|
|
|
|
|
Type 1 |
Level of Policy Influence |
High |
|
|
Level of Policy Access |
High |
||
| Australia | Office for the Status of Women (OSW) | ||
| Influence: OSW powerful position in the department of the
federal Prime Minister and Cabinet (PM&C) co-ordinates the women’s
policy units in specific ministries. Through this ‘hub system’
the OSW has co-ordinated a gender audit of government policy. E.g. the Women’s
Budget statement forced all federal agencies and departments to take account
of gender. OSW had central role in formulation of 1984 Sex Discrimination
Act and the Affirmative Action Act through its involvement in cabinet and
parliamentary decision-making.
Access: OSW has empowered women’s groups: up until 1993 it provided secretariat services for national women’s advisory boards and councils. Through grant allocations more women have been organised and have become more professional in their advocacy and representation. Recent programmes have concentrated the grants even further into strengthening the women’s groups’ own resources. |
|||
| Netherlands | Directie Coordinatie Emancipatiebeleid (DCE) | ||
| Influence: DCE has a powerful location in the Ministry of
Social Affairs with a large staff, a junior minister and its own cabinet
committee to co-ordinate cross-sectoral approach to policy making. DCE has
concentrated upon labour market policy and although it was unable to get
its version of anti discrimination legislation into law it did succeed in
getting sex discrimination references included in the 1994 Equal Employment
law.
Access: DCE has been successful in distributive policies, devoted much of its budget to setting up local women’s bureaus and subsidizing projects. DCE funding has strengthened the Dutch women’s movement. |
|||
| Norway | Equal Status Council in Norway (ESC) | ||
| Influence: Tripartite council with the resources and staff
to set government priorities on women’s equality initiatives in all
areas of public policy. E.g. ESC initiative led to ambitious plan: in 1981
the Parliament adopted the ESC’s proposal as their 5-year Action Plan
to Promote Equal Status Between the Sexes.
Access: ESC has contributed to the emergence of an equality policy network throughout Norway. Effective forum for all feminist interests. ESC has empowered women’s interests through co-ordinating and supporting equal status committees in counties and muncipalities. These served as important avenues of women’s recruitment into elected offices and corporate bodies. |
|||
| Denmark | Danish Equal Status Council (DESC) | ||
| Influence: DESC is a corporate body that directly represents
women’s interests in the state policy making arena. It includes members
from labour, management, moderate feminist groups and women’s studies
programmes. The DESC has played decisive role in the preparatory phases
of amendments and new legislation. However the Council has been restrained
to gender-neutral approaches to women’s equality.
Access: The strategies of the DESC have been significantly influenced by women’s organisations and it has contributed to the increase in women’s representation in all political offices. Like in Norway the ECS has increased women’s involvement in the state rather than empowering feminist groups through direct grants. |
|||
| Type 2 | Level of Policy Influence | High | |
| Level of Policy Access | Low | ||
| Sweden | Swedish Equality Ombudsman (JÄMO) | ||
| Influence: JÄMO was established to enforce the Equal Opportunities
Act of 1979. It was originally limited to the scope of the Act i.e. ensuring
employment equity in the 10% of the labour market without collective agreements
through the pursuit of discrimination cases. It also succeeded in raising
awareness of sexual harassment in the work place which culminated in the
inclusion of sexual harassment, albeit indirectly, within the 1992 Equal
Opportunity Act.
Access: Little has been done to empower feminist organisations. They have not been brought in as staff or advisors and has relied upon activists within trade unions and political parties. |
|||
| Great Britain | Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) | ||
| Influence: The EOC has managed to harness the power given
to it by the 1975 Sexual Discrimination Act to become an ‘active legal
protagonist’ (Lovenduski). It has contributed to the development of
equal employment legislation such as the 1986 Sex Discrimination Act and
the 1983 Equal Value Amendment.
Access: There has been reluctance to involve women’s organisations and, particularly in the early days of the EOC, local authority women’s committees developed separately because of EOC inaction. Since the 1980s closer ties have emerged because of the more explicitly feminist strategy of the EOC. |
|||
| France | Ministère des Droits de la Femme (MDF) | ||
| Influence: The MDF is a central ministry with extensive territorial
administration which took a central role in proposing, and implementing,
the 1983 equal employment law. Opposition from the trade unions and the
Socialist prime minister however eventually resulted in the creation of
a powerless equal employment commission rather than effective enforcement
structures. A new state organ was created in 1995 by the Juppé government
- the Observatoire de la Parité entre les hommes et les femmes. However
this is considered by researchers to be under-funded, poorly staffed and
without clear mission and so it has been unable to have any meaningful impact
upon equal opportunities.
