|
|
|
|
| Mainstreaming Equal Opportunities |
| Section 1: What is Mainstreaming |
| Introduction |
The project looks at the work
of parliaments in ‘mainstreaming’ equal opportunities. ‘Mainstreaming’
equality is a recent strategy which is still at a relatively early stage
of development. It builds upon and complements specific equality policies
and institutional structures and represents a further stage in the state’s
role in promoting equality and the human rights of its citizens. As a principle,
it also forms an important theme in the widespread preoccupation in Western
Europe and other liberal or welfare state democracies with improving the
quality of government and with deepening democracy by increasing civic participation.
These concerns are reflected in the CSG key principles:
|
| The initial brief was concerned with identifying the mechanisms for ‘mainstreaming’ equal opportunities in the work of parliaments in various countries/devolved regions in Europe and beyond. Topics include committee arrangements, issues of gender balance and instruments to promote the integration of an equal opportunities perspective in proposed legislation. In light of the unfamiliarity of ‘mainstreaming’ as a concept and the nature of experience to date, this report has extended its brief to place the questions of parliamentary ‘mainstreaming’ within the wider literature, and the concerns and lessons learned so far in equalities work in a variety of institutional settings. The primary focus of the report is upon gender equality, which reflects the predominance of gender equality in terms of existing literature and examples of good practice. Nevertheless ‘mainstreaming’ as a strategy is amenable to the inclusion of other equality dimensions such as ‘race’ and ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation, social exclusion and multiple discrimination. |
| It is striking how seldom parliamentary actors feature in the growing literature on ‘mainstreaming’ or the existing body of knowledge on equalities work. This is all the more surprising given that political will is seen as a crucial variable for the success or failure of such initiatives. Most extant surveys and studies have focused upon the work of policy machinery or equality structures at arm’s length to government (eg. the Equal Opportunities Commission in Britain); within the permanent bureaucracy (Women’s Ministries, equality units or divisions etc); or at executive level (Ministerial committees and working parties). Similarly, existing reports of ‘mainstreaming’ initiatives largely concern policy makers in governmental rather than parliamentary contexts. The policy making process is a long and complicated one with many different stages, from initial issue identification to implementation and evaluation. The legislative or legitimation process is therefore only a part of the policy process, albeit an important one. Moreover, the power of legislatures in relation to executives varies enormously amongst different parliamentary systems. At one end of the spectrum, parliaments may act merely to ‘rubber stamp’ government legislative proposals and programmes. At the other end, powerful legislatures may compete with and exert tremendous control over the executive. Party discipline, patronage and cultures of deference may mean that parliaments do not use the powers that they have. The lack of focus upon parliamentary actors in respect of ‘mainstreaming’ and other sorts of equalities strategies may therefore reflect the differing roles of executives and legislatures in the policy making process in various countries. However, the lack of readily available information is not necessarily an indicator that parliaments play no role, it may rather reflect the interests of academic and other researchers. For example, it has been noted that political scientists tend to play down the role of parliaments and politics in the policy making process.1 |
| The report draws primarily upon four written sources: The Council of Europe (1998) Final Report Of The Group of Specialists on ‘mainstreaming’; the EOC synthesis report of its recent transnational research on ‘mainstreaming’; and the forthcoming European Commission funded report Overview State of the Art Study of Research on Women in Political, Economic and Social Decision Making in Europe (Lovenduski and Stephenson, 1998, forthcoming) together with materials from various country reports by contributing experts; and Comparative State Feminism, (D.Stetson & A. Mazur, (eds).2. |
| Political contexts |
| According to a recent Council of Europe report, gender ‘mainstreaming’, as a concept, first appeared after the United Nations Third World Conference on Women (Nairobi, 1985). In 1995, the strategy of gender ‘mainstreaming’ was explicitly endorsed by the Platform for Action which was adopted at the end of the United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women at Beijing. The Platform for Action calls for the promotion of the policy of gender ‘mainstreaming’, stating that ‘governments and other actors should promote an active and visible policy of ‘mainstreaming’ a gender perspective in all policies and programmes, so that, before decisions are taken, an analysis is made of the effects on women and men, respectively’. In particular the Platform for Action stressed the need for the generation and dissemination of gender disaggregated statistics for planning and evaluation’ (Section 209) and the application of ‘gender impact analysis in the development, monitoring and evaluation of all micro and macro economic and social policies’ (Section 167). Many countries have adopted a national plan for gender ‘mainstreaming’ as a result of the Platform for Action, although there were no guidelines as to how to develop and implement this policy.3 |
