Promoting and Resisting Gender Mainstreaming. Evidence from Spain 2005-2012

7th ECPR General Conference ‐ Bordeaux 4‐7 September 2013

1

Promoting and Resisting Gender Mainstreaming. Evidence from Spain 20052012

Eva Alfama Guillén (Institut de Govern i Polítiques Públiques, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona)

[email protected]

Paper presented at the 7th ECPR General Conference ‐ Bordeaux 4‐7 September 2013

(Section 20: Gender+ and Politics. Panel 229: Opposition to Gender Equality in Europe)

First draft.

Comments are welcome. Please contact author before quoting it.

Abstract

After a sustained period of expansion of Gender Equality policies, it seems that we are now at a turning point, especially in Southern Europe. The economic and financial crisis has led to hard austerity policies, and the concern about (gender) equality has diminished or even disappeared. Indeed, in many places there is a virtual paralysis in the ongoing programs, which shows the fragility of previous achievements. Hence, reflection on the opposition to the initiatives promoting gender equality is one of the most urgent challenges facing femocrats, who need to rethink Gender Equality priorities, strategies and intervention tools to counteract this trend and have greater impact.

This paper proposes a specific analysis of resistances to the implementation of the Gender Mainstreaming (GM) strategy by regional Equality Bodies within Spain. It will focus on two issues; firstly, the policy makers’ opposition to GM, paying particular attention to Human Resources, training, budgeting, or information systems’ officers. Questions like who are resisting, what changes are being resisted, why, and so on will be addressed. Secondly, the strategies implemented by femocrats to counteract these oppositions will be analysed.

This study will draw upon 45 interviews carried out from 200512 to high level policy officers (both femocrats and non femocrats) in the two regions of Spain with the highest degree of development of the GM strategy (The Basque Country and Catalonia).

It is expected that this approach will allow us to explore the influence of different aspects in both policymakers’ resistance and femocrats’ reactions; such as the features, path and strength of the Equality Body, the government’s composition (coalition or unitary), the political opportunity structure, and the institutional and legislative contexts. Moreover, specific attention to the effect of the economic crisis on this issue will be paid.

1. Introduction

It has been almost 20 years since the Conference in Beijing was held, and the question about the validity of Gender Mainstreaming (GM) as an equality strategy is still significant today. GM has been established worldwide, but it remains unclear to what point it has been useful to advance on gender equality. Is it possible to transform both the State and public policies in the core of institutions that resist explicitly or


2

implicitly, consciously or unconsciously, individually or collectively to change their routines and interpretative frameworks of reality? Could a strategy based on collaboration be effective, especially when this collaboration is not wanted by many of the agents involved? Which are the key elements GM needs in order to succeed?

The question about the actual transformative nature of GM has centred much of the theoretical and empirical reflexion of the studies on gender and politics in the last years. The concepts put into practice by this strategy have been explored, as well as the limits of its implementation; and the advance achieved in different contexts have been described, mapping the various instruments used in the process. However, only recently the focus has been placed on the systematization of resistances encountered within these processes of change, pointing out the need of an in‐depth and detailed study on how and why these resistances are expressed, and how these could be fought in order to obtain practical tools to overcome them.

Moreover, from a Southern European perspective, this task becomes more urgent indeed. The economic crisis and the consolidation of austerity policies with a marked neoliberal and conservative bias have a devastating impact on women’s’ lives and stresses the question of how to sustain the advances achieved.

Indeed, an assessment of the progress achieved is a crucial matter to be able to propose alternatives of action in this new context of welfare‐state retrenchment ―which does not seem to be changing in the medium term.

This paper is based on a current PhD research that explores what are the elements involved in making equality policies successful and/or sustainable in an unfavourable context. In general terms, it presents a research aimed at providing elements to this discussion from the analysis of empirical material within the Spanish state. In particular, it is focused on the GM promotion experience between 2005‐2012, in two of the Spanish regions that has implemented this strategy with greater ambition and impact: Catalonia and the Basque Country1.

This paper introduces a first exploratory analysis in which five main aspects have been systematized: The advances achieved in GM promotion, the problems or obstacles encountered, the ways in which these resistances are taking place, the strategies developed by the Equality bodies, and finally, the key factors identified to make GM more successful.

Some recent studies intend to systematize the resistances to GM2 in various areas. In this sense, this paper aims to place the focus on the different instruments of institutional change. The outcomes of the various mechanisms are systematically explored in order to obtain a comprehensive and qualified view on the processes of institutional transformation and continuity within the GM framework, on the basis of

1 Within the Spanish state, the furthering of gender policies has a strong multilevel character. Some regions stand out (in particular, the Basque Country, Catalonia and Andalusia) due to their innovative approach and their commitment to GM development. This regions in fact have had a greater ambition implementing GM than the national government. (Bustelo and Ortbals, 2007; and Ortbals, 2008). 2 For example, regarding the types of resistances, how these are expressed, the actors involved, etc., see Mergaert and Lombardo (2012).


3

the hypothesis that the various instruments could be considered as policy sub‐systems and therefore pose different challenges and resistances.

It is a first step of a further and more systematic analysis of the influence exerted by different aspects in both policymakers’ resistance and femocrats’ reactions; such as the features, path and strength of the Equality Body, the government’s composition (coalition or unitary), the political opportunity structure, and the institutional and legislative contexts.

The analysed sources are elite interviews performed to politicians and technicians of both the Catalan and Basque governments; specifically, to officers in charge of equality bodies, as well as to other key agents of the administration (for example, responsible for training, planning, human resources, etc.) Likewise, secondary sources have been revised, specifically the evaluations of Gender Mainstreaming performed in both regions3.

The first section of this paper outlines a state of the question about the implementation of the Gender Mainstreaming strategy within the feminist policy studies, and suggests a specific systematisation of those mechanisms developed within the GM framework that further institutional change. The next section briefly describes and discusses some temporary results of the analysis performed. Finally, some considerations regarding the continuity of this research are included. The appendix presents in detail the analysis of each particular instrument.

2. The implementation of Gender Mainstreaming

2.1 State of the Question

The Gender Mainstreaming strategy emerged in the eighties in the field of international development, and it was furthered afterwards when it was adopted as an approach to promote gender equality at the 4th World Conference on Women held in Beijing in 1995. The idea was to develop a new intervention strategy on equality policies that aimed to overcome the limitations of the equal treatment and positive actions approaches. Considering that the State itself is a key actor in the structural reproduction of inequality between men and women, it is assumed that their institutional practices must also be transformed.

The objective is therefore to consider the principle of gender equality not as a mere supplementary item, but as a modifier of the whole of public policies, including it as an element of immediate concern in the main political agenda.

The reflection and theorisation on GM has been the focus of most analysis on the political science from a feminist perspective, and in particular in the field of research that has been called feminist policy studies or feminist comparative policy (Mazur, 2002). In general terms, the role played by the different actors in the implementation of these policies has been indeed analysed; specifically, the development of state feminism in different contexts (e.g., Stetson and Mazur, 1995; Outshoorn and Kantola, 2007; Valiente, 1995). It has also been explored the equality concepts and paradigms underpinning gender policies in different contexts and/or periods in order to discuss their transformative potentialities (see, among others, Walby, 2005; Verloo, 2005; 3 Some of them made by the author, as it is briefly described in Alfama and Cruells (2013).


4

Eveline and Bacchi, 2005; Lombardo, 2005; Squires, 2005; and all the numerous studies originated in the MAGEEQ and QUING comparative projects).

The intention to deeply modify the ways of designing and implementing public policies, as well as the organizational and institutional culture of administrations, faces major challenges when it is put into practice, as compared research on the implementation of GM in different contexts has revealed.

On the one hand, great difficulties have been encountered for surpassing a rhetorical assumption of the GM principle and the implementation of particular measures (Braithwhite, 2005, among others). The aim to influence all actors involved in all public policies, and at all stages, makes GM implementation an extremely complex task. The resistances — implicit and explicit, intentional or unintentional — arisen in this stage are intense, and in the end the commitment to equality is not usually regarded as a question of priority. The implementation of GM therefore requires a strong political commitment, willing to facilitate both the allocation of resources and the breaking of resistances in order to face the existing institutional inertias.

