Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Equality in Europe: Policies, Culture and Public Opinion 9781447317722

Citation preview

VERA LOMAZZI ISABELLA CRESPI

GENDER MAINSTREAMING AND GENDER EQUALITY IN EUROPE Policies, Culture and Public Opinion

POLICY PRESS

RESEARCH

VERA LOMAZZI ISABELLA CRESPI

GENDER MAINSTREAMING AND GENDER EQUALITY IN EUROPE Policies, Culture and Public Opinion

POLICY PRESS

RESEARCH

First published in Great Britain in 2019 by Policy Press North America office: University of Bristol Policy Press 1-9 Old Park Hill c/o The University of Chicago Press Bristol 1427 East 60th Street BS2 8BB Chicago, IL 60637, USA UK t: +1 773 702 7700 t: +44 (0)117 954 5940 f: +1 773 702 9756 [email protected] [email protected] www.policypress.co.uk www.press.uchicago.edu © Policy Press 2019 British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record for this book has been requested. ISBN 978-1-4473-1769-2 (hardback) ISBN 978-1-4473-1773-9 (ePub) ISBN 978-1-4473-1772-2 (ePDF) The right of Vera Lomazzi and Isabella Crespi to be identified as authors of this work has been asserted by them in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved: no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the prior permission of Policy Press. The statements and opinions contained within this publication are solely those of the authors and not of the University of Bristol or Policy Press. The University of Bristol and Policy Press disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any material published in this publication. Policy Press works to counter discrimination on grounds of gender, race, disability, age and sexuality. Cover design by Policy Press Front cover: image kindly supplied by iStock Printed and bound in Great Britain by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY Policy Press uses environmentally responsible print partners

Contents

List of figures and tables

iv

Notes on the authors

v

Acknowledgements

vi

Introduction

1

one

Gender equality and gender mainstreaming: the issue of equal opportunities in the European context

9

two

Gender mainstreaming in Europe: legislation and cultural changes

31

three

Gender mainstreaming and social policies in Europe

47

four

Gender equality in Europe: measures and indicators

75

five

European gender cultures

101

six

Current challenges to gender mainstreaming in Europe

123

Conclusions

145

Notes

153

References

159

Index

189

iii

List of figures and tables

Figures 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 5.1 6.1 6.2

Gender Inequality Index (GII) by country, 2016 Global Gender Gap Index (GGGI) by country, 2017 EIGE Gender Equality Index by country, 2017 Combination of EIGE Time and Work domain scores, distributed by country, 2017 Gender contract distribution by country, 2016 Distribution of European workers’ use of flexitime (%) Euroscepticism: respondents who would vote to leave the EU or are unsure (%) Gender equality and attachment to Europe

81 86 90 91 95 120 128 132

Tables 4.1 4.2 4.3

Global Gender Gap Index (GGGI): indicators by sub-​index, 2017 EIGE Gender Equality Index: indicators by sub-​index, 2017 Support for egalitarian gender roles

iv

85 88 98

Notes on the authors

Vera Lomazzi is Senior Researcher at the Data Archive for Social Sciences at GESIS  –​ Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences in Cologne (Germany), and Secretary of the Executive Committee of the European Values Study. Her recent publications include: ‘Gender equality in Europe and the effect of work–family balance policies on gender role attitudes’ (Lomazzi et al, 2019); ‘Using alignment optimization to test the measurement invariance of gender role attitudes in 59 countries’ (Lomazzi, 2018); ‘Gender role attitudes in Italy: 1988–​2008. A path-​dependency story of traditionalism’ (Lomazzi, 2017a). Isabella Crespi is Associate Professor in Sociology at the University of Macerata, Department of Education, Cultural Heritage and Tourism (Italy), and member of ESA RN 13 Sociology of Families and Intimate Lives Advisory Board. Her recent publications include: ‘Gender equality in Europe and the effect of work–family balance policies on gender role attitudes’ (Lomazzi et  al, 2019); ‘Gender mainstreaming and gender equality in Europe:  Policies, legislation and Eurobarometer surveys’ (Crespi and Lomazzi, 2018); ‘Work and family cultures: Dynamics of family change in Southern Europe’ (Crespi and Minguez, 2017).