| Other intergovernmental initiatives, such as Agenda 21, an environmental strategy which arose from an international summit in Rio promote the concept. In 1992, at the Rio Earth Summit, the world’s governments signed up to Agenda 21 - the international action plan to promote sustainable development. Rio had significant consequences for mainstreaming and participation since in signing Agenda 21, governments were agreeing on the need for consensus-building approaches to sustainable development and on the need to involve different interests and minority groups in the policy process. Section 111 of Agenda 21 is entitled ‘Strengthening the role of major groups’. This section begins with the following statement: |
| Critical to the effective implementation of the objectives, policies and mechanisms agreed to by Governments in all programme areas of Agenda 21 will be the commitment and genuine involvement of all major groups. One of the fundamental prerequisites for the achievement of sustainable development is broad public participation in decision-making. |
| The concept has become increasingly topical in the 1990s, largely as a result of the adoption of ‘mainstreaming’ principles by the European Commission in its policy making and its funding programmes. ‘Mainstreaming’ gender equality is a central issue in the current fourth medium-term Community action programme on equal opportunities for women and men (1996-2000). The planned reform of the EC Structural Funds will place greater emphasis on equality considerations being integrated into the design of programmes, in implementation and in monitoring and evaluation. All organisations seeking support from the Structural Funds will in future have to demonstrate the project’s contribution to progressing equality between women and men. The Commission also adopted a communication on gender ‘mainstreaming’ (1996). |
It is likely that ‘mainstreaming’
will also increase in importance within members countries of the EU as a
result of the new Treaty of Amsterdam in which equality between women and
men will be one of the core objectives, and whose priorities will include:
|
| The Nordic Council of Ministers provides another example of an intergovernmental institution which has taken active steps to incorporate gender equality issues into all areas of policy through its Programme for Nordic Co-operation on Gender Equality 1995-2000, adopted in March 1995. A three-year pilot project was launched in 1997, aiming at developing and testing methods and tools for integrating a gender perspective into policy making and policy implementation at all levels. |
| The EOC has championed the concept in Britain and Northern Ireland; it has recently completed an EU-funded pilot project on 'mainstreaming' and has issued a framework for ‘mainstreaming’ equal opportunities in local government. The EOC sees work on ‘mainstreaming’ as priority both for itself and for government at all levels. |
| The new Labour government has stated its commitment to ‘mainstreaming’ and new guidelines for policy appraisal are currently being prepared. New coordinating government machinery has been developed including a number of Ministers for Women at central, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish levels. A cabinet sub committee involving ministers from all major government departments aims to co ordinate ‘women’s agenda’ across government 4. A women’s unit has been established within the Department for Social Security, which, following the recent Cabinet reshuffle is about to relocate to the Cabinet Office. In Scotland, a Women's Issues Research Consultant has been appointed to conduct preparatory work for the new parliament. |
| What is ‘mainstreaming’? |
| ‘Mainstreaming’ is a term which is increasingly used, but is less well understood. 'Mainstreaming' equality is essentially concerned with the integration of equal opportunities principles, strategies and practices into the every day work of government and other public bodies from the outset, involving ‘every day’ policy actors in addition to equality specialists. In other words, it entails rethinking mainstream provision to accommodate gender and other dimensions of discrimination and disadvantage, including class, ethnicity and disability. It is a long-term strategy to frame policies in terms of the realities of women's and men’s daily lives, and to change organisation cultures and structures accordingly. ‘Mainstreaming’ also involves an acknowledgement that the task for removing imbalances and inequalities in society is a shared responsibility involving both women and men. However, whilst there is interest in the notion of ‘mainstreaming’ government, there are debates about its relative merits and drawbacks. In particular, it has been identified as a strategy that can, without care, degenerate into tokenism where public commitment is given in principle but where in practice little concrete or specific is achieved. |
| Definitions |
| A number of organisations have been working to establish definitions and to draw upon developing practice and experience to outline frameworks or guidelines for ‘mainstreaming’. |
