Gender and Social Entrepreneurship in the field of socia work
This blog discusses social entrepreneurship as a developing area of interest in the fields of development and social work practise and emphasises the role of gender in it. The blog also focuses on an alternative vision of social entrepreneurship as a development tool from a people-centred and gendered viewpoint through an understanding of the existing literature and critique of social entrepreneurship.
One goal of the blog is to help the readers
- Develop their understanding of gender and social entrepreneurship as distinct ideas.
- Recognizing the significance of gender in social entrepreneurship
- Improving one's capacity to connect social entrepreneurship and gender in the realm of development
- Acquiring a critical perspective on social entrepreneurship and the significance of politicising the sector
- The capacity to practise social entrepreneurship with a gendered lens
- Learning how to be gender sensitive while assessing, planning, and using social entrepreneurship as a strategy for social work practise and as a development solution
Contents
- Introduction
- Importance of Social Entrepreneurship in Development and Social Work Practice
- Understanding Social Entrepreneurship - Some Reflections from the Literature
- Problems as opportunities for the Social Entrepreneurs
- Social Entrepreneurship in India: An Emerging Field
- Locating Gender in Social Entrepreneurship: Critique of Existing Literature
- Structural Inequalities: Factors Determining Women Entrepreneurial Initiatives in India
- Social Entrepreneurship at the intersection of mainstream development processes and a capitalist market: Dilemmas and Challenges
- Uncovering the Political In Social Entrepreneurship
- Summary
Introduction
This blog examines social entrepreneurship, an area of interest that is growing in the social work profession. In it, it is explained how social entrepreneurship can be a potent instrument for transforming gender roles. It also exposes some of the detractors of the conventional wisdom around social entrepreneurship. While conceptualising a social enterprise with women, it makes a strong case for the importance of women as a distinct identity group. The blog's objective is to familiarise students with the field of social entrepreneurship, help them understand its significance in the evolving welfare context, and emphasise the importance of acknowledging gender inequities in society in order to improve their overall comprehension of the role of social entrepreneurship in development practise.
Importance of Social Entrepreneurship in Development and Social Work Practice
Although the phrase "social entrepreneurship" is relatively new to the area of social work, there are already quite a few examples that meet the criteria for being exceptional cases of social entrepreneurship despite never making the claim. Since it still lacks a clear definition, there is always room for improvement in this field. For different people, social entrepreneurship means different things, and it is defined differently in other nations. As one transitions from the management to the development fields, the meaning changes. Therefore, it is crucial that we can distinguish between them and come to a better understanding of the phrase in the context of social work and our own situation. Later sections will cover how social entrepreneurship transcends simple business operations.
Another contentious term in social entrepreneurship is "social," which is best defined after a thorough understanding of the social environment, structural injustices, and power dynamics. The inequality that women experience on a daily basis is represented in many different ways by the phenomena of gender disparity. Women have a variety of identities that are shaped by numerous intersections of caste, class, gender, ethnicity, age, marital status, and other factors that also influence their shared and subjective experiences. Patriarchal, political, and capitalistic frameworks combine with the local cultures in which women are positioned to create the complex realities that women face. This is the rationale behind why social entrepreneurship cannot and must not be seen in isolation with regard to gender, particularly when working with communities and women in particular.
It is a well-known truth that as neo-liberalism has grown, markets have increasingly replaced the role of the state and have had a significant impact on state policy all over the world. This is also true for the development field, where social entrepreneurship is now frequently promoted as the panacea to every issue. This shift in the welfare context in favour of a market-oriented strategy also brings to light the numerous attempts made by capitalism markets to dominate the development sector. Therefore, it becomes crucial to develop, improve, and change the general understanding of social entrepreneurship by redefining the term "social." It is crucial that social workers become familiar with it in order to prevent it from falling within the larger category of management and business studies. In order to solve some of the most pressing development issues, knowing social entrepreneurship will complement our in-depth knowledge of the socioeconomic grassroots reality.