v

newgenprepdf

Acknowledgements

The authors contributed equally to the development of this book. However, Isabella Crespi wrote Chapters One, Two and Three; Vera Lomazzi wrote Chapters Four, Five and Six; the introduction and conclusions were written jointly by the authors.

vi

Introduction

This book aims to explore the European policy strategy for gender equality, known as gender mainstreaming. By assuming a critical perspective and considering different aspects of gender equality policies, the study attempts to understand how historical and socioeconomic changes in Europe have affected and challenged both the gender mainstreaming strategy and gender equality as a concept. Gender mainstreaming (GM) was established as a major global strategy to promote gender equality during the United Nations’ Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing in 1995. Over the years, the European Union (EU) too has developed a strategy to promote equal opportunities between men and women. Indeed, gender equality is an accepted goal, at least in theory, for many governments and international organisations: it is enshrined in international agreements and commitments. Over 60  years (1957–​2017), European legislation has broadened the notion of equality between men and women workers, increased its attention on gender issues, and started implementing a GM strategy, with a specific focus on women’s conditions. The basic idea of GM was and still is to provide equal (formal) access to rights, resources and time management (such as work–​life balance). However, much previous literature (Rubery, 2002; Moser and Moser, 2005; Verloo, 2005; Lavena and Riccucci, 2012) has referred to the topic of GM but with some limitations. For example, previous contributions focused only on specific aspects

1

Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Equality in Europe

(legislation, economy, politics), so that the reader, in order to have a scientific overview of the social and political issues related to the GM perspective, had to pull together elements from the different –​and sometimes opposing –​contributions. A relevant issue has been the importance of legislative and normative development and the parallel use of a different conceptualisation of gender equality. Furthermore, the institutional level of policymaking and the local implementation of European laws in the field of gender equality have very rarely been connected to the topic of gender culture within European societies or to their individual opinions/​attitudes on gender roles. In this book, the use of a deep analysis of conceptualisation and legislation, as well as the data available on gender equality in Europe, make the issue of GM an ‘evergreen’ topic since it must be understood in the context of the changing beliefs, social structure, economics and political configuration of the EU from its beginnings until now; moreover, there are critical issues to be addressed for the future. This implies new opportunities but also new challenges, which are identified and discussed throughout the book. For example, EU enlargement, the growing and binding power of some directives of the European Commission and the increased cooperation between the current 28 (soon-​to-​ be 27) member states ensure greater uniformity and equality of decision making and democratic processes with respect to gender equality issues (among others). However, the same process of homogenisation causes discontent between members around certain topics, which can paralyse decision-​making mechanisms. Take, for example, the issue of parental leave or the management of migration flows. In considering these matters, the book intends to provide a theoretical framework for reflection on GM by reviewing the literature on this topic and defining the main concepts and connection between GM and gender equality policies. In addition, it is important to refer to the development of the GM strategy and European legislation concerning gender equality

2

Introduction

when investigating the changes in the key conceptualisations of gender equality, GM and related areas in social policies. The book also explores innovative intersections between the fields of gender policies and survey research in order to investigate how GM policies affect regional gender cultures. Furthermore, it develops an outline of the current and future challenges of the GM strategy, which parallel the general challenges faced by the EU, such as integration, economic crisis, and the migration and refugee crises. Several questions guide the book’s discussion: How is gender equality measured? How has GM become part of European policies and which are the main areas of intervention? Where these policies are actively intervening to improve equality between genders? How does the GM strategy deal with the national and transnational implementation of legislation, considering the different national cultures and the dissimilar orientation in welfare states’ principles? What is the influence and importance of these policies in relation to attitudes among Europeans? Is everything already done or are there new challenges to be dealt with in coming years? To answer these demanding but extremely interesting questions, the development of GM and equality issues, the changes brought about by the implementation of the GM perspective, and the influence of gender equality at the institutional and individual level in the European context are analysed in detail. This perspective highlights the need for a profound focus and target:  it offers a critical review of the GM strategy in Europe and analyses whether and how gender equality in Europe is improving, with a specific interest in the cultural differences between the European countries, where this common strategy is implemented. Looking at the structure in detail, the first chapter aims to provide the theoretical framework of our reflection on GM by reviewing the literature on this topic and defining the main concepts that will be used later in the text. In particular, it will