| Council of Europe |
| This definition of ‘mainstreaming’ was adopted recently by a Council of Europe expert group. |
| Gender ‘mainstreaming’ is the (re)organisation, improvement, development and evaluation of policy processes, so that a gender equality perspective is incorporated in all policies at all levels and at all stages, by the actors normally involved in policy-making. ( Council of Europe, 1998) |
| European Commission |
| The Commission of the European Union defined ‘mainstreaming’ in the following way in its communication on the strategy. |
| ‘Mainstreaming’ involves ‘mobilising all general policies and measures specifically for the purpose of achieving equality by actively and openly taking into account at the planning stage their possible effects on the respective situations of men and women (the gender perspective). (EC, 1996) |
| EOC (Great Britain) |
| The EOC framework document on ‘mainstreaming’ gender equality in local government notes that: |
| ‘Mainstreaming’ is the integration of equal opportunities into all policy development, implementation, evaluation and review processes... ‘mainstreaming’ involves making equal opportunities the responsibility of a wide range of actors including politicians and external partners. (EOC, 1997) |
| Perceived Prerequisites for ‘mainstreaming’ |
| Whereas ‘mainstreaming’ can sometimes be characterised as a managerial or organisational device, research makes clear that politics is at the heart of ‘mainstreaming’, and that political will is necessary for it to succeed. In addition, the Council of Europe expert group has identified the following factors which they perceive to be necessary conditions or facilitating factors. |
|
| 1) Equal opportunities legislation and anti-discrimination laws: equality legislation serves as a safeguard against discrimination, not least on the labour market. This legislation is a necessary basis for the promotion of equality. |
| 2) The existence of mechanisms such as equality ombuds or equality commissions or councils for protection against discrimination. |
| 3) A strong national equality machinery (administrative organisation) with sufficient tools and resources (both human and financial) to exert influence on policy at all levels. |
| 4) Specific equality policies and actions to address specific women’s - or men’s - interests. |
| 5) The existence of equality divisions or focal points within each ministry. |
| 6) Research and training on gender equality issues. |
| 7) Awareness-raising about gender equality. |
|
| The Council of Europe expert group stress that gender ‘mainstreaming’ is unlikely to succeed in societies where there is little or no history of ‘traditional’ equality policy and where there is little knowledge base; or where the expertise of equality specialists and agencies is not recognised or used. This expertise is seen a necessary condition for starting gender ‘mainstreaming’. |
| Explicit links are also made between ‘mainstreaming’ and wider issues of participation and consultation. Gender balance in political, social and economic decision making is seen as both a central plank of the promotion of mainstreaming, and also an important goal. For example, the Charter of Rome adopted by the women ministers of the EU member states in May 1996 states that: |
| The equal participation of women at all decision-making levels in economic, social and cultural structures is ... necessary to guarantee that the needs of women and men are taken into account in all policies, programmes and actions. |
| The under representation of women in political decision making is now well documented at national level, for example, comprehensive data on the women’s representation in national assemblies has been collected and published by the Interparliamentary Union since 1985 (Interparliamentary Union, 1997); and a fuller picture is emerging with respect to women at local government level (CEMR, 1997). In the field of politics, the average female participation in the European member states amounts to around 15% for the national parliaments and 16% for the governments; at local government level women’s representation ranges from 4% in Greece to over 40% representation in Sweden. Around 28 % of the present Members of the European Parliament are women as are 25% of the European Commissioners. Although there is a great deal of variation between different states and different levels, the relative exclusion of women from power is a standard feature of all liberal democracies. In other spheres of social and economic decision making, information is patchy, but it is clear that female representation is even lower.5The arguments for gender balance have been well rehearsed. Traditionally they have involved issues of justice, equality and the contribution of women’s talents. More recently they have been reinforced by ideas which link women’s representation with democratic renewal. |
| A renewal of politics and society will be realized with the joint contribution and balanced participation of women and men.This contribution and participation bridge the gap between citizens and politicians, revitalize democracy, and increase citizen confidence in the institutions of democracy. (Charter of Rome, 1996) |
| Mainstreaming also requires the close involvement of ordinary women and men, and communities of interest in the policy making process. Both gender balance and increased citizen participation are seen to bring benefits to government and to counter the democratic deficit. |
