economic and Social Conditions in Serbia During the 1990 S
Compared to other countries, both successful and unsuccessful in transition, Serbia’s experience was unique. The state rejected transition and instituted the strategy of directed nondevelopment.7 When socialist Yugoslavia disintegrated, in Serbia the breakdown of the old system was associated with the strengthening of a new collective ideology, nationalism, and ethno-democracy (Sekelj, 1991). Democratic changes that were introduced existed only for members of the groups favored by the politicians in power. Other people were largely excluded in one way or another; their citizenship rights, as well as their rights to live in any specific territory, were denied (Hayden, 1996; Informacija iz Hrtkovca, 2001).
As other Eastern and Central European countries struggled to introduce economic and political transition, the Serbian ex-socialist government instituted measures to prevent it. The government led a media campaign against political and economic transition, emphasizing problems of other countries in transition, constructing advantages for the existing system, and praising “the wisdom of the regime to resist such temptations” (Posarac, 1996, p. 184). The economic response of the Serbian government was a swift centralization of existing, albeit already exhausted, resources. Privatized companies experienced renationalization through a system of revaluation of industrial capital under rules designed to diminish the value of privately owned portions, while overvaluing the state-owned parts of firms. In addition to owning the capital, the state exercised power over firms’ business decisions and elections of general managers. Another important fact was that members of the government actually were, at the same time, owners or general managers of the largest firms in Serbia.
With no significant change in the ruling elite or in its political and economic system, the old system was able to preserve itself throughout the 1990s. Consequently, Serbia functioned as a closed society, which had a nominally pluralistic political system with totalitarian characteristics. In 1992, after imposition of the UN sanctions against Yugoslavia, this closed economy was created, with no reference to the mainstream world economy and with absolute control of the flow of goods and money in the hands of very few people. Almost the entire official economy was regulated administratively, while the gray economy and black market operated according to their own laws.8 Administrative cont...