Access: The policy of the MDF to fund women’s groups was not particularly effective in empowering women’s interests in the policy process because of: poor administration of the funds, the concentration of funding with party political allies and the allocation of funds to quasi-state organisations rather than independent interests. Eventually those feminist activists that were based within the Ministry left to be replaced by career civil servants. |
|||
| Spain | Instituto de la Mujer (IM) | ||
| Influence: Since 1985 the Consejo Rector, the IM’s
advisory council has provided a formal channel to influence women’s
policy initiatives in other ministries. Through its two equality plans it
conducts open discussion with ministries and sets goals for future policies.
Access: Almost no access is provided to non-state groups. Feminist activists have been excluded from the Socialist-linked IM. Since 1990 women’s group representatives have been included on the advisory council. 10-15% of the budget is however marked for group subsidies so the potential to empower local groups does exist but this has been hampered by strict qualifying stipulations related to political affiliation. |
|||
| Type 3 | Level of Policy Influence | Low |
| Level of Policy Access | High | |
| Germany | Frauenbeauftragte (FB) | |
| Influence: Differences in
policy machinery between state and federal level so it is difficult to make
an overall assessment of the impact of the 1500 women’s affairs offices.
The roles of these FB differ widely and the lack of a strong national body
means they can do little more than sensitise departments to women’s
issues.
Access: The FBs have enabled a wide range of groups to develop policy skills and many of the FB staff are drawn from independent feminist groups. When most effective the FBs have contributed to the development of a ‘women’s public’ that helps keep issues on the policy agenda. |
||
| United States | Women’s Bureau (WB) | |
| Influence: Major activist
years of the WB were in the 1960s and 70s under feminist directors. Then
it contributed to the formulation and implementation of employment equality
measures. Hostility of conservative administrations during the 1980s curtailed
the already limited policy role of the WB.
Access: In the 1960 & 70s the WB provided resources and infrastructure for moderate feminist pressure groups. To activists the WB now seems to just be co-opted into the governmental machinery. |
||
| Canada | National Action Committee (NAC) and others | |
| Influence: Array of policy
machinery that lacks single controlling purpose. Policy offices are scattered
throughout government with no co-ordinating body which makes it very easy
for proposals to be sidelined. At times the only meaningful way of influencing
policy has been by feeding information to external bodies such as the NAC.
Since 1995 attempts have been made to consolidate the machinery but as yet
it is still in flux at both a federal and provincial/territorial level.
Access: Outside groups, such as the NAC, have benefited from funding by state feminist offices, specifically the Women’s Program. More recently funding priorities have been reordered to the concern of women’s groups. |
||
| Type 4 | Level of Policy Influence | Low |
| Level of Policy Access | Low | |
| Ireland | Ministry of State for Women’s Affairs (MSWA) & Joint Oireachtas Committee on Women’s Rights (JOCWR) | |
| Influence: The MSWA and
the JOCWR were limited by the constitution to policy areas that would not
clash with the Catholic Church’s stipulations regarding the role of
women in the family. This restricts discussion of abortion, divorce and
even equal employment policy. Policy making power was extremely limited
even within the narrow areas of jurisdiction. Both are now defunct.
Access: During the life of the organisations some programmes for women were introduced and small grants provided. |
||
| Italy | Equal Status Committee (ESC) & Equal Opportunity Nation Commission (ESONC) | |
| Influence: Equal Status
Committee established to promote equal employment policies but still has
marginal position. The collective bargaining process is the site of equal
opportunities policy rather than through the state agencies. ESC and the
ESONC have promoted equality statutes in the parliament e.g. Affirmative
Action Act of 1991 but success has largely been determined by the party
status of those involved rather than by their membership of ESONC.
Access: The agencies have links with women’s organisations but they remain very remote. Representatives serve on the national commissions and general efforts have been made to increase women’s political culture. Local co-operation (as in Germany) has been the most fruitful but this has tended to focus on service projects. |
||
| Source: material drawn largely from Stetson & Mazur, (eds.) |
| Comparative State Feminism, Sage, London 1996. |
|
|
|