Understanding Social Entrepreneurship - Some Reflections from the Literature
The French word "entrepreneur" denotes "someone who undertakes" a task or activity. The term "entrepreneur" was first used by Irish economist Richard Cantillon, who defined an entrepreneur as "undertakers engaging in market trade at their own risk with the intention of reaping a profit" (Roberts and Woods, 2005). The entrepreneur is a change agent who adds value by investing financial resources in extremely productive endeavours (Jean Baptiste Say, 1804). These concepts so introduce the concepts of market and profit. The fact that the entrepreneur supervises and controls the entire business is what distinguishes entrepreneurship as an ancient phenomenon. Due of a lack of employment prospects, entrepreneurship is being promoted in both developed and developing nations. Since a decade ago, joblessness has increased in India as well. An entrepreneur is a person who works for themselves and is free to run their business how they see fit. She or he should be able to make wise decisions, take calculated risks, approach issues in novel ways, and seize possibilities. Entrepreneurship covers a broad variety of actions, including developing, launching, modifying, and managing a business (Cunningham &Lischeron, 1991). Self-employment is the simplest form of entrepreneurship (Blanchflower& Oswald, 1998).
A very broad aspect of entrepreneurship is social entrepreneurship. There aren't any established guidelines or explanations for it, as was already said. Simply speaking, social entrepreneurship is business with a focus on generating social value. To put social entrepreneurship into practise, social entrepreneurs innovate, take calculated risks, and develop the social enterprise model. By itself, social entrepreneurship can be seen as a strategy or development instrument for making a positive social impact. These terms are all connected. The main distinction between a commercial firm and a social enterprise is that the latter was designed with the social objective of helping the underprivileged, whilst the former operates only to generate revenue. They each have quite different reasons for being.
The Ashoka movement, founded by William Drayton, also brought social enterprise a fresh perspective. He established the nonprofit organisation "Ashoka," which seeks out and supports influential social entrepreneurs in order to have the greatest possible social impact (Davison, 2014). It is important to highlight that Ashoka, as a platform, views social entrepreneurs as change agents regardless of the market component that may be attached to them.
Social enterprise is described as ‘two little words, interpreted in many different ways (Young, 2009). Social entrepreneurship is still an emerging area of academic enquiry (Austin, Stevenson & Wei-Skillern, 2006). Roberts and Woods (2005) define it as the
“construction, evaluation and pursuit of opportunities for transformative social change carried out by visionary, passionately dedicated individuals”.
Harding (2007) defines social entrepreneurship as
“any attempt at new social enterprise activity or new enterprise creation, such as selfemployment, a new enterprise, or the expansion of an existing social enterprise by an individual, team of individuals or established social enterprise, with social or community goals as its base and where the profit is invested in the activity or venture itself rather than returned to investors."
Barendson and Gardner (2004) state that
"Social entrepreneurs are individuals who approach a social problem with entrepreneurial spirit and business acumen. Whereas business entrepreneurs create businesses, social entrepreneurs create change".
These definitions have two elements: the economic activity and the social objective or social change that the enterprise is built towards by the one who seeks to address a social problem. Both social goals without business and business without social goals are anti-developmental.
Although academics and researchers just recently gave the name official recognition, the phenomenon has existed for some time. In the context of India, Vinoba Bhave, who founded the "Bhoodan Movement" for land redistribution, is among the most illustrious names on the list of social entrepreneurs. Although the movement was short-lived, its minimal impact cannot be disregarded. There have always been those who have attempted to address social issues through innovative commercial practises or other creative means. Around the 1990s, social businesses were associated with job creation and European social cooperatives in the European setting. With the advent of the Ashoka movement and the way it emphasised the role of individuals, this concept also gained traction in the US. Additionally, the Skoll Foundation in the US produced the "Uncommon Heroes" film series to demonstrate how one person can make a difference in the world.
Therefore, social entrepreneurship may or may not have a profit-making element, but its core objective is to have a positive social impact. It is important to be careful about who defines the social and for whom. Some businesses utilise the term "social enterprise" as a marketing tactic to draw customers, even when their only social objective is to increase profits under the pretence of doing good. At this point, social workers must actively choose to focus on people. People are frequently considered as tools for achieving particular objectives, but from the perspective of social work, people serve as both means and ends for bringing about social change.