The core of the GM strategy is the will of using bureaucracy for furthering equality, but due to the structural nature of gender inequality, the organizational cultures, dynamics and procedures of public administrations are markedly gender biased (Acker, 1990). This places the GM impulse on a delicate balance of power and negotiation between the institutional and personal inertias and the pressures for equality — both internal (state feminism, political parties or particular civil servants) and external (women’s movements and international organizations).

The studies focused on the practice of GM implementation mention several specific obstacles, such as: legislative, economic or political conditions, excessive expectations and ambitions, difficulties for developing a horizontal strategy in hierarchic and segmented institutions, or lack of concretion (Meier and Celis, 2011). Studies also categorize the problems most commonly encountered: institutional (the weakness of Equality bodies), relational (existence or non‐existence of mobilization structures and/or advocacy coalitions), operational (use of nonbinding instruments), conceptual (compatibility among policy conceptual frameworks), and contextual (opportunities in the public agenda or in the public debate)4.

On the other hand, the implementation of GM has to face the complexity of maintaining its political and confrontational character as well as its transformative capacity without resulting in a set of bureaucratic tools that depoliticise its initial objective — the question on “technocratization of the GM strategy”, pointed by Verloo (2005) among others.

In our opinion, this technocratization refers to two different although related dimensions. From an operational perspective, technocratization relates to the excessive importance given to the instruments and procedures when implementing

4 In this sense, see, for example, Mazey, 2001; Hafner‐Burton and Pollack, 2000; Benschop and Verloo, 2006; Braithwaite, 2005; Valiente, 2007; Walby, 2005; Daly, 2005; Rees, 2005; and Alonso, 2012, among others. Some studies focus on assessing the impact of various GM key instruments. This would be the case of the gender training analysis performed by the Quing project; as well as the studies on GIA (e.g., Roggeband and Verloo, 2006, regarding the Dutch case, or Alonso et al., 2010, regarding the Galician case in Spain).


5

GM, which can lead to a procedural drift of the strategy. That is, the reduction of the GM to a set of techniques and tools formally applied but emptied from political contents and objectives. From a more substantive and conceptual point of view, a depolitization drift also has been detected. The problems then are related to the concept of gender equality that underlies policies: To what extent is it a shared concept with a transformative character? Thus the main challenge in this field is how to prevent the loss of political content, as well as the structural transformative will of GM.

Several studies have pointed out different causes for this technocratization trend. One explanation argues that the very formulation of the GM has established rather ambiguous objectives for this strategy, whereas it has accurately defined the means to attain them (data collection, target setting, monitoring, evaluation, etc.) (Meier and Celis, 2011). Since the meaning and implication of gender equality has not been clearly defined, it remains a quite vague subject, which opens the door to a technocratic interpretation of the process of gender equality policies, opposite to the more activist and feminist character held by pre‐GM equality policies (Squires, 2007). Furthermore, many Equality bodies have somehow contributed to this tendency by not making visible the conflictive, ambitious and critical character of GM in order to facilitate its adoption (Verloo, 2005.)

It has also been suggested that a possible cause for this drift might be the prescriptive tendency of the feminist policy studies, which has contributed to centralise the development of instruments (Espinosa, 2011, cited by Bustelo, 2011). Others authors underline the role played by the neoliberal frame in which GM had to be implemented (Kantola and Squires, 2012; Bacchi and Eveline, 2003; Lombardo, 2005; among others). The increasing emphasis on management based on evidence and the application of efficiency criteria, through auditing and monitoring techniques — which characterise the New Public Management —, have found in the GM strategy a comfortable place to settle. The GM strategy, on its turn, has tried to capitalise on this tendency, in order to introduce equality criteria into the policy process. In practice, however, the tools that have been more developed are those better adapted to the predominant functioning of the policies, privileging the most quantitative and bureaucratic instruments against participative initiatives5, and favouring a major development of GM procedural elements that resonate with this hegemonic neoliberal frame, to the detriment of other more distinctive GM aspects of a greater political and confrontational nature.

A more detailed reflexion on these issues and their implications in the evaluation of public policies has been developed by the author in Alfama and Cruells (2013).

2.2 The Actual Application of Gender Mainstreaming. How to Conceptualize the Promotion of Institutional Change? Interpretative Model

As previously mentioned, gender mainstreaming is mainly a planned strategy of transformation of public administrations to systematically introduce the equality

5 For example, Bacchi and Eveline (2003) develop this argument in relation to the sexdisaggregated statistics and the equality indicators, explaining how in practice a reductionist and static conception of inequality has been held, diluting the political content of information and reducing it to a set of needs, to mere quantitative divisions adaptable to the administrative decisions regarding resource allocation.


6

principle into agendas, processes and actors. Given that the strategy is strongly oriented towards institutional change, in practice it has been translated into the creation and dissemination of a remarkable plurality of innovative methodological and organizational tools aimed at permeating all public administrations with new and more inclusive political priorities. On this basis, GM has been defined as a “concept-method” (Dauphine and Sénac-Slawinski, 2008, quoted in Alonso, 2012) or as a political practice (Walby, 2005).

But the questions of what is actually meant by incorporating a gender perspective in administrative processes, and how it should be implemented have been subject of debate, and according to some authors, up to the present no broad consensus has been reached (Bustelo, 2011 and Alonso, 2012).

In order to make a contribution to this debate, and as result of the evaluations conducted in Spain, we have formulated a proposal regarding the actual meaning of the GM implementation in the praxis of the political process (Alfama and Cruells, 2013). This proposal is a categorisation we consider particularly useful to the assessment of institutional change, since it is based not only in the specific tools developed by Equality bodies in order to promote institutional change, but also on the logic of the very process of policy making.

The table presented in the subsequent page collects a generic systematisation of the instruments developed and the areas of intervention. The concretion of these instruments is differentiated according to the specificities of the diverse backgrounds of equality policies, and to the features of the institutional and normative frame of each context. In this sense, the characterisation of these instruments is an empirical open question to assess in each particular case6, although in our opinion, the areas of intervention are usually common to all cases.

As it can be seen in the following table, the instruments can be either specific or decentralized. In the first case, the advocates of gender equality (either general Equality bodies or specialised equality units) are centralised, which allows a better control over the policy contents and prevents equality from being distorted, evaporated or put into the service of other ends. In contrast, in the second case, mechanisms are created so that the principle of equality can travel and expand at the very heart of public policy, and towards the rest of the usual actors in policy making. These mechanisms are useful for exerting pressure, managing relations, providing tools and expertise, and supervising the incorporation of a gender perspective (Alfama and Cruells, 2011). In each context, several complex and dynamic balances have been established between these two types of centralisation and decentralisation mechanisms regarding the equality issue.

6 In order to identify the instruments, we analysed the current legislation and equality plan for each case, as well as practices carried out by Equality Bodies when implementing GM. They were contrasted in interviews with femocrats in charge of equality policies, since this praxis is not necessarily formalized or depicted in a specific document or program. Thus, in the Catalan case, seven mechanisms were identified: Coordination and Structuring, Monitoring and Accountability, Resource Allocation, Training, Regulation, Information, Analysis, and Civil Participation. Regarding the Basque case, six mechanisms were identified: Structures for Equality Promotion, Direct Assistance, Training, Communication Policy, and Validation and Evaluation Processes. All could be placed within the larger blocks defined in the table.


7

In addition, these instruments are crossed with various policy‐making stages (diagnosis, design, implementation, and evaluation). Some instruments are particularly related to some of the stages, while others have a more transversal incidence.


8

Table 1. Types of Instruments related to Gender Mainstreaming implementation, by different policy processes

Instruments Typology Components / objectives Examples of instruments Specific Equality structures Equality Bodies, units, and/or agents. Institutional

Structuring Decentralised Structures of interadministrative and interinstitutional coordination Commissions for coordination in the field of equality

Specific Plans and programs for equality promotion Equality programs and plans. Internal equality plans (HR) Planning Decentralised Inclusion of a gender perspective into sectorial planning Impact reports, diagnosis from a gender perspective, etc.

