#AccelerateEquality on My Mind Interview Series

videoType

dynamic-media

videoDmUrl

keyFrameImage

timestamp

00:10 In 2010,

00:11 2011,

00:12 I was working on Central America.

00:14 Uh,

00:15 I was working for the CMU at that time

00:17 and I remember,

00:18 uh,

00:18 distinctly when the WDR uh came out

00:22 because it made a splash on a few things.

00:24 It had very vivid language,

00:25 so I remember distinctively the conversations that we were having around agency,

00:29 social norms for a lot of people

00:31 in a way they were not that familiar with some of those and

00:34 the WDR did a very good job at putting those uh top.

00:38 Mind and it also had very compelling language on the communications front.

00:42 I think it gave us,

00:43 you know,

00:43 useful tools to communicate around,

00:45 you know,

00:45 gender equality is not just

00:48 good in its own,

00:49 but it's also a smart,

00:50 uh,

00:50 smart economics.

00:51 So I think that it was quite memorable in,

00:53 in different ways.

00:55 I've seen huge changes and uh

00:57 I think you can think of changes on the analytical front,

01:01 on the analysis and think it's,

01:02 and changes on the,

01:04 on the actions.

01:05 I think on the analysis,

01:07 probably the biggest change

01:09 is that um

01:10 differentiated impacts have gone from not always there to uh nice to

01:15 have if you could have like a sex uh differentiated impacts in,

01:19 in say a distributional analysis

01:21 to uh now.

01:23 And you know,

01:24 for quite a few years by now,

01:25 it's almost,

01:26 how come you don't have it?

01:27 And so I think that's one thing on the

01:28 analysis that has definitely uh changes almost like the expectation

01:32 that there is.

01:33 And also the,

01:33 the sophistication of the analysis.

01:36 I was saying earlier about uh how

01:38 the WDR brought,

01:39 you know,

01:40 a new way of thinking through it.

01:41 I think our

01:42 level of sophistication,

01:43 things like on the role of uh representation,

01:46 the role of uh um social norms,

01:48 etc.

01:48 has become much more ingrained in,

01:50 uh,

01:50 in our analysis.

01:51 Now,

01:52 there's also A change on the action side.

01:54 I think that there it has gone from mainstreaming to,

01:57 you know,

01:58 the effort trying to make it,

01:59 OK,

01:59 let's,

01:59 let's see if we can say something about gender

02:02 to how can we possibly make a difference.

02:04 I think

02:05 we still have,

02:06 in a sense if you compare it with the changes in the analysis where

02:09 We've already gone to the,

02:10 how come we're not discussing uh

02:13 some sort of like um

02:14 differentiated impacts.

02:16 I think on actions we're still

02:18 not at the level of

02:19 how come we're not making a difference on,

02:21 on,

02:22 on some of these uh gaps but we're already at the,

02:24 how can we actually make a difference on,

02:26 make a difference on,

02:27 on some gaps.

02:28 So I think that's a big,

02:29 uh,

02:29 that's a big change as well.

02:33 Certainly,

02:34 and I think this is one of those areas where I felt like,

02:37 yeah,

02:37 the bank is changing and uh so I was preparing an operation

02:40 that was supporting a DPO that was supporting a tax reform in Guatemala

02:45 and I remember as it went through the clearance uh process as it went up

02:49 the food chain,

02:50 we got this,

02:51 uh,

02:52 this question of like,

02:53 you know,

02:53 what,

02:53 what's the,

02:54 you know,

02:54 differential impact.

02:56 On men and women.

02:57 And,

02:57 uh,

02:57 and it was not a question that we had,

02:59 uh,

02:59 that we had expected and to me it was like the realization,

03:02 of course,

03:02 I should have been thinking about this,

03:04 but also that actually the institution is really

03:07 Uh,

03:07 thinking about,

03:08 uh,

03:09 about this and,

03:10 you know,

03:10 as it turned out actually did have,

03:12 uh,

03:13 some,

03:13 uh,

03:13 differential impact,

03:14 uh,

03:14 which we had not,

03:15 uh,

03:16 anticipated in the,

03:17 in the team.