3

Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Equality in Europe

elucidate the connection between GM and gender equality policies. Mainstreaming can reveal a need for changes in goals, strategies and actions to ensure that both women and men can influence, participate in and benefit from development processes. This could lead to changes in organisations  –​ structures, procedures and cultures  –​to create organisational environments that are conducive to the promotion of gender equality. These specific issues (and others) need to be addressed in order to promote gender equality as a goal. Achieving greater equality between women and men requires change at many levels –​including changes in attitudes and relationships, changes in institutions and legal frameworks, changes in economic institutions and changes in political decision-​making structures –​ and include the empowerment of the individuals involved as much as possible. An important point to raise for all the following discussions of gender policy issues is that GM does not in any way preclude the need for specific targeted interventions to address women’s empowerment and gender equality. By analysing the evolution of the concept of gender equality, non-​discrimination policies and GM, the book will critically review the evolution of the theoretical framework of equity/​equality in order to discover what changes have occurred, as well as the critical aspects that have emerged over recent years in Europe. Chapter Two explores the development of the GM strategy within, and its effect on, European legislation concerning gender equality, from the Union’s beginnings to the present day. Social policies aiming to promote gender equality have evolved substantially since the 1990s. GM, launched in 1996 to promote gender equality in all European policies, was the international and European mobilisation on women’s issues, aimed at transforming mainstream policies by introducing a gender equality perspective. The current policy, the Strategic Engagement for Gender Equality 2016–​2 019, passed in December 2015, is the result of a 60-​year history of

4

Introduction

developing Communitarian legislation. The questions raised at the beginning of the GM implementation process in the EU around 1996 focused on the potential role of the EU in bridging the gap between formal and substantive equality, as well as its impact on women’s choices about motherhood. The answer to each of these questions, and those raised by the introduction of the concept of mainstreaming within EU policy rhetoric and policymaking, was that EU policies continue to promote a concept of equality that is biased in favour of legal rights. This continued focus on formal rights exists at the expense of a more comprehensive approach to gender and the construction of gender roles. Furthermore, the implementation of a common strategy oriented at gender equality often means frequent recommendations to member countries, as well as homogenised conditions that must be met in order to be considered a candidate country –​commonly that laws be compatible with European values and norms. The third chapter describes the changes in the main conceptualisations of gender equality and GM, and social policies will be analysed in light of GM policies and their development over time in Europe. This issue invites thought on the different potential tools available in the gender equality perspective. The importance of the GM strategy for social policies is in its approach to gender equality, particularly in suggesting the introduction of a gender equality perspective to all policies at all levels of governance. The discussion is, then, on how policies are related to GM and how the comparative situation of different welfare states and welfare regimes could influence the way in which different measures and policies are implemented. Nowadays, the different typology and cultural frameworks of the European member states could provide a different sociocultural implementation of the same ideas and aims regarding gender equality (Pfau-​Effinger, 2005; Van Oorschot, 2007; Saraceno and Keck, 2011). In this chapter, we consider the work–​family issue, which has been and still is relevant in evaluating the degree

5

Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Equality in Europe

of gender equality options within a welfare state system, as a specific example of this issue. A critical review of the measurements of gender equality in Europe is the focus of Chapter Four. Several transnational agencies, such as UNPD (United Nations Procurement Division), OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-​operation and Development), World Economic Forum and EIGE (European Institute for Gender Equality), provide indexes to compare gender equality across societies and over time, considering many dimensions (such as the use of time, health status, economic resources, and so on). In particular, it is important to pay attention to the comparison and evaluation of different aspects of GM, such as attitudes, indices and socioeconomic issues. The chapter provides some insights about Europeans’ opinions on gender equality and egalitarian gender roles by employing data from the most recent edition of these indices. Another important aspect discussed in the chapter is the issue of macro indicators, built using gender statistics, and the employment of micro level indicators, built on survey population measurements. In the first case, international indices describe a country’s situation considering structural and societal aspects of gender inequality. In the second case, indices built on survey data refer to an individual’s perspective on gender issues, including both behaviours and attitudes. For this purpose, the chapter offers insights using data from the Eurobarometer and the International Social Survey Programme. The chapter also provides a critical review of these indicators and a comparative overview of European countries’ situations, and assesses whether gender equality in Europe is improving. In Chapter Five, we concentrate on the interconnection between the macro level societal institutions and the micro level of individual values and attitudes. The situation that emerges from the various gender equality indices will reflect the different gender cultures in each country. These are the result of interplay between institutional factors, such as laws, rules, organisational