Specific Monitoring and evaluation of specific equality policies and measures

Monitoring systems of equality policies. Internal and external evaluations Monitoring,

Accountability and Evaluation Decentralised Gender perspective in regular tools and processes of

policy monitoring and evaluation Inclusion of gender indicators, gender criteria, etc. into policy monitoring systems

Specific Ensuring that all policy‐makers are trained on gender perspective

Specific training on gender Preparation of training materials Training

Decentralised Correcting gender bias in training Introduction of a gender perspective into generalist training

Specific Specific regulations on equality Equality Laws, Gender Mainstreaming Laws, Laws against gender‐base violence. Development of regulations. Regulation

Decentralised Equality principles in sectorial regulations Gender impact assessments.

Specific Allocation of sufficient resources for equality promotion Budgeting for equality plans, programs and units. Financial aid for specific initiatives for equality Resource

Allocation Decentralised Equality criteria on the distribution of economic resources

Gender budgeting, GIA on budgets, equality clauses in funding and public contracts, etc.

Information and Communication Both Information, communication and visibility regarding

equality Consulting aimed at policy makers. Guides, methodological tools, protocols, handbooks, etc. Awareness campaigns.

Analysis and Research Both Facilitating gender analysis in diagnosis and prognosis Gender studies, diagnosis, statistics and gender indicators.

Specific Forums concerning equality and promotion of the women’s movement.

Participative counselling and processes concerning equality. Support to feminist and women’s associations.

Participation Decentralised

Gender parity on decision‐making. Ensuring the presence of feminist voices (gender experts and women’s movement) in all policy‐making stages. Inclusion of equality objectives into non‐specific participative bodies

Equality criteria concerning personnel selection and recruitment. Support to the involvement of women, feminist bodies and gender experts on policy‐making in all public policies.

Source: Prepared by the author in Alfama and Cruells (2013).


9

3. Preliminary Results.

3.1 Underlined Aspects

This section presents some of the outcomes regarding the advances achieved by the implementation of the various mechanisms analysed, as well as a systematisation of the obstacles encountered, the ways in which resistances take place in each particular mechanism, the strategies developed by the advocates of equality policies, and the factors identified by these advocates as necessary to succeed in each particular case. A more detailed analysis of the various mechanisms is presented in the annex7.

Thus, the intention is to map the main considerations emerged from equality policy experiences in the two cases of study.

Table 2. Summary of results

ADVANCES/ ACHIEVEMENTS

‐Subtancial advances in the planning and development of gender mainstreaming have been achieved, through the design and implementation of diverse instruments (regarding regulations, human resources, generation and dissemination of knowledge, etc.). However, GM has not been fully implemented. ‐In both the Catalan and Basque cases, a basic structure has been created, as well as notable interdepartmental dynamics have incorporated all departments and agents. ‐The challenge is now to continue permeating the whole of public administrations and spread instruments and processes within each particular department/agent.

PROBLEMS

‐ Complexity of institutional change. Difficulty of introducing specific changes in different settings, sectors, etc. ‐The necessary in‐depth knowledge of how administrations work is not always available due to the great diversity of typologies regarding public actions, sectors, etc. ‐Rigid administrative processes, marked institutional inertia, and slowness in implementing changes. ‐The segmentation of the hierarchic administration and organization ‐ as well as the division of tasks within departments (policy specialists, legal services, budget officers) ‐ hampers cooperative work. ‐Lack of gender expertise, particularly in specific topics, or in how to apply specific instruments. Gap between expert scholarly knowledge and policy‐making practice. ‐Lack of detailed data about the activities, outputs and outcomes of public actions. ‐The development of the evaluation and analysis of public policies has not yet been consolidated within the administrations.

RESISTANCES

‐Serious differences among departments regarding the commitment to institutional change have been found. ‐Main arguments for inaction:

‐The distribution of competences and responsibilities is used to avoid taking on equality actions: The capacity of intervention of public authorities is questioned8; problems of competence among agents are pointed out 9, and actions are transferred to other actors. ‐On the grounds that GM is innovative and implies a global perspective and high interdepartmental collaboration, it is perceived as a difficult matter in vertical and segmented administrations, which is

7 This analysis is not yet concluded; therefore, the results concerning all mechanisms identified in table 1 are not included. 8 For example, rejecting the possibility of introducing clauses against sexism in economic aids for cultural production, based on the consideration that the cultural department should not intervene in defining cultural contents. 9 For example, the Department of Agriculture refuses to include a gender pesrpective in the agricultural school’s programs claiming that the issue concerns the Department of Education.


10

often used as an excuse: “I don’t know how to do it, so I won’t do it” ‐Forms of resistance:

‐Insufficient budget. ‐ Chief officers delegate tasks and ignore GM requests as inaction mechanisms. ‐Resistance to place officers or units responsible for equality in relevant and influential positions within departments. ‐Partial and “at will” compliance of existing obligations (e.g. gender impact assessments, budgeting, internal equality plans). They are perceived as unnecessary, useless and extra work. ‐Insufficient consolidation of achievements due to lack of formalization and legally‐binding commitments leads to an excessive dependence on gender‐aware officers. The rotation of personnel and the changes of government then become a problem: while people in charge of equality issues take on most of the responsibility, their replacement hampers the furthering of the advances. ‐Fear of generating a new structure, take on economic commitments, and bureaucratize processes. ‐As the officers in charge of equality issues are perceived as specialist on “mainstreaming” practices, they are given excessive responsibilities from other transversals policies or issues (immigration, Roma people, climate change, youth, amog others). ‐When including equality criteria, the tendency is to privilege rewarding criteria instead of compulsory criteria10.

‐Conceptual controversies: ‐Reticence to positive action and to understand gender parity as a democratic requirement. The influence of meritocratic thinking and the belief in the neutrality of the administration hampers to a great extent the identification of inequalities, particularly in regard to labour policy, gender parity and resource allocation. ‐Confusion between the nonexistence of direct and explicit discrimination and the existence of equality. ‐Confusion between equality promotion and actions addressed to women. ‐Quantitative view of equality; it is focused on the presence of women. ‐Equality bodies perceive the crisis as a weakening factor of its political pressure capacity11.

EQUALITY BODIES’ STRATEGIES ‐ To search for the greatest support possible by aiming at the highest positions, using regulations, involving the highest possible number of actors, etc. ‐To search for political and partisan consensus, as well as the support and participation of social and women’s movements. ‐Develop evaluation and monitoring practices in order to gather information about other actors (which allows better equality initiatives), exert pressure on the agents (by assessing and quantifying inaction of specific actors, the degree of commitment of each agent is revealed), and provide a tool for promoting GM at an intradepartmental level (as the very need of gathering detailed information creates intradepartmental dynamics of cooperation). ‐To negotiate responsibilities on a clear basis. ‐To work on constantly strengthening confidence, training, communication, pedagogy and networks of experience exchange. ‐Flexibility, dialogue, and rapprochement of the various departments’ needs to provide content to the implemented instruments and measures. ‐Comprehensive view of the various mechanisms, their connection and feedback. ‐Construction of “neutral” legitimate claims linking gender equality to innovation in public management, policy quality, modernity, etc., and development of a technical background and “reputation” in these fields in order to place equality policies as an innovation reference. This is particularly relevant in a moment (the 2000s) when evaluation is being furthered in Spain. ‐Alliances with “technical” actors in prominent positions within the administration (actors in charge of planning, evaluation, budgeting, information systems, etc.).

10 For example, in public contracts, including equality clauses rewarding companies which comply with the 3/2007 Equality Act instead of specific clauses that exclude those companies which have not made advances in this issues (This Act legally binds companies with more than 250 workers to fully implement an Equality Plan). 11 E.g. in Catalonia, early elections and the beginning of the crisis delayed or prevented the process of drafting new laws. The Equality Act that was being drafted by the coalition government was one of the first (and more important) projects to fall.


11

‐Alliances with other policies/programs sharing mainstreaming practices (environmental policies, social inclusion, immigration, etc.) ‐Constant efforts in developing specific instruments (evaluation, training, etc.) whether these arise interest or not at the beginning, in order to generate “demand” or turn them into usual practices. ‐Balance between top‐down strategy (more comprehensive and thus generally preferred by equality bodies) and bottom‐up strategy (Development of pilot programs with gender‐aware agents in those cases where comprehensive advances are not possible12.) quilibrio entre estrategia bottom‐up (desarrollo programas piloto con agentes sensibilizados) en los casos en que en no se consigue avanzar de forma global (presupuestos de género, unidades de igualdad en C.).