| Background |
| Policies on equality over the past two decades have focused on legal rights and equal treatment, measures to promote changes in attitudes and initiatives to empower women. They have resulted in considerable progress. However inequality and discrimination still exist and women remain at a disadvantage in many areas of economic, social and public life. |
| Teresa Rees has argued that concepts of equal opportunities have evolved from the liberal notion of equal treatment, described as ‘tinkering’, via positive action (and occasionally positive discrimination), described as ‘tailoring’, to ‘mainstreaming’ or ‘transforming’. |
| Liberal approaches to equal treatment rest on the assumption that treating men and women the same guarantees equal opportunities. Evidence demonstrates that the liberal approach to equal treatment has typically characterised most provision, and continues to characterise much policy-making. The resulting ‘gender neutral’ approach to policy and practice produces at best slow change in the disadvantaged position of many women. |
| Positive action aims to redress some of the inequalities which result from the differences between men and women. For example, special training may be offered to women re-entering the work force in recognition that women are far more likely than men to take time out of paid work for child rearing and other domestic responsibilities. Positive action seeks to ensure a ‘level playing field’ |
| The persistence of inequalities has resulted in growing awareness of the complexity of the issues and the need for new approaches, new strategies and new methods which tackle inequality at structural level and which include a wider range of actors. ‘Mainstreaming’ is one of these strategies.6. |
| Equalities work has focused primarily in the past upon specific equalities structures and policy machinery (an overview is provided in the following section). ‘Mainstreaming’ has developed as a new strategy to take equalities work forward but must be placed within the context of the history and considerable achievements of specialist structures and policies. Specialist equality policy machinery is seen as both a necessary precondition for ‘mainstreaming’ and a parallel strategy. |
Specific equalities structures
have considerable achievements in progressing equality in terms of:
|
However specialist structures
have experienced the following difficulties:
|
| ‘Mainstreaming’ should not be seen as proof of the failure of specific sex equality structures but rather an indication of the persistence and complexity of equality issues and the need for multiple strategies which work both horizontally (i.e. across the board) as well as vertically (specific). |
| Overview: Equalities structures and Policy machinery |
| In this section details of a selection of equalities structures and policy machineries in Europe, North America and Australasia are outlined, together with some of the issues raised. |
| The consequences of twenty-five years of the women’s movement has been the array of institutional arrangements inside states devoted to women’s policy questions. The first permanent agency for women was established in the United States in 1920: the Women’s Bureau of the Department of Labor. The United Nations, through the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) and its administrative arm, the Division for the Advancement of Women (DAW), has encouraged governments around the world to set up policy arrangements since the 1960s. The CSW sees policy machinery as the means of implementing UN resolutions on equality and opportunity for women at a national level and this has formed a central plank of UN plans and activities since 1975. |
Since 1979 over 120 countries
have ratified the UN’s Convention for the Elimination of Discrimination
Against Women (CEDAW). The measures adopted at a national level defy easy
categorisation and have included:
|
| These differ according to the level of organisation, the authority and power to act and the degree of links to governmental and non-governmental agencies. These structures are less concerned with the number of women in elected office but the activities of ‘femocrats’. |
| The structures and processes put in place differ according to the particular cultural situation in which they are initiated. |
| Australia: the intervention of ‘femocrats’ and state offices has provided essential support to women’s projects. |
| Canada: subsidies from women’s agencies to feminist groups have been limited because they were seen as too ‘radical’ by political leaders. |
| France: the Ministry of Women’s Rights under the first Socialist presidency of Mitterand (1981-86) assumed an agenda-setting role that was previously the domain of non-governmental feminist groups. |
| The importance of state feminist offices is that they are able to influence policy and that they are able to develop opportunities for society-based actors - feminists and women’s organisations - to have access to the policy process. |
It is important to consider whether:
|
| Figure 1: Typology of state feminism |
|
Level of Policy Access |
|||
|
High |
Low |
||
| Level of Policy Influence |
High |
Type 1 High Influence High Access |
Type 2 High Influence Low Access |
| Low |
Type 3 Low Influence High Access |
Type 4 Low Influence Low Access |
|
|
|
|