Problems as opportunities for the Social Entrepreneurs
Entrepreneurs confront a variety of difficulties, but the difficulties experienced by social and business entrepreneurs are considerably different. What is a challenge for business is a chance for social entrepreneurs. Social entrepreneurs have potential, particularly as a result of social market failures. Social entrepreneurs consider how they may offer a service or meet a need in an innovative way while keeping costs down. Due of the costs and available methods for scaling, social entrepreneurs also confront a significant problem. They may decide to scale horizontally by enlarging their area of influence, adding more branches, or working closely with already-existing organisations and government initiatives to share the knowledge and skills they have gained from their field involvement. Due to the difficulty in finding seed investors for the initiatives, even the deals and discussions they do in the market are difficult. more challenging because investors in these situations choose slow-moving social effect. Because the market is the most powerful force—a brutal reality—there is a substantial risk of purpose drift in the event of vertical scaling. So it becomes a significant problem to compete in such a market without abandoning the objective of keeping it people-centric. In contrast, quick money is available in the commercial sector, where convincing investors is not as difficult. Another issue is finding and keeping qualified workers who want to work in the nonprofit sector because of the numerous restrictions that prevent them from paying more than a specific amount.
In addition to the various difficulties they encounter, social entrepreneurs have unique behavioural traits that prioritise the interests of the group over those of the individual. Commercial entrepreneurs lack this stewardship conduct because their main motivation is to make money for themselves. Who has a greater probability of becoming a social entrepreneur is a matter of curiosity. According to other decisions they make in their lives, people who are female, young and college-educated and who have some business experience, or who live in large cities, have a greater propensity to become social entrepreneurs. Social entrepreneurs have a well-balanced mix of personality characteristics that affect how they respond to social, environmental, and economic concerns. Their receptivity, openness, and agreeableness to a range of topics inspire them to create and prepare for a sustainable development that includes both social and commercial benefits. Education may help everyone develop these personality traits so they can be more aware of their behaviours in both the entrepreneurial and non-entrepreneurial arenas, it is also advised.
Social Entrepreneurship in India: An Emerging Field
In India, it is a quickly developing field. India is not exempt from the growing global disparities, therefore regardless of the coverage, creative solutions to social problems are emerging. The number of people in the nation who favour social advancement over economic advancement has been steadily increasing. India is heavily involved in the practise of social entrepreneurship as well. Despite the practice's age, it is only recently that it has come to be acknowledged. Since its founding by Elaben five years ago, SEWA has worked to protect the rights of low-income, independent women and equip them with the tools necessary to meet the difficulties posed by big business. In eight states, SEWA is present and serves about 1.9 million women who work in the informal economy. By providing these women with employment possibilities and a variety of support networks, this organisation exemplifies one of the most effective social entrepreneurial models. Numerous cooperatives established by SEWA have women serving as both management and beneficiaries.
Only a few prestigious institutions offer it as a topic of study. This emphasises the significance and demand for the phenomenon's rising requirement. It explains the need for more social entrepreneurs in India to address the country's mounting social issues. The goal is to cultivate the ability and disposition to perceive an opportunity in a market failure. The scholarly literature on social enterprises as a whole is sparse, although there is adequate information on previous projects focused on social gain, such as SEWA, AMUL, Lijjat, Barefoot College, microfinance, etc.
In practically every area of development where there is a failure of the market and the public, socially responsible investments are being made. Even now, the government and social sector work together to deliver public services more effectively and efficiently. Affordable housing, healthcare, water and sanitation, energy, financial inclusion, and education are the main goals of these partnerships. In addition, new measures are being taken to involve local residents in the social company as both employees and recipients in order to build sustainable livelihoods. Particularly in the case of India, there is a greater emphasis on how to create impact than utilising impact as just one purpose of the organisation, in contrast to the US and other developing countries.
The Times Group launched a new programme in 2011 called the "Times of India Social Impact Awards" to honour and value the contributions of social change-makers. They present special prizes in each category, one of which is a social enterprise that is for profit. Such initiatives advance the objective of spreading awareness of the idea among both the current and upcoming entrepreneurial generations across the nation.
A sister organisation of the World Economic Forum, the Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship was established in 1998 with the goal of locating, showcasing, and connecting social entrepreneurs around the world. By engaging at multiple levels on a national and international level, it primarily aims to promote and support the practise of social entrepreneurship. Social enterprises must equally shoulder the weight of taxes and regulations in India because there is no legal framework in place for them. Even though it is a startup, the government rarely relaxes its regulations; yet, seed capitalists and incubators are quickly appearing to guide the aspiring social entrepreneurs. Among the organisations that offer assistance are UnLtd India, Acumen Funds, Dasra, Deshpande Foundation, Khosla Labs, Rural Technology and Business Incubator (RTBI), Gray Matters Capital, VenturEast, and Villgro Innovations Foundation. Startups eagerly anticipated the programme the government had long promised to assist and develop entrepreneurship in India, but few people appear to have been pleased with the program's announcement. More than 70% of start-ups are not eligible for the scheme due to the kind of eligibility requirements. For social entrepreneurs, this presents a unique difficulty because innovation and social goals don't always align.