ESSENTIAL FACTORS

‐Constant and wide political will at the highest level of all the administration and departments. ‐Creation of a normative frame that defines instruments and responsibilities. ‐Appropriate and feasible planning adjusted to current policies. Flexible and adaptable instruments and clarity in their objectives and functions. ‐ Stability and expertise of officers in charge of equality. ‐Emphasis on evaluation and monitoring. ‐Sufficient resources. ‐Dissemination of gender expertise in all sectors and policy processes. Development of concrete examples of how to apply gender criteria. ‐Cooperation of key “technical” agents. ‐Intradepartmental diffusion/spreading of gender mainstreaming practices, with a good articulation between the political and technical spheres. ‐Capacity to detect politic opportunities in different areas (for example, when budget management systems are modified, when strategic plans are drawn up, etc). ‐Importance of operative and contextual elements by taking into account how the various policy processes are put into practice in each particular institution. ‐Existence of international agreements and European policies and funds as a positive pressure mechanism, particularly in specific sectors (University, labour, education, etc). ‐Importance of the interaction with civil society in each sector or sphere of action, as these sectors may have diverse policy networks with a different degree of openess and presence of feminist actors. ‐The diverse parties involved in coalition governments may hold different equality perspectives, which may lead to a need for negotiation. ‐Crisis contexts and changes of government are blocking factors, at least in the short‐term. Source: Prepared by the author.

3.2 Discussion. Key Points of Resistance and Conflict Regarding the Implementation of Gender Mainstreaming

a) The main problem detected is the nonexistence of consensus in the definition of the problem; or more specifically, in the need of intervention to change the dynamics and processes, as well as in the direction of this intervention. Intense work is required to modify the belief in the neutral nature of policies and public administrations in order to promote gender expertise in a scattered way along the whole administrative structure at its various hierarchic and sectorial levels. Even though the foundations to achieve this end have been laid by creating notable interdepartmental dynamics, today the challenge is not only to sustain those dynamics, but also to spread these processes within the various departments and agents.

Yvonne Benschop and Mieke Verloo (2006) posed this question years ago, when an empirical analysis led them to an ambivalent conclusion on the transformative capacity of GM. They pointed out that this strategy helped to achieve some substantial changes regarding the orientation of policies, but it was quite difficult 12 For example, gender budgeting in both cases, and the development of equality units in Catalonia.


12

to make those changes sustainable and systematic because of the sexist nature of public administrations and their role in reproducing gender bias. The image of “Sisyphus sisters” brought about a reflection upon the difficulty of sustaining changes and the dynamic nature –forward/backward/forward – of the impact generated by GM on public administrations.

In this sense, the present research also shows a lack of “automation” regarding the changes achieved. Although there were significant changes within the period analysed, these have proven to be rather fragile. Changes of personnel and government in many cases involve a major step back, even in those matters that should have already been incorporated into routine administrative issues due to their consistent background (GIAs and gender parity would be examples of this question). It is a new start all over again, though not from the same starting point. The question is whether a time will come when there will be a critical mass of people aware and committed to equality in the whole administrative structure that will stop this trend.

Regarding this issue, in the praxis there is a considerable tension between the will of formalization and concretion exercised by Equality bodies (concretion regarding obligations and responsibilities of all agents when promoting equality) and the will of hampering this concretion and preventing changes from happening exercised by most of the rest of the agents. This tension has been constant in the development of GM instruments, oscillating between the attempts of equality bodies to move forward at a global level (top‐down strategy) and advancing through pilot programs with the agents involved (bottom‐up strategy) when the former is not possible. The persuasion strategy in fact only works to a certain point, so the challenge is to involve people or agents who are not previously aware of, or committed to, equality.

In this sense, the processes of lawmaking within the GM frame and the creation of permanent equality structures have become the main battle fields in which the attempt of building alliances with the key actors and the negotiations of contents and interpretative frameworks have taken place.

b) Regarding specific instruments, Gender impact assesments and genderbudgeting show to be the most difficult instruments to be implemented, not only because of this tension mentioned above, but also due to their complex application, and the high expertise required in their development13. HR management in public administration is an area difficult to influence14, since it questions the widespread and nuclear belief that the administration is a neutral entity of meritocratic nature; belief that supports an important part of the public sector identity. In this sense, moreover, the budget restriction context hampers the prospect of change, since

13 As a matter of fact, in the Basque Country, GIAs have been responsible for one of the major conflicts of this term of office since from the beginning of the crisis, the government has attempted to “rationalize” the administration, and therefore speed up and simplify the process of development of GIAs, with the opposition of the equality body. 14 Let us note that the HR initatives on gender equality in both cases are based on a broad definition of the contents of HR policies. It incorporates aspects such as gender parity, work‐life balance, gender violence and sexual harassment, labour conditions from a gender perspective, labour risks, gender‐neutral language, or institutional commitment to equality.


13

any modification of the current situation is interpreted as a possibility for cutting down labour rights.

c) In a certain sense, it is perceived that the GM experience may become a victim of its own success. Not because it has had a spectacular impact, but because it has become a reference of administrative innovation regarding the promotion of institutional change, and the processes of complex interdepartmental policy‐making. Thus, the instruments developed within the GM strategy (coordination committees, identification of impact, monitoring systems) have been “copied” and applied to other programs that attempt to reorientate the actions of the whole institution around a determined value or topic (sustainability, competitiveness, technological innovation, social responsibility, immigration, youth, Roma people, etc.)

Given that in many cases the resources aimed at the development of different mainstreaming practices are not proportionally increased, the result may be an overload of this type of cooperation instruments, and a reinforcement of their technocratic nature. The civil servants in charge of equality matters at a specific department are usually given the responsibility of other interdepartmental programs without additional resource allocation, resulting in a greater difficulty of GM promotion15. Thus, what could generate powerful synergies, in practice becomes a weakness.

d) Even though no systematic analysis on the impact of the economic crisis on equality policies has been carried out, the available empirical material provides us indeed with some provisional insights.

Budget restrictions have affected GM implementation, by reducing the available resources, and in many cases, by paralyzing current programs aimed at spreading equality structures. As a relatively new area of public policy, scarcely consolidated and with internal resistances, GM has proven to be quite vulnerable. In many cases, it was one of the first areas to suffer delays, cutbacks or reviews. Concurrently, the tremendous extent of cutbacks in basic sectors of the welfare state (education, health, welfare) has hampered equality prioritization. Public debate has centred on defending what already exists, pushing into the background the question of reviewing and improving it, as well as the inclusion of a gender perspective in anti‐crisis policies. Equality appears again as a dispensable luxury. In this sense, budget restrictions have clearly demonstrated the limitations of the advances achieved regarding the actual adoption of a gender perspective.

Nevertheless, the impact of the crisis has not been the same in all regions and administrations. Some factors seem to be relevant, such as the ideology of the government, the degree of indebtedness in each administration, the level of GM development, the strength of the women’s movement, the degree of social

15 For example, the officer in charge of equality in one of the departments of the Catalan government ended up participating in 13 interdepartmental commisions; this obviously limited her possibilities of intervention.


14

consensus on equality in each region, or the party/government identification with equality issues16, among others; which will need further attention.

It is well known that the economic crisis opens a window of opportunity to cut back on social rights in a broad sense. However, the little social support given to this type of interventions (Del Pino and Calzada, 2013) and the undeniable advances achieved in the last years on gender equality policies pose a question: To what extent the current situation is adverse but temporary, and a renewed commitment with equality will reappear after a change in the correlation of forces within the government and in the restrictive economic context?

e) Policies against genderbased violence become an important factor for tension. Despite the high priority given to gender‐based violence in the 2000s at a national level as well as in the two analysed regions, in practice the implementation of these policies has eaten part of the equality budget, hampering its growth. These policies have also opened a debate about their institutional location: whether they should be furthered specifically by equality bodies or by the departments responsible for safety policies (with the risk of losing its feminist contents and causing communication and coordination problems). In both cases there is a controversy about the institutional location for this policy, and in fact programs have been moved from one agent to another at different moments.