03:18 It was a teachable moment for,

03:19 uh,

03:20 uh,

03:20 for us,

03:20 but it was also a good,

03:22 I mean,

03:22 to me,

03:23 uh,

03:23 a good demonstration of,

03:25 uh,

03:25 how,

03:26 you know,

03:26 ingrained this question has become in the,

03:29 in the organization and something that our colleagues,

03:31 you know,

03:32 are asking to each other and I think it's,

03:33 you know,

03:34 we can all be proud of that.

03:38 This is a very interesting question because convincing someone as

03:41 skeptical is one of the hardest things that you can

03:44 uh hope to achieve and there's sort of like some,

03:47 you know,

03:48 counterintuitive things around,

03:49 about that,

03:50 you know,

03:50 it doesn't tend to be,

03:51 you know,

03:51 if someone is skeptical to begin with,

03:53 it's,

03:53 it's,

03:54 it's hard to in a sense that more data would convince.

03:58 So,

03:58 I think that,

03:59 you know,

03:59 one of the

04:00 few strategies that works in,

04:02 in this is to

04:04 sort of like try to find common ground.

04:05 It's like,

04:06 OK,

04:06 so under,

04:06 under what conditions do you think that,

04:09 you know,

04:09 your position may not hold.

04:11 So it's almost like

04:12 let's consider

04:13 if

04:14 there are some situations in which your position that At this does not matter,

04:18 uh,

04:18 actually breaks down and if you're able to sort of like

04:21 find some

04:22 common ground to begin with,

04:23 I think we have a,

04:24 we have a shot at it.

04:25 Let me maybe give you an example.

04:27 One of the things that we say and I referred to it earlier is that,

04:30 you know,

04:30 this is not gender equality is not only good on its own but it's good,

04:33 uh,

04:34 economics,

04:34 but

04:35 You know,

04:36 there's some people that actually

04:37 are not persuaded by that.

04:39 They point out,

04:39 they point out the,

04:40 you know,

04:41 for an individual entrepreneur

04:43 may actually not be

04:45 the,

04:45 the case.

04:46 And so

04:47 then the question there is like,

04:48 OK,

04:49 so,

04:50 Maybe

04:51 at what time,

04:52 time horizon

04:53 does it make sense,

04:54 you know,

04:54 what,

04:55 what is the type of um um

04:57 externality that we need to think and I need to take into account?

05:00 What is the,

05:02 the right unit sort of like uh of analysis for the message of

05:05 uh this is also smart economics to really hold their uh hold true.

05:09 And so to shift

05:11 the discussion from

05:12 our

05:13 So like uh differences to like,

05:15 OK,

05:15 under what conditions can you agree that this may possibly uh make a difference and,

05:19 and take it from uh uh from there.

05:21 That's one of the hardest things for uh uh for all of us,

05:24 not just in this space but in the,

05:26 in a lot of other um

05:28 policy dialogue that we,

05:29 that we conduct and,

05:30 uh,

05:31 and it's one of the skills that uh staff at the bank really have and good,

05:34 good bank staff are really good at.

05:36 At bringing up this,

05:37 uh,

05:38 these difficult conversations and,

05:39 and getting some,

05:40 uh,

05:40 getting some traction.

05:41 So I'm optimistic about,

05:42 uh,

05:43 about our ability to do something about it.