Locating Gender in Social Entrepreneurship: Critique of Existing Literature
It is clear that the politics of caste, race, class, and gender are not considered in the majority of the literature on social entrepreneurship. As a result, the idea of an equal society is constrained, and the social is reduced to a few quantitative gains. In contrast, change in social work refers to a change in the existing power structures and structural disparities. Particularly in a varied nation like India, development experts need to comprehend, apply, and assess social entrepreneurship while paying equal attention to the power dynamics that determine people's fate. It is well knowledge that women have historically suffered as a result of development's negative prejudice against them. The primary condition for any society to advance is gender equality, yet most development work is gender blind, which is where this module seeks to assist readers in locating gender in the broader field of social entrepreneurship.
Gendered interactions could change as a result of entrepreneurship. In order to understand how women might utilise entrepreneurship to change their lives and the communities in which they live, she examines the numerous entrepreneurial projects around the world in her study. It is made clear how gradually these activities change how gender is treated and how opportunities are structured. Women who become entrepreneurs feel more liberated and have higher social status, but these things don't just happen. It is crucial to recognise that women have a distinct identity and are unquestionably a marginalised group. Because of structural disparities, there are more women working in the unorganised sector, and they receive lower pay for doing equivalent work than men. They also have unstable and labor-intensive occupations. Anyone who wants to use entrepreneurship as a tool for the development of women must have a thorough understanding of how feminization of poverty works.
Structural Inequalities: Factors Determining Women Entrepreneurial Initiatives in India
Various factors which influence women’s decision to take an entrepreneurial initiative but they can broadly be clubbed as follows (Gupta, 2013, Estrin & Mickiewicz, 2009):
- Personal Characteristics, motivations & experiences
- Socio-cultural gender context (female education, gender norms)
- Economic Vs Non-economic goals
- Gender differences regarding business management, business motive, social capital, financial access & market opportunities
- Institutional support systems (property rights, business licensing, family, community, market acceptability, rule of law)
- Demographic factors (fertility, importance of family and marriage)
The structural disparities that separate women from males are clearly known as the cause of all the aforementioned problems. No social venture can transform women's lives unless their marginalised status is acknowledged because socially defined gender roles do not grant them certain rights. It takes challenging the status quo to effect change.
Because women typically rely on family and friends for initial investment, but men have stronger business networks to support their entrepreneurial activities, access to financing may be one of the most crucial variables. According to research, women in rural areas typically adopt an enterprise model only as a result of push reasons like unemployment and a lack of suitable jobs, rather than pull factors like opportunity and government initiatives. Unlike industrialised nations, women only consider starting their own business in developing economies like India when jobs are scarce. Women's gender duties, such as taking care of the home and cooking, limit their potential in a professional capacity. Through her research, Mitra (2002) demonstrates that women-owned enterprises are driven more by personal pleasure than by financial gain. Family obligations and limited mobility can limit the prospects available to women. The market is unfairly slanted against women, which hinders their ability to advance economically. Although both men and women experience similar difficulties, many of these difficulties are specific to women. These difficulties include the lack of viable profit prospects and the inability to offer financial collateral. It is crucial to recognise that female entrepreneurs have quite different goals, motivations, constraints, and difficulties than their male colleagues.
The women are marginalised and their development is hampered by power relations in the political, economic, and domestic spheres. Women can experience oppression from a variety of sources due to their numerous identities, including caste, gender, age, class, and ethnicity. These days, the word "women empowerment" is used quite loosely without recognising what it genuinely means. Not all development interventions (in this case, social enterprises) provide women more influence. Women's empowerment is a process that gives them the ability to make good decisions in life when they would not otherwise be able to, which also implies they are disempowered. Resources, agency, and achievements are three interconnected facets of this notion that are explained by Kabeer (1999). Eliminating structural gender disparities in the workplace and granting women equal access to vital economic resources are two ways to empower women (Leibenstein (1968), Tornqvist and Schmitz, 2009). When people and groups are able to successfully translate their decisions into actions and results, this is when empowerment occurs (Alsop and Heinsohn, 2005). All of these points of view clearly have some similarities and distinctions; on the one hand, it views the market component of empowerment while on the other, it observes a non-market aspect. To support women's engagement in entrepreneurship development, both points of view must be combined. Lack of resources or the flexibility to use those resources won't lead to any positive outcomes.