6

Introduction

practices and individual values. It is also important to analyse the effect of GM-​inspired policies in the construction of a society’s gender culture. By using the example of policies in the work–​life balance, we will focus on if, how and when GM policies implemented at the country level are changing individual preferences and if the society tends to shift towards a more egalitarian gender culture because of it. This can be observed in two different ways: on the one hand, it is considered a fact that the general effect of mainstreaming actions and policies can somehow be influenced by specific legislation; on the other, there could be different timing and processes needed for a member state during the application of the guidelines and directives issued by the European Commission, and this could delay the transformation process. In any case, national policies could be partially considered a result of the main legislative framework enforced by the EU. This link will be explored in detail by considering one of the main issues inspired by the GM perspective: the family–​work balance (Crespi and Miller, 2013; Crespi and Lomazzi, 2018). The book concludes in Chapter Six with an outline of the current and future challenges of the GM strategy, which parallel the general challenges faced by the EU, such as integration, economic crisis, and the migration and refugee crises. In addition, new and old issues challenge the future of GM oriented policies. Attempting to implement the same policies in dissimilar cultural contexts is an old challenge that has already produced mixed results. Meanwhile, the economic crisis faced by the Eurozone has negatively affected gender policies, which suffered cuts at each level of intervention. At the same time, the refugee crisis and the ongoing migration flows toward and within Europe challenge all realms of policies in respect to the principles of the GM strategy. There is a risk that a political transformation in the mainstream priorities of the socioeconomic context could eventually change the legislative focus on GM, diminish the resources available for all measures oriented at improving

7

Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Equality in Europe

gender equality, or eliminate some of the tools aimed at the eradication of women’s unequal access to political and private sector high-​level positions. The link between a transnational strategy, such as GM, and the overall political body that designed and implemented it is extremely relevant. We cannot consider the challenges faced by the GM strategy as disconnected from the past, current and future challenges of the EU itself. How, then, do we keep up the effort of implementing common policies in societies that historically differ by culture? How does the economic crisis in the Eurozone reflect gender equality policies? How do we deal with the refugee and migration crises, according to GM? Along with these questions, this chapter will also deal with other controversial aspects concerning the concept of gender equality and its translation into policies, such as the risk of considering only one dimension of gender equality despite its multidimensionality, neutralising gender differences and being gender blind. Thus, our book offers a critical review of the GM strategy in Europe and analyses whether and how gender equality in Europe is improving, with a specific interest in the cultural differences between the European countries where this common strategy is implemented. Last, its limits and challenges are discussed, such as European integration, the economic crisis, the migration crisis, and the issue of multiple inequalities.

8

ONE Gender equality and gender mainstreaming: the issue of equal opportunities in the European context

In 1975, the United Nations (UN) established the International Women’s Year, and since then, most Western nations have acknowledged gender inequality (then called women’s discrimination) as a public issue that deserved public intervention. The strategies and political instruments of these policies have been changing, since the beginning, from the initial focus on sex discrimination (discrimination based on biological differences), and women’s discrimination has evolved to focus on gender (discrimination based on the cultural and social consequences of those biological differences). Today, gender equality has been accepted, at least in theory, by many governments and international organisations around the world and is enshrined in international agreements and commitments (UN, 2002; United Nations Development Program (UNDP), 2003). In the UN document (2002), GM entails bringing the perceptions, experience, knowledge and interests of women, as well as men, to bear on policymaking,