Around the middle and the end of the 2000’s ‐ a period of increasing budget‐restrictions‐ the maintenance or even an increase in the budget for equality policies concealed the fact that these policies were focusing on gender violence topics, and therefore losing their comprehensive nature, as well as their capacity for structural transformation (Silvestre, 2013). Women officers in charge of equality bodies have pointed out the need to prevent that the fight against gender‐based violence – extremely important and necessary – becomes an excuse to weaken the development of the institutional change promoted by GM, and thus returning to a greater women‐targeted focus within gender equality policies.

Moreover, the coexistence of different definitions of violence within this policy (more or less comprehensive, and with more or less feminist contents) and the shift of the political orientation in favour of conservative governments have turned policies against gender‐based violence into an important battle field. This matter should be analysed further.

f) Gender policy officers highlight two key elements for success: The development of legally‐binding instruments (in order to limit resistences as much as possible and maintain the advances achieved), and the trust and support of the Women’s movement. Regarding these legally‐binding instruments, equality body officers point out that an established normative framework becomes a powerful

16 In this sense, for example, the importance of the equality agenda for the political identity of progressive governments during the 2000’s (The Rodriguez Zapatero’s administration at a national level, as well as other left‐wing regional governments, as in Catalonia) generated a major impetus, but it also led to the paralysation and discarting of many initiatives when the following government came into power. In the Basque country, where these policies of equality and institutional change were also previously promoted by conservative governments, this lack of continuity is not so easily noted.


15

instrument of legitimization and it is extremely usuful to negotiate and exercise political pressure on a daily basis17.

Regarding the Women’s movement, policymakers highlight the increasing need to promote feminist actors. At the present time when feminism is being undermined and there is an increase of conservative values, they point out not only the need to involve the existing feminist and women’s movement, but also the need to actively promote feminist awareness in order to increase the critical mass18. In this sense, the role played by conservative women’s organizations on equality policies within Spain is becoming influential, and it is an element that should be observed further (Alonso, 2013).

4. Epilogue: Continuity of the Research

I shall now introduce some future lines of exploration in order to discuss in this ECPR General Conference, if relevant, how to improve the design of the research.

4.1 Systematization of the Analysis of Resistances

This paper is based on a first exploration of empirical data collected in the course of PhD research. It is important, however, to continue the identification of both the main conflicts that have taken place in the last years, and the necessary strategies of managing these conflicts implemented by Equality Bodies. To that end, new fieldwork will be developed and a other research studies on these issues developed in the last years will be revided in order to construct a broader theoretical and analysis framework.

In particular, the aim is to systematize the role played by the different variables that influence the object of the analysis; such as the features, path and strength of the Equality Body, the government’s composition (coalition or unitary), the political opportunity structure and the institutional and legislative contexts.

4.2 Institutional Change in Compared Perspective

Another task is to continue the exploration of the operative aspects regarding GM implementation. The intention is to map those instruments of institutional change that have been designed and implemented within other policy areas that aim to influence the mainstream of public policy but have their own distinctive characteristics. The aim is to compare tools, types of resistances, counteracting strategies, etc.

Specifically, I propose a first compared analysis on the implementation of both environmental policies (Agenda 21 for Sustainable Development) and linguistic policies (for promoting Catalan and Euskera, respectively), regarding both cases (Catalonia and the Basque Country).

17 In fact, in both Catalan and Basque cases, changes of governments generated proposals on modifying the characteristics of Equality Bodies (which were perceived by the Equality Bodies’ representatives as a risk of weakening its strength) and the matter was rejected partly because these changes required modifications of the law. 18 The Basque Country experience of local schools of empowerment is interesting in this line of work.


16

4.3 Gender Mainstreaming, Economic Crisis and Austerity Policies

Finally, it is crucial to introduce a specific reflexion upon the impact of the crisis on equality policies, reconstructing systematically what decisions have been taken by Equality bodies in different cases (priority of expenses, evolution, comparison with other sectors, etc.), and how the previous intervention strategies have been and should be reconsidered in the future.

As it has been mentioned, the emergency of the crisis has made visible the poor consolidation of the advances achieved, and has paralyzed most of the existing projects. Likewise, at both national and regional levels (Catalonia, Galicia, Basque Country, the Balearics, among others) this crisis coincides with a shift of political orientation in favour of conservative governments, which has had serious consequences for equality policies (see Alonso and Paleo, 2013). The impact, however, has not been the same in all cases. In certain regions ― and probably at a state level too ―, it may be possible to speak of an antifeminist policy (or at least anti‐feminist actions), that substitutes and/or sets over gender equality policies and sometimes is even promoted from Equality bodies. In other cases, the result would be a paralysis or a slowing down of GM, or rather a change of priorities in favour of a more liberal feminism with a less transformative ambition.

Registering the changes that are taking place and identifying the explanatory factors, by differentiating between the impact of the economic crisis and other relevant elements, will likely be the task of feminist policy researchers in the following years19.

5. Bibliography

Acker, Joan (1990) “Hierarchies, Jobs, Bodies: A Theory of Gendered Organizations”, Gender & Society, 4(2), 139‐158

Alfama, Eva (2012) Avaluació de l’impacte social de la Llei 5/2008 del dret de les dones a eradicar la violència masclista. Barcelona: Institut Català de les Dones. (Evaluation report).

Alfama, Eva, Cruells, Marta, and Obradors, Anna (Dir.) (2008) Informe final. Avaluació dels mecanismes emprats per impulsar la transversalitat de les polítiques de dones. Barcelona: Institut Català de les Dones. (Evaluation report).

Alfama, Eva, and Cruells, Marta (2009) “¿Hacia unas políticas públicas más inclusivas? Reflexión sobre los avances y límites en base a las políticas de igualdad de género”, Paper presented at IX Congreso AECPA, Málaga, september 2009.

Alfama, Eva, and Cruells, Marta (2011) “Evaluación y políticas transversales: el caso de las políticas de género”. Paper presented at X Congreso de AECPA – Murcia. september 2011

Alfama, Eva, Cruells, Marta (2013) “How can evaluation contribute to the Gender Mainstreaming strategy?”. Paper presented at the 3rd European Conference on Politics and Gender (ECPG) ‐ ECPR Standing Group on Gender and Politics. Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, 21‐23 March 2012.

19 A primary effort in this direction is being already done by different researchers, and will be discussed in next the Spanish Asociation of Political Science Congress to be held in Sevilla, September 2013. See http://www.aecpa.es/congresos/11/grupos‐trabajo/109/ for more information.


17

Alfama, Eva, Cruells, Marta (on evaluation) “How can evaluation contribute to the Gender Mainstreaming Strategy?”. Social Politics.

Alfama, Eva, Cruells, Marta (Dir.) (2011) Evaluación de coherencia. V Plan para la igualdad de mujeres y hombres de la CAE. Vitoria‐Gasteiz: Emakunde‐Emakumearen Euskal Erakundea. (Evaluation report).

Alfama, Eva, Cruells, Marta (Coord) (2012) Sistema de indicadores. Igualdad mujeres y hombres en la CAE. Vitoria‐Gasteiz: Emakunde‐Emakumearen Euskal Erakundea. Available: http://www.emakunde.euskadi.net/u72‐publicac/es/contenidos/informacion/pub_guias/es_emakunde/adjuntos/guia_indicadores.pdf

Alfama, Eva and Martí, Marc (2012) Avaluació del Pla de polítiques de dones del Govern de la Generalitat 20082011. Institut Català de les Dones, Barcelona. (Evaluation report).

Alonso, Alba (2013) “Situación actual de las políticas de igualdad”. Presentation in the meeting Las políticas de igualdad de mujeres y hombres ante la crisis económica, Universidad del País Vasco, Bilbao, 10 may 2013.

Alonso, Alba (2012) El mainstreaming de género en España. Cronología, instrumentos e impacto en las políticas públicas. Unpublished PhD thesis. Universidade de Santiago de Compostela.

Alonso, Alba, Diz, Isabel, Lois, Marta (2010) “La influencia de las políticas públicas de igualdad en la toma de decisiones: un análisis de los informes de impacto de género”. Revista Española de Ciencia Política, 24, 107‐136.