These three aspects of women's empowerment make it clear that resources are limited to both human and social resources in addition to material ones. Her social networks and her relationships with other organisations, such as the market, family, and community, would also be seen as resources because they might serve as her current and future support networks. The amount to which she may exercise her will or act on it is determined by another agency-related dimension that is more of a power dimension. It shows that she has the ability to compromise societal norms, face down institutional resistance, and act with greater self-awareness. Human rights are viewed by Parasuraman et al. (2003) as the cornerstone of human agency. Agency—the capacity to express oneself without hurting others and to establish and preserve relationships of one's own choosing—emerges from this concept. When broken down further, it discusses one's capacity to challenge structural inequities, reform them, and live a dignified existence while also being able to fight against injustice, make decisions without deferring to the dictates of particular institutions, and fulfil one's aspirations. Women's agency encompasses a lot more than merely taking part in particular decision-making processes. At this point, problems like early marriage, dowries, domestic violence, and many more also enter the picture. Women's social status and career chances won't necessarily improve just by raising their income. Success is a deeper understanding of how women use resources and exercise agency. Given the patriarchal nature of Indian society and the under-empowered status of women, it is fair to conclude that women's entrepreneurial potential is untapped. For this reason, social entrepreneurship offers a variety of options to collaborate with women.
According to Bergmann's "crowding" hypothesis from 1974, socio-gender prejudices have caused women to be restricted to a small number of professions where there is an obvious distinction between man and woman positions. This discrimination based on gender shields some well-paying occupations from competitors as well as precludes women from applying for specific jobs. Because there are too many women working in a particular field, the earnings are further reduced as a result. Even now, women still dominate several industries, such as the production of papad, incense sticks, and bidis, which results in overall low salaries. While the demographic dividend for the country is something to be proud of, it must be remembered that the benefit will only be realised if women are provided fair and equal work chances. While all of this is unquestionably true, there is a different viewpoint that comes from feminist community practise and emphasises the reality that women do have a natural affinity for particular occupations due to their history. In order to help women enter and thrive in the markets, social entrepreneurs should learn how to reinforce the current knowledge systems and build on them.
Ironically, research has largely fallen short of demonstrating how female entrepreneurs' efforts vary fundamentally from those of men. They have a few very special strengths that made them successful for the ladies and also explain why they brought about changes in their lives that go beyond financial gain. The Lijjat venture, which allows women the liberty to roll papads at home, is a classic example. In order to improve the social and economic situation of underprivileged women, businesspeople like the seven friends who founded "Shri MahilaGrihaUdyogLijjatPapad" are crucial. This business effort actually changed the lives of thousands of women by offering them a distinct identity, a possibility for progress, and a voice in the type of lifestyle they chose (Ramanathan, 2004). It is important to learn about those who were successful in fusing human values with financial achievement. Governance institutions and their relationship to women are both strategically important. The situation with SEWA, which Ela Bhatt created in the 1970s, is comparable. These businesses are entirely run by women, with men making up a very small portion of them. There are explanations for this, and these explanations have a direct bearing on the societal impact that can be attributed to a certain entrepreneurial endeavour.