9

Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Equality in Europe

planning and decision making and aims to situate gender equality issues at the centre of analyses and policy decisions. In this sense, ‘mainstreaming’ is a process and strategy rather than a goal and brings what can be seen as marginal (gender issue) into the core decision-​making process of an organisation (UN, 2002). The implementation of such a common strategy oriented towards gender equality seeks to ensure equal treatment for men and women on the grounds that, by treating individuals equally, discrimination will be eliminated. In Europe, social policies aiming to promote gender equality have evolved substantially over time. The EU has developed a multifaceted strategy to promote equal opportunities between men and women and has turned this into a unique political system with a set of rules and laws such as specific guidelines, treaties and directives (see Chapter Two). The ‘women’s question’ 1 was interwoven into the process of European integration from the very beginning, and the ‘gender issue’ is such a powerful and integral part of the EU narrative today (Kantola, 2010; MacRae, 2010; Abels, 2013) that the European integration process deeply affects the everyday lives of citizens in the member states, including gender relations. Originally founded on Article 119 in the 1957 European Economic Community (EEC) Treaty, the European Community has developed a rich body of gender equality laws since the 1970s, which followed an equal opportunities approach. Today, the GM approach is a guiding principle in the EU, and gender equality is one of the fundamental norms, applied to almost all policies. Over 60  years (1957–​2 017), European legislation 2 has broadened the notion of equality between men and women workers, starting with equal pay (Article 119 of the 1957 Treaty of Rome), and has gone on to address equal treatment and equal opportunity, including parental leave, and measures to combat sexual harassment in the workplace, gender and domestic violence, and to increase political representation.

10

Gender equality and gender mainstreaming

The current objective of the Community is not only to achieve an egalitarian structure in the rigidly statistical sense, but the promotion of reciprocal changes that are realised through a permanent progress of social and personal relations. The EU has also developed a real strategy for the dissemination of equal opportunities between women and men (Council of Europe, 1998; Verloo, 2005), which today takes the form of GM. This process was formally established in Europe in 1996 and includes the valuing of differences and the creation of a social, cultural and legal framework that supports gender balance. GM makes the gender dimension clear in all policy areas. Gender equality is no longer viewed as a ‘distinct question’, but becomes a concern for all policies and programmes. Furthermore, a GM approach does not look at women in separation, but looks at both women and men (but more the former) as actors in the development process and as its receivers. GM is, therefore, a strategic approach to policies aimed at achieving equal opportunities between women and men in every area of society, providing for the integration of a gender perspective in the implementation of policies: from the elaboration process to the implementation, including the drafting of the rules, spending decisions, evaluation and monitoring (Daly, 2005; Çağlar, 2013). The main aim of GM is to create policies capable of combating inequalities between women and men in society, starting from the analysis of the mechanisms that underlie it in different sectors of people’s life. Such an analysis demonstrates that there are systemic inequalities between men and women that are transversal to all other inequalities (age, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, and so on; Clavero and Galligan, 2009). By analysing the evolution of the concept of gender equality, antidiscrimination policies, positive actions and GM, we will review the development of the theoretical framework of equality in order to discover how and where changes occurred but also the relevant features that have emerged since 2009 in Europe.

11

Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Equality in Europe

The evolution of gender equality in Europe Since the birth of the EU, the principle of equality between women and men has been considered fundamental in Community policies, and this choice refers, in a general sense, to a respect for the different identities of the citizens of the Union (Lavena and Riccucci, 2012), the consideration and protection of minorities, the enhancement of differences and the creation of a social, cultural and legal context that supports the balance between men and women. As Verloo (2007) suggested, introducing the issue of equal opportunities, and the ways in which they have been and still are addressed, necessarily means reflecting on the broader meaning that the term ‘gender equality’ assumes within the cultural context and policies of the EU, but also of each state. According to Jewson and Mason (1986), there are two main approaches to equality:  liberal and radical. The first argues that equality exists when all people can access the same social recognition. In this case, policymakers must identify measures to facilitate fair competition. If correct procedures are implemented with respect to an a priori equality, then inequality is diminished and leads to greater equity. Conversely, the radical approach focuses on the need to intervene directly in order to obtain a fair distribution of premiums: the role of the policymaker is to devise interventions and make decisions that correct the inequalities of the results. This could include positive discrimination in the workplace. Kirton and Greene (2005) observed, however, that both approaches come with considerable criticism. The liberal approach has been seen as unable to deliver equality because it faces the general framework of multiple inequalities at different levels, while the more interventionist radical approach is often perceived negatively as reverse discrimination, special treatment or a minimum effort, because it tends to empathise the lower position of women in the social context.