Alonso, Alba, and Paleo, Natalia (2013) “¿Es únicamente una cuestión de austeridad? Crisis económica y políticas de género en España”. Paper presented to the XI Spanish Congress of Political Science, Sevilla, 18‐20 september.

Bacchi, Carol, and Eveline, Joan (2003) “Mainstreaming and neoliberalism: A contested relationship”, Policy and Society: Journal of Public, Foreign & Global Policy, 22 (2): 98‐118.

Benschop, Yvonne and Mieke Verloo (2006) “Sisyphus’ sisters: Can Gender Mainstreaming Escape the Genderedness of Organizations?” Journal of Gender Studies. 15(1):19‐33.

Braithwaite, Mary (2005) Gendersensitive and women friendly public policies: a comparative analysis of their progress and impact. EQUAPOL Final report. Project HPSE — CT‐2002‐00136. Funded under the key action ‘Improving the socioeconomic knowledge base’ of FP5. DG Research ‐ European Commission.

Bustelo, María (2011) “Last but not least: Gender sensitive Evaluation as a forgotten piece of the policymaking process”. Paper presented at ECPR General Conference. Reykjavik, August 25‐27th 2011.

Bustelo, María, Ortbals, Candice (2007) “The Evolution of Spanish State Feminism: a Fragmented Landscape” in Outshroorn, J. and Katola, J. (ed.), Changing State Feminism, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Daly, Mary (2005) “Gender mainstreaming in Theory and Practice”, Social Politics, , vol 12, nº3, pp.433‐450

Dauphine, Sandrine, and Réjane Sénac‐Slawinski (2008), “Gender mainstreaming: analyses des enjeux d’un ‘concept‐méthode’”, Cahiers du Genre, 44, 5‐16

Del Pino, Eloisa, Calzada, Inés (2013) “Actitudes ciudadanas hacia las políticas de gastos e ingresos durante la crisis”, post in blog Agenda pública, 24/07/2013. Avalaible in http://www.eldiario.es/agendapublica/impacto_social/Actitudes‐ciudadanas‐politicas‐ingresos‐crisis_0_157134444.html


18

Emakunde – Instituto Vasco de la Mujer (2011) Evaluación Final (primer quinquenio 20052010) sobre la Implementación de la Ley 4/2005, de 18 de Febrero, para la Igualdad de Mujeres y Hombres. Vitoria Gasteiz. (Evaluation report).

Espinosa, Julia (2010) “Towards a gender sensitive evaluation? Practices and challenges in international development evaluation.” Paper presented at the 9th European Evaluation Society International Conference. Prague, 6th‐8th October 2010.

Eveline, Joan, and Bacchi, Carol (2005) “What are we mainstreaming when we mainstream gender?”. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 7:4, 496 — 512.

Jahan, Rounaq (1995) The Elusive Agenda: Mainstreaming Women in Development, London: Zed Books

Kantola, Johanna and Squires, Judith (2102) “From State Feminism to Market Feminism?”, International Political Science Review, 33 (4) 382 –400.

Lombardo, Emanuela (2005) “Integration or Setting the Agenda? Gender Mainstreaming in the European Constitution Making Process”. Social Polítics, November, pp. 412‐432.

Mazur, Amy (2002) Theorizing Feminist Policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Meier, Petra and Celis, Karen (2011) “Sowing the Seeds of Its Own Failure: Implementing the Concept of GM”. Social Politics, v 18, n 4.

Mergaert, Lutz, and Emanuela Lombardo (2013) “Mainstreaming gender in the European Union: policy implementation and institucional resistance”. Paper presented at the 3rd European Conference on Politics and Gender (ECPG) ‐ ECPR Standing Group on Gender and Politics. Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, 21‐23 March 2012.

Outshoorn, Joyce, and Kantola, Johanna (eds.) (2007) Changing State Feminism. Palgrave Macmillan.

Ortbals, Candice (2008) "Subnational Politics in Spain: New Avenues for Women's Activism and Policymaking." Politics & Gender 4(1): 93‐119 (March 2008)

Rees, Teresa (2005) “Reflections on the uneven development of gender mainstreaming in Europe”. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 7:4, pp. 555‐574.

Roggeband, Conny and Verloo, Mieke (2006) “Evaluating gender impact assessment in the Netherlands (1994‐2004): a political process approach”, Policy and Politics 34(4): 615‐632.

Silvestre, María (2013) “Recortes presupuestarios y políticas de igualdad”, Presentation in the meeting Las políticas de igualdad de mujeres y hombres ante la crisis económica, Universidad del País Vasco, Bilbao, 10 may 2013.

Squires, Judith (2005) “Is Mainstreaming transformative? Theorizing Mainstreaming in the context of Diversity and Deliberation”, Social Politics, November 8, pp. 366‐388.

Squires, Judith (2007) The new politics of gender equality, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Stetson, Dorothy, Mazur, Amy (1995) Comparative state feminism. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage Publications.

Valiente, Celia (1995) “The power of persuasion. The Instituto de la Mujer in Spain”, in McBride Stetson, Dorothy and Mazur, Amy (ed.), Comparative State Feminism, Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Verloo, Mieke (2005) “Displacement and empowerment: Reflections on the Concept and Practice of the Council of Europe approach to Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Equality”. Social Politics 12 (3): 344‐365.

Walby, Sylvia (2005), “Gender Mainstreaming: Productive Tensions in Theory and Practice”. Social Politics, 12(3), 321‐343.


19

6. APPENDIX: Detailed Results of the Analysis of each Instrument

Note: B. stands for Basque Country, C., for Catalonia.

6.1 Planning

Advances In the Spanish state, the privileged instruments for promoting equality policies are the equality plans.

Consolidation during the 2000s: more specific actions and budget; more ambition regarding institutional change; and increase of political support. Consolidation of equality plans at a local level, in companies, universities, etc.

Problems

Complexity in the process of planning due to its global and strategic nature and the multiplicity of actors involved. Need of in‐depth knowledge of equality priorities and actions performed by the whole administration. Lack of specific resources aimed at equality bodies to dynamize, monitor and evaluate the development of their plans. The plan comes into a halt during the previous and following months of elections.

Resistances

Lack of effective implementation due to either lack of assigned budget or lack of implication of the agents and departments involved: they may agree to participate in actions but not to lead them. Strong hierarchies and autonomous bodies within departments hampering the implementation of actions, even when these are previously agreed with the department’s chief officers. (relevant in Education, Health, Welfare, Labour, for instance). The distribution of competences and responsibilities is used as an excuse for not taking on equality actions.

Strategies

Highest political visibility of the plan. Wide participation of departments and the women’s movement in the formulation of the plan. Wide diffusion of the plan within the whole administration, not just among chief officers. C.: Maximum concretion in advance (of measures, budgets, responsibilities, and monitoring) to limit resistances and provide more tools to intervention. Negotiation of specific actions with each department. B.: Establishment of general orientations and legally‐binding obligations for the departments and public authorities, so they have to develop their own plans according to their priorities.

Essential

factors Involvement of different departmental units in the formulation of the plan to make it relevant and feasible.

The whole administration should be informed about the plan. Effective implementation requires high –and widely spread‐ political will.

Source: Prepared by the author.

6.2 Regulation

Laws GIA: Gender impact Assessment

Advances

Advances in regulations regarding gender equality, GM and gender violence. At a State level: Ley Orgánica 3/2007 for the effective equality among men and women. Ley integral 1/2004 against gender violence. B.: Ley para la Igualdad (2005) (Equality Act) essential for GM promotion. C.: Ley contra la violencia machista (2008), against sexist violence. Law that legally binds public administrations to perform internal equality plans for civil servants (2007). Ley de nueva ciudadanía e igualdad, concerned with new citizenship and equality (not passed yet). In general, these laws show a greater ambition for transformation than State laws.

GIAs are mandatory but not legally‐binding in both cases (C.: from 2001, S., from 2007). B.: Concrete guidelines approved regarding plan development. C.: Failure to approve them. In both cases, there has been significant impetus: % increase of regulations including GIA; substantial quality improvement (more substantive content, not only regarding gender‐neutral language, but also regarding the concretion of the proposals); improvement incorporating GIA proposals into specific assessed regulation. C.: Period of 2005‐2011: 1,966 GIAs were performed, from which, an average of 24% was favourable (2008‐2011). A 66% includes proposals for language modification20. B.: 328 GIAs in the period of 2007‐2010 (no data available on its percentage in regulations).

