Gender Equality Policy: A field of contestation
Carol Bacchi
Politics Discipline, University of Adelaide
Gender mainstreaming is the term used increasingly in Europe, in some other countries and in major international organizations, such as the ILO and the World Bank, to describe a new approach to achieving `gender equality'. In Australia Pru Goward (2004), Australia's former Sex Discrimination Commissioner, identified `mainstreaming' as the Howard Liberal Government's preferred approach to `gender equity'.
In theory gender mainstreaming promises to make every part of an organisation take equality seriously, instead of leaving these matters to specialist `equal opportunity' units, which tend to be marginalized from decision-making. In theory, due to this organisation-wide focus, mainstreaming directs attention to the need to make organisations women-friendly, instead of encouraging women to fit into existing organisational norms and practices. In addition, some (see Rees 1998) suggest that gender mainstreaming addresses diversity issues more successfully.
However, a number of experiences with mainstreaming indicate that all is not as it seems. In several European countries, the new focus on mainstreaming gender has meant the closure of dedicated women's equality units. Most recently in Canada - a country identified with best practice in the area - it has been announced that Status for Women Canada, the federal department dedicated to women's equality issues, will be excising the term `equality' from its mandate `in order to achieve equality in every government department'. The Canadian Status of Women Minister, Bev Oda, stated: `I think in fact [the existence of the Office] ... weakens the ability of the equality of women to be instilled throughout the government department, agencies and offices' (Feminist Daily New Wire 2006). In Australia the current Federal Liberal Government abolished ATSIC (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission), a national democratically elected body of Indigenous leaders, in the name of `mainstreaming'. The World Bank (2002: 5 fn 3) has also latched onto the language of mainstreaming to advance `a less rigid or extreme gender-based division of labour' in order to increase `female productive capital, which has important pro-growth effects.'
These examples illustrate the highly political character of equality policy initiatives. None is sacrosanct. All are up for grabs and indeed for co-optation by those with agendas that undermine desired goals. Hence, we need to recognise the contested terrain on which gender mainstreaming is played out and be wary of the politics of appropriation.
Against this background I have been involved in a large Linkage Grant research project that has as its goal designing gender analysis processes that fit the South Australian context (the project extends also to Western Australia). Forms of gender analysis, systematic procedures to detect (and correct) gender bias in programs, projects and policies, are commonly offered as methods to achieve `mainstreaming'. Here I ask - is it possible to pursue gender analysis as a useful reform given the chequered history of gender mainstreaming?
To begin it is important to locate gender analysis as one among several necessary reform strategies. Indeed, we could usefully follow the lead of Europe where equality is described as a three-legged stool with three complementary approaches: equal opportunity, women-specific programs and gender analysis. With this understanding the key role played by dedicated women's policy units - overseeing the full range of initiatives - is affirmed.
Second, it is important to pay due heed to methodological assumptions in the development of gender analysis procedures. There are many versions of gender analysis. The Linkage project tested two approaches that started from quite different conceptual premises: a `differences' approach, the one adopted by the World Bank, and a `gender relations' approach, developed in The Netherlands.
There is evidence that a `differences' approach, which identifies women's and men's differential location in a range of sites and sets out to even up the numbers, is more open to appropriation than a `gender relations' approach. This is because a `differences' approach tends to create fixed categories of `women' and `men', paying insufficient attention to the ways in which inequality is regularly reproduced. By contrast a focus on gender relations creates the opportunity to analyse the complex ways in which power and privilege circulate in specific social contexts (Eveline 1994).
Another challenge is ensuring that gender analysis is understood as more than a post hoc vetting exercise, designed to ensure that a given policy is implemented as `efficiently' as possible. This is because policies may be shaped with inherent gendered presuppositions and hence can have gendering effects. The World Bank example above is indicative of this tendency, where the commitment to `pro-growth effects' privileges paid labour as productive and ignores caring responsibilities, conventionally carried by women. Hence, gender analysis procedures must be able to scrutinize the fundamental framing precepts of policy proposals (Bacchi 1999).
In addition there is a need to look beyond the formal installation of policy machinery and to focus on the processes of development and implementation. Having a policy on a website or in a booklet will mean little if policy workers across the board are not actively encouraged to consider the development of policy with gender issues in mind. It has become conventional to insist that reform efforts such as gender analysis need to be properly resourced and that training needs to take place. Going further, it is necessary for policy workers to be directly involved in the development of gender analysis procedures and methodologies. Organisational change of the kind under consideration with this reform requires a sense of ownership on the part of those `doing it'. Otherwise it will become one more piece of paper gathering dust or one more unused website.
Community consultation, properly planned and resourced, is also critical to effective gender analysis processes. If policy is to be responsive to the complex lives of citizens, policy makers need to acknowledge the standpoints of diverse citizen groups. Diversity issues have more likelihood of being addressed if there is a committed effort to put in place procedures that do more than make a token nod to consultation.
Gender analysis of the kind endorsed here could provide a useful complement to existing equality approaches. There is no magic formula, however. Because gender equality policy is a field of contestation, change will of necessity be slow, piece-meal and always political.
Professor Carol Bacchi currently works at the School of Politics and History, University
of Adelaide. She currently researches and writes in the fields of political theory and policy studies. A central focus is the position of women in society, indicated in her work on sexual difference, affirmative action, diverty management and mainstreaming. Her approach to policy is developed in Women, Policy and Politics: the construction of policy problems (Sage 1999).
References
Bacchi, C. (1999) Women, Policy and Politics: the construction of policy problems. London: Sage.
Eveline, J. (1994) `The Politics of Advantage', Australian Feminist Studies, Special Issue: Women and Citizenship, 19 (Autumn): 129-154.
Feminist Daily New Wire (2006) `Canadian Women's Minister Says Her Office Hinders Equality', December 14. http://www.feminist.org/news/newsbyte/newsearch.asp Accessed 19 December 2006.
Goward, P. (2004) `Now everyone can focus on women', The Melbourne Age, 30 October.
Rees, T. (1998) Mainstreaming Equality in the European Union: Education, Training and Labour Market Policies. London: Routledge.
World Bank (2002) Integrating Gender into the World Bank's Work: A Strategy for Action. http://www.worldbank.org/gender Accessed 4 October 2004.
