| Abstract: | This article evaluates the usefulness of cost-benefit analysis (CBA) in the field of gender and development planning. While the incorporation of distributional considerations into CBA would appear to have made it more sensitive to gender differentials, the article argues that it is limited by a number of factors. These include both its own methodological biases, such as the bias towards marketed activities and quantifiable indicators, as well as the political economy of gender at different stages of the project cycle. Empirical examples from both First and Third World contexts are drawn on to demonstrate how these biases work in practice. The article concludes that CBA is best suited to interventionist, rather than participatory projects; to efficiency, rather than equity goals; and, where equity is the goal, to women's practical needs rather than their strategic gender interests. |