20 The proposal is to incorporate relevant issues for equality (30%), and to a lesser extent, promote gender parity, improve information systems, incorporate questions related to sexist violence, include possitive actions, promote the participation of the women’s movement or gender experts (improving their capacity of impact).


20

Problems

Complexity in the formulation of a law that includes the whole administration: parallel negotiations with different actors, ambition for changes, etc. Difficulty of effectively implementing laws due to lack of political will and budget restrictions. Context of crisis, change of government, coalition governments as negative factors. C: Coalition government delayed the process of formulation. Advanced elections and beginning of economic crisis prevented the passing of the Equality Act: it was the first to fall.

Requires in‐depth knowledge of gender and politics. Rotation of personnel in charge hampers continuity. Vulnerable to changes of government. Lack of expertise leads to less real than potential relevance as an instrument for gender analysis. Division of labour within departments hampers promotion: the one who writes the regulation (law services) is not always the policymaker. It needs dedication of time. GIAs are performed at the end of a defined proposal, which limits its potential for gender analysis. It is difficult to draw up specific guidelines on how to perform a GIA, limiting its potential effects.

Resistances

C.: High prioritization and development of strict regulation regarding law against violence. On the contrary, great resistances in formulating the Equality Act: countless obstacles were set forth, each word was discussed, and changes were asked trying to reduce and dilute approaches, concretion and the legally‐binding nature of the law. There was a constant discussion on language and writing: words like “guarantee”, “forwarding” and “promote” were argued. Serious resistances to create economic obligations and bureaucratize processes.

Despite the advances achieved, there is a significant institutional resistance: a sufficient automation mechanism has not been created, beyond the gender‐awared officers in charge. Lack of consolidation: it is a new start with every new government. Great differences among departments. It is perceived as unnecessary, useless and extra work that delays the drawing up of regulations. It is a task no one wants to perform. Specific resistances regarding subsidies and aids to positive actions, gender parity (only few departments have incorporated GIA on a regular basis but with no legally‐binding. Two levels of resistance: a) GIAs are not always performed despite their legal nature, they are not assumed as an integral part of the process, not even in C., where they are mandatory since 2001. The legal services involved are highly technical, are not always required to be familiar with the specific policy, and are usually highly resistant. Departments need to be pushed in order to formulate GIAs. No necessary data and arguments are provided. No concrete data on the degree of implementation is available. (C.: it is estimated that 53% of laws, 73% of decrees and y 20% of other regulations include GIAs (2008‐2011). b) Proposals for change are not always included. C.: Average of proposals included: 68% regarding language, 57% regarding content (2008‐2010).


21

Strategies

The formulation and implementation of these laws was one of the main battle and political pressure fields of gender policies. Equality bodies pushed hard to obtain legal frameworks for GIAs’ legal‐binding and strength. Search for maximum legitimacy, for the proposal to be perceived as if formulated by the highest levels of government and not by equality bodies. Search for political and partisan consensus, and social support and participation. B.: Equality as a sign of modernity, quality and innovation. Will of differentiation from the Spanish frame. C.: Equality Act: implication of the central government’s legal board so that the proposal would be backed up from the beginning and, consequently, easily approved. However, departments deeply questioned the responsibilities assigned. Cut backs in gender units, GIAs, gender budgeting, hiring. Substantial cut backs also in specific sectorial proposals (universities, housing, safety…).

Various models to guarantee GIAs’ quality and impact on policies. B.: Decentralized model: Departments perform GIAs and equality bodies revise and validate these reports. Development of specific guidelines for formulating GIAs. C.: Centralized model: the equality body performs all GIAs. C.: GIAs as instruments for detecting priority actions. In both cases, it is necessary to create effective monitoring and evaluation mechanisms, training and supporting materials. Use of GIAS for forwarding gender parity in order to involve the department’s central services.

Essential factors

Sustained political will is required for law approval. Cooperation of key agents of the administration. .

Awareness and political pressure are required to formulate GIAs and incorporate proposals. Understanding the function of GIAs. Legally‐binding obligation to make GIAs’ development possible. Collaboration of law services within departments. Clear definition of procedures: which regulation should be included, who performs the tasks and when, information exchange circuits, etc. Availability of gender indicators for all topics. Importance of taking into account how the process of formulating regulations is structured at each particular institution to assure GIAs are relevant. Expertise and specific training of officers in charge of formulating GIAs.


6.3 Institutional Structuring

Coordination Equality units, personnel responsible for equality

Advances Creation of permanent

coordination commissions among departments. B.: coordination with local organizations.

Creation of equality units (B.: in all departments, local organizations, autonomous bodies; C.: in some gender‐aware and political committed departments). C.: Definition of key officers in charge of gender issues at each department. Inclusion of responsibilities regarding gender as part of the central services’ competences in some departments. Creation of regional delegations.

Problems Excessive rotation of personnel.

Significant increase of transversal commissions in charge of different issues.

Excessive dependence on shifts of government and chief officers. The lack of additional resources for promoting transversality forces equality to depend on the will and commitment of the officers in charge. Unit’s personnel have gender expertise and are hired ad hoc, but are not familiar with the departments’ dynamics.


22

Resistances Absenteeism and delegation on

low‐rank officers. Overload of transversal or interdepartmental programs assigned to one single officer/unit.

Usual peripheral location within hierarchic organization; little access to decision‐making and relevant information. In some cases, equality units are given the whole responsibility for gender equality issues. High concentration within these units of officers totally responsible for equality issues. Unit/personnel are held responsible for all transversal and interdepartmental programs without being given increasing resources. Unit/personnel get no replies to requests or demands made. Equality agents have worst labour conditions on average (temporary and/or part‐time employment) Difficult sustainability of units. C.: Dismantling of equality units due to change of government and economic crisis.

Strategies

Duplication of commissions: one technical and the other political. Function of political commission: pressure, political negotiation, unblocking. Function of technical commission: collective learning of obstacles and good practices.

Hiring personnel with gender expertise and/or training existing personnel. Importance of informal mechanisms among the personnel: developing of trust, pedagogy, collaboration, communication, and favour exchanges. However, these informal strategies are vulnerable, and the sustainability of equality units depends on political pressure. B.: Global strategy for creating positions at all actors through the Equality Act. C.: Since it is not possible to create all the necessary equality units, the option is to create positions, one by one, in all gender‐aware departments. Use GIAs as instruments for defining key equality officers within departments.

Essential factors

Dedication of time. Labour stability of personnel. Some gender expertise. Good articulation between technical and politic areas. Prevention of rigidity and bureaucratization Clear objectives within the coordination.

Politic will and pressure for creating units. Labour stability of personnel. Prominent location in the organization chart. Knowledge of both gender issues and operations within the department. Units must be regulated and included in the central and essential services of the departments. Resource allocation for units.


6.4 Monitoring and Accountability

Monitoring systems of equality policies Inclusion of a gender perspective into policy monitoring systems

Advances

Substantial efforts have been made regarding this issue. Development of interdepartmental computing systems of monitoring. Actions for supporting monitoring processes (support materials, training, advising). GM evaluations.

C.: Inclusion of GIAs in general monitoring systems (budgeting, monitoring of governmental actions). Participation of the equality body in the monitoring commissions of various policies.

Problems Lack of transparency, reporting and accountability in the whole of the administration.

Excessive segmentation in the administration, which hampers data collection. Difficulty of collecting the necessary data on results, recipients, etc. Difficulty of assessing: some actions can hardly be quantified.

Resistances

It is perceived as extra work; lack of understanding about its function. Information about actions performed is provided (generally addressed to women), even though it is not related to a specific plan or to equality promotion. Reduction of GIA to a question about the number of women affected.

Difficulty in understanding what is meant by “gender impact”. Alliances with important “technical” actors within the administration. Specific resistances in particular areas, for example, in monitoring European funds.