Social Entrepreneurship at the intersection of mainstream development processes and a capitalist market: Dilemmas and Challenges
Markets now play the role of the state and have a significant impact on state policies globally as the globe moves toward a capitalist system. This is especially true for the so-called "developing countries," where the entire concept of development has been twisted to benefit markets. Increased economic growth has directly contributed to rising inequality. Poverty exists on a global scale. A little more than half of the world's 3 billion inhabitants live on less than $2.50 per day. In India, a third of the world's poor people reside. (2013 data) Up to 363 million Indians, or 30% of the population, live in poverty. There is a sizable "missing middle" that the government ignores under the name of poverty line, despite the fact that their circumstances are no better than those of people with BPL cards. The concept of "poverty alleviation" has been the subject of countless development theories that have come and gone. It is currently more than just a goal; it is a new campaign anthem. People identify with it more than any other identity because they are both the victims of globalisation and the test subjects for all new programmes, policies, and strategies for reducing poverty. In the development paradigm, there are more buzzwords than actual outcomes. In this situation, breaking down development becomes crucial. It is critical to consider whether this is genuine development or neo-liberalism undercover. In the midst of all of this, "social entrepreneurship" has evolved as a fresh method of tackling pressing development issues. The new targets of the world are those at the "bottom of the pyramid." Some businesses advertise as social enterprises in order to cover the last few miles. They view those at the "bottom of the pyramid" as nothing more than customers. A select few others refer to them as "producers". The main criticism of the market-based approach is that it never views the underprivileged as human beings with rights. This study seeks to deepen our understanding of social entrepreneurship by examining a grassroots social firm that does not seek to increase its clientele or source cheap labour from its workforce. rather with the intention of fostering community development that will enable members to live honourably. The purpose is to examine how market approaches might be utilised to compete with established markets. The corporate world will inevitably consume everything unless everyone learns how to thrive in this type of economy. Instead of romanticising social enterprises, it is important to understand how the strategy may actually be used to make a real difference in the world.
Uncovering the Political In Social Entrepreneurship
Although social entrepreneurship is not a new concept in India, the word is rather fresh. The main criticism of social entrepreneurship is that it ignores the current power dynamics and sees social transformation as an obvious outcome of specific market operations. A view of social entrepreneurship that is so impartial depoliticizes intricate social processes on purpose. Today, social entrepreneurship is advertised as the panacea to all issues, which is practically unattainable.
Changes in power relations, not money growth, are what constitutes women's empowerment. In the field of social entrepreneurship today, economic frameworks or business models are given more weight, which challenges the language of democracy, equality, and human rights in such forums. Such a neoliberal definition of social entrepreneurship does not account for complex concerns like domestic violence, caste dynamics, child marriages, dowry, and many more. Therefore, social entrepreneurs need to have a political philosophy that values inclusivity and diversity of thought and viewpoints. They must prioritise women's rights on par with those of males in order to go beyond market demands. Any social company professing to empower women through extensive capacity building, policy, and advocacy work must engage with women on a personal and political level. Although collaborations may exist, such ethical companies should not compete with for-profit businesses. Another excellent example of a focus that attempts to be balanced is SEWA. Women's social mobilisation and institution building are two social work strategies that can empower women to fight for their own rights. The ultimate objective must be to fortify women's collectives and arm them with the tools they need to take on their own issues. This is an example of Paulo Friere's conscientization in action. All of this may sound like activism, but social entrepreneurship is actually a strategy of surviving in a rapidly changing world by using market and non-market instruments to combat growing global disparities. Otherwise, social will always be a myth when it comes to social enterprise.
Summary
Today, social entrepreneurship is at the nexus of several academic fields and viewpoints. Additionally, it frequently finds its way into the designs of capitalist economies and common development processes. Therefore, it is necessary to review and revise the same. An alternative viewpoint on social entrepreneurship is provided by understanding it from a people-centred and gendered perspective.
Only when social entrepreneurship is embedded in the wider power structures does it function as a development instrument. The majority of the time, social entrepreneurship is reduced to concept generation. Professionals frequently become fixated on an idea, leaving others behind. Social workers can advance in this situation by first understanding the social realities before coming up with development-related ideas. Most people who wish to bring about change believe that this is the way forward, especially now that the government is supporting young entrepreneurs, but it's crucial to strike a balance between entrepreneurship and social responsibility. Social entrepreneurship is centred on human-centred solutions, and its social impact can be measured. The most crucial aspect of gendering social entrepreneurship is assuring inclusivity and acknowledging variety so that newer value systems can be developed on the shared sense of community. The key to social entrepreneurship is viewing people as active participants rather than beneficiaries. The majority of social enterprises employ a gender-blind methodology, thus organisations that are sensitive to gender issues must be established in order to achieve the potential of entrepreneurship to shift gender roles. The other actors, including decision-makers, think tanks, governmental and non-governmental groups, who have a direct bearing on various government schemes and initiatives, need to be gendered.
Comments