showAllTimestamps

no

transcript

In 2010, 2011, I was working on Central America. Uh, I was working for the CMU at that time and I remember, uh, distinctly when the WDR uh came out because it made a splash on a few things. It had very vivid language, so I remember distinctively the conversations that we were having around agency, social norms for a lot of people in a way they were not that familiar with some of those and the WDR did a very good job at putting those uh top. Mind and it also had very compelling language on the communications front. I think it gave us, you know, useful tools to communicate around, you know, gender equality is not just good in its own, but it's also a smart, uh, smart economics. So I think that it was quite memorable in, in different ways. I've seen huge changes and uh I think you can think of changes on the analytical front, on the analysis and think it's, and changes on the, on the actions. I think on the analysis, probably the biggest change is that um differentiated impacts have gone from not always there to uh nice to have if you could have like a sex uh differentiated impacts in, in say a distributional analysis to uh now. And you know, for quite a few years by now, it's almost, how come you don't have it? And so I think that's one thing on the analysis that has definitely uh changes almost like the expectation that there is. And also the, the sophistication of the analysis. I was saying earlier about uh how the WDR brought, you know, a new way of thinking through it. I think our level of sophistication, things like on the role of uh representation, the role of uh um social norms, etc. has become much more ingrained in, uh, in our analysis. Now, there's also A change on the action side. I think that there it has gone from mainstreaming to, you know, the effort trying to make it, OK, let's, let's see if we can say something about gender to how can we possibly make a difference. I think we still have, in a sense if you compare it with the changes in the analysis where We've already gone to the, how come we're not discussing uh some sort of like um differentiated impacts. I think on actions we're still not at the level of how come we're not making a difference on, on, on some of these uh gaps but we're already at the, how can we actually make a difference on, make a difference on, on some gaps. So I think that's a big, uh, that's a big change as well. Certainly, and I think this is one of those areas where I felt like, yeah, the bank is changing and uh so I was preparing an operation that was supporting a DPO that was supporting a tax reform in Guatemala and I remember as it went through the clearance uh process as it went up the food chain, we got this, uh, this question of like, you know, what, what's the, you know, differential impact. On men and women. And, uh, and it was not a question that we had, uh, that we had expected and to me it was like the realization, of course, I should have been thinking about this, but also that actually the institution is really Uh, thinking about, uh, about this and, you know, as it turned out actually did have, uh, some, uh, differential impact, uh, which we had not, uh, anticipated in the, in the team. It was a teachable moment for, uh, uh, for us, but it was also a good, I mean, to me, uh, a good demonstration of, uh, how, you know, ingrained this question has become in the, in the organization and something that our colleagues, you know, are asking to each other and I think it's, you know, we can all be proud of that. This is a very interesting question because convincing someone as skeptical is one of the hardest things that you can uh hope to achieve and there's sort of like some, you know, counterintuitive things around, about that, you know, it doesn't tend to be, you know, if someone is skeptical to begin with, it's, it's, it's hard to in a sense that more data would convince. So, I think that, you know, one of the few strategies that works in, in this is to sort of like try to find common ground. It's like, OK, so under, under what conditions do you think that, you know, your position may not hold. So it's almost like let's consider if there are some situations in which your position that At this does not matter, uh, actually breaks down and if you're able to sort of like find some common ground to begin with, I think we have a, we have a shot at it. Let me maybe give you an example. One of the things that we say and I referred to it earlier is that, you know, this is not gender equality is not only good on its own but it's good, uh, economics, but You know, there's some people that actually are not persuaded by that. They point out, they point out the, you know, for an individual entrepreneur may actually not be the, the case. And so then the question there is like, OK, so, Maybe at what time, time horizon does it make sense, you know, what, what is the type of um um externality that we need to think and I need to take into account? What is the, the right unit sort of like uh of analysis for the message of uh this is also smart economics to really hold their uh hold true. And so to shift the discussion from our So like uh differences to like, OK, under what conditions can you agree that this may possibly uh make a difference and, and take it from uh uh from there. That's one of the hardest things for uh uh for all of us, not just in this space but in the, in a lot of other um policy dialogue that we, that we conduct and, uh, and it's one of the skills that uh staff at the bank really have and good, good bank staff are really good at. At bringing up this, uh, these difficult conversations and, and getting some, uh, getting some traction. So I'm optimistic about, uh, about our ability to do something about it.

showAllTranscripts

no

duration

PT5M56S

scene7File

worldbank/Interview with Oscar Calvo-Gonzalez_ Director_ IEGHE_ Independent Evaluation Group

scene7Domain

scene7FileAvs

worldbank/Interview with Oscar Calvo-Gonzalez_ Director_ IEGHE_ Independent Evaluation Group-AVS

title

Interview with Oscar CalvoGonzalez Director IEGHE Independent Evaluation Group

description

Interview with Oscar CalvoGonzalez Director IEGHE Independent Evaluation Group

showTimestampAndTranscript

yes