23

Strategies

Monitoring and evaluation as tools for exerting pressure, controlling GM plan implementation, creating spaces for knowledge exchange and learning, encouraging the involvement of various units within departments and among hierarchic levels. Development of an innovative path on evaluation from a comprehensive and interdepartmental perspective in order to place equality policies as a model in this field. Construction of a “neutral” legitimacy focused on the relation among quality, gender and modernity. This is particularly relevant within this context (the 2000s) when evaluation is being furthered in Spain. B.: Creating the need for accountability in Parliament: Requirement for presenting annual reports of advances, even when these are have not requested. C.: Emphasis on developing the interdepartmental computing system for monitoring. Promotion of specific tools that may be also useful for departmental evaluation.

C.: Inclusion of equality bodies in the equality commissions of various policies.

Essential

factors

Evaluation and monitoring systems must be technically efficient, provide useful information, and not become a problem.

Need of exerting influence in key moments during the technical development of computing systems for monitoring and personnel training. Once everything has been set up, it is more difficult to modify it.


6.5 Training

Advances

Wide program for voluntary training in gender policies, both basic as well as specialized in specific tools (GIA, statistics, budgets, etc) and in sectorial topics (language, health, violence, etc.). Interadministrative and interregional training. C.: Period of 2005‐2011: at least 2,403 civil servants were trained. B.: Period of 2006‐2009: 10,032 civil servants were trained. Incorporation of some equality contents into the sets of topics for the civil service’ personnel selection. B.: Approx. 40% included contents (2010). C.: No data.

Problems

The training structure of public administration is rigid and sector oriented, it is not flexible regarding formats and processes. On a general basis, the instructors are also civil servants, which is an obstacle in a context where there is a lack of gender expertise. Hiring external instructors is more expensive, and budget restrictions may cause to eliminate training. Gap between academic knowledge and practice (languages, type of knowledge, examples). It is necessary to focus on practical training. Need of a sufficient pool of instructors specialized in all sectors and in different instruments. Difficulty of influencing management training, which is externalised to Universities.

Resistances

Lack of demand: Only gender‐aware officers are trained. Most of the trainees are women (70% and 80%, in the two cases, respectively), and technical positions. Men in general, as well as chief officers are highly reluctant. Trainings are given on demand; if they are not actively promoted, they end up cancelled. Training is conceived as sectorial learning, instead of basic or nuclear, which makes it more vulnerable. It is easier to give specific trainings on gender (more vulnerable to cut backs), than modifying topics of existing general trainings. Existing instructors resist changing their set of topics. Difficulty of influencing training addressed to instructors.

Strategies Definition of sets of topics, needs, group of instructors within departments. Customized training.

Flexibility and innovation on contents and formats for generating motivation. Rewards to trainees (points in career development, easy access to training, etc.) Connection between training and the implementation of other GM mechanisms (GIA, budgets, indicators, etc.). Generate demand.


24

Essential

factors

Rapprochement with general training structures within the administration, and with the officer in charge of training planning. Relation between training and practice, avoiding generic training. Training of instructors. Develop training aimed at different profiles, sectors, hierarchies. Customized training.


6.6 Resource allocation

Gender budgeting Subsidy (Equality clauses in funding and public contracts)

Advances

There have been slow advances. Drawing up of support materials; development of training. Pilot projects on budgeting in some units (C. and B.) C.: Advances in identifying gender impact on budgeting (26% of budget reports identify relevant programmes on gender policies). Inclusion of some gender indicators in the system of budget indicators (4% of total).

Advances in including gender criteria in subsidies and contracts. Creation of a specific commission for drawing up legal proposals for applications. Drawing up of materials, development of training, etc. B.: More systematized promotion, existence of legal‐binding nature. (Estimate: 47% of subsidy official announcements included gender equality criteria in 2010, vs. 13% in 2005. 50% consisted on mandatory and not value‐based requirements. 42% of contracts) C.: Inclusion of clauses in the regulation through GIA.

Problems

A great amount of information about policy’s implementation and output is needed in order to determine gender impact: e.g. gender indicators are not usually available. Technical and analytic complexity: Requires in‐depth gender knowledge and data analysis, as well as complex management since it is usually developed with the support of external experts. Vast knowledge on budgeting processes within the institution is needed. Lack of theoretical and practical references. Lack of connection between action planning and budgeting; lack of established practices on linking budget and impact in all policies.

Quantitative perspective of equality based on the actual presence of women. The question is whether gender equality actally exists in the case of gender parity. The significant decentralization when drawing up subsidies and contracts hampers the implementation of gender criteria.

Resistances

Reluctance to address budgeting issues; it is perceived as an extremely complex task: “It is too complicated to relate gender and money”. Confusion between resource allocation “addressed to women” and budgeting from a gender perspective. Quantitative perspective of equality based on the actual presence of women as recipients.

Reluctance to introduce positive actions. Consideration of women as a collective “other collectives have greater needs”. Doubts about the legality of these actions expressed by the area responsible for economic affairs and purchasing. Reluctance to include mandatory clauses, tendency for value‐based clauses.


25

Strategies

Given the difficulty to advance in the whole administration, the option was to pave the way through training, development of materials, and pilot programs with the involvement of gender‐aware departments with political will. C.: Influence on the computing system of budget management (inclusion of gender impact identification, gender indicators, etc.)

Drawing up of guides and support materials, training of officers in charge of subsidies and purchases. Creation of specific “ad hoc” work spaces with the collaboration of involved agents in orther to put proposals in practice. Impetus for reconsidering contracts and subsidies on the whole, including social, gender and environmental criteria. Alliances were built in these sectors. B.: Development of regulations in general terms, and a more systematic impetus. C.: Inclusion of clauses through GIA.

Essential

factors Rapprochement with the department of economic

affairs, and with officers in charge of budget monitoring and amendment.

Need of rapprochement with departmental areas responsible for economic affairs and purchasing. Development of solid legal arguments regarding the inclusion of equality, such as law‐binding requirements and value‐based criteria. Drawing up of specific examples of different types of clauses.


6.7 Human Resources

Advances

Advances through standard‐setting instruments. C.: Ley 7/2007 del empleado publico (Civil Service Act); public administrations are bound to develop internal equality plans applied to civil servants. There have been some advances in the formulation of these plans –after many troubles–, but no approval has been achieved. B.: Ley de igualdad (Equality Act); influences the processes of professional selection and promotion of civil servants, giving priority to women in case of unequal representation, and promoting gender parity in selection boards. (Estimate in 2010: 18% and 30% of selection processes actually included this type of clauses, respectively.)

Problems

Rigidity of labour agreements within public administrations. Difficulty of including equality criteria in job vacancy requirements, due to its specific nature and difficulty of implementation. Wide diversity of profiles and bodies with their own labour regulations (general technicians, teachers, health workers, police officers, etc.) Difficulty in finding gender‐balanced boards and juries in certain sectors with low presence of women.

Resistances

Enormous difficulty of identifying inequality in a meritocratic context. Belief in the neutrality of the administration and defence of meritocratic thinking at all costs. Need of providing abundant counteracting arguments. Reluctance to apply positive actions. Gender parity is not yet incorporated systematically in selection boards; it is considered to be unnecessary because members are supposed to be “neutral”. In the present context of cutbacks, changes in status quo are highly suspicious, particularly from the perspective of trade unions, since it is the employer who proposes these changes. C.: The equality plan was formulated, but its approval came to a halt as a result of adjustment policies and change of government.

Strategies

Broad definition of HR policy contents, including issues such as balanced presence of women, work‐life balance, gender‐based violence, sexual harassment, labour conditions from a gender perspective, labour risk prevention, gender‐neutral language, or institutional commitment to equality. B.: Bottom‐up strategy: influence on specific processes of professional selection and promotion of civil servants. C.: Top‐down general strategy: Influence through general equality plan applicable to the whole administration. Plan development strategy: Comprehensive and thorough diagnosis. Drawing up of support materials. Creation of work groups with departments including personnel from different bodies, and with the most gender‐aware departments. Working closely with the HR department. Inclusion of the actors responsible for collective bargaining (with the participation of trade unions).


26

Essential

factors Rapprochement with the HR department and with HR teams at each department. Collaboration of trade

unions. Collection of specific data on inequality within this scope. Strong political will


Documents

Promoting and Resisting Gender Mainstreaming. Evidence from Spain 2005-2012