12

Gender equality and gender mainstreaming

For some scholars (Walby, 2007; Rees, 1998; Booth and Bennet, 2002), European equal opportunities policies can be differentiated into three phases or three ideal-​typical ‘three-​ legged equality stool’ approaches:  equal treatment, positive action and GM. It is possible to refer to three different models of gender equality (Rees, 1998: 42ff). In the first model, an idea of identity is encouraged, especially when women enter contexts previously occupied only by men. In this case, the standards tend to remain the masculine ones, to which women must adapt. Rees defines this model as tinkering with inequalities (or ‘to fix’ the inequality). The second model moves towards an assessment of the differences existing between men and women, and the different contributions they can offer. In this case, inequality is dealt with by adapting situations to the needs of women (tailoring). In the third model, new standards are developed for both men and women:  gender relations are transformed (transforming). The latter model is actually what Rees advocates for, as it is the only one that properly reflects the process of GM. Considering the differences between the various models, at first, the EU’s actions on equal opportunities developed mainly through the implementation of specific measures dedicated to women and antidiscrimination, which led to the implementation of numerous programmes of positive actions. Then it moved on to the so-​called GM strategy –​ the integration of the issue of equality between women and men in all policy areas –​which was internationally recognised during the UN’s Fourth World Conference on Women, held in Beijing in 1995 (Reanda, 1999; Hafner-​Burton and Pollack, 2002; Eveline and Bacchi, 2005). The official adoption by the EU of a multi-strategy approach for the achievement of equal opportunities and the overcoming and prevention of discrimination was finalised both through the implementation of positive actions and the use of GM as a transversal system strategy. As will be explained in detail in the following paragraphs, it is possible to identify

13

Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Equality in Europe

a tripartite use of the concept of gender equality on the basis of the concrete actions that must be implemented in order to achieve this common goal. Equal treatment: a first step towards gender equality

The earliest and most common conceptualisation of equal opportunities, equal treatment, ‘implies that no individual should have fewer human rights or opportunities than any other’ (Rees, 1998: 29), and the application of such a policy involves the making and application of formally equal rights for men and women, such as the right to equal pay for equal work. The focus is on the individual, who, given equal treatment in respect to employment, is free to succeed or fail, as the case may be (Crespi, 2007: 28–​9). Over the years, legislation, jurisprudence and amendments to the Treaties have helped to reinforce this principle and its application within the EU.3 The European Parliament has always been a staunch defender of the principle of equality between men and women (Woodward, 2012). Equal treatment derives from Article 119 of the 1957 Treaty of Rome, which asserted the need to move towards equal pay for men and women for equal work. According to Rubery (2002) and Hebson and Rubery (2018), in the process of European construction, the issue of equality between women and men has been of great importance and continues to play a fundamental role in promoting equality within the labour market. The EU was one of the first major institutions to try ensuring equal treatment for men and women, especially from an economic point of view, such as with equal pay, but also equal treatment from an opportunity point of view with fair wages and the possibility of employment. In theory, this should have put an end to any kind of discrimination or negative differentiation between men and women (Rossilli, 2000; Forest and Lombardo, 2012). However, as suggested by Walby (2004), the development

14

Gender equality and gender mainstreaming

of the EU strategies for gender equality refers to different aspects, one concerning the theorisation of gender relations, the second concerning the nature of EU rules. The analysis of gender inequality requires more than a simple scale of inequalities, and additionally requires the theorisation of the extent and nature of the interconnections between different dimensions of the gender regime. The rules of the EU are extending beyond the narrowly economic in complex ways, trying to give better answers to gender equality issue. Positive and affirmative action: (re)inforcing gender equality

Positive or affirmative action (PA) is a political tool that seeks to promote the participation of people with certain ethnic, gender, sexual and social identities in contexts where they are a minority and/​or underrepresented. The term applies to a wide range of policies aimed at achieving this goal, and is used by both governments and other bodies. These are specific and temporary measures aimed at a particular group to remove and prevent discrimination or offset disadvantages caused by attitudes, behaviours or structures existing in society and the workplace in order to guarantee substantial equality. In particular, PAs are those actions that provide for specific measures in order to reduce the starting imbalances of a particular category. More precisely, PAs derogate from formal equality to implement the substantial one, since being unequal measures of law, they compensate for the disadvantages traditionally suffered by a particular social group (such as the marginalised or disadvantaged) with specific advantages, giving life to active, promotional and positive interventions. These actions can result in: actions aimed at guaranteeing equal opportunities, such as equality in starting conditions; and actions aimed at guaranteeing a result, such as parity in the points of arrival. PA is utilised by its proponents in an attempt to remedy the effects of discrimination, true or presumed, through

15

Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Equality in Europe

targeted recruitment programmes, preferential treatment of minority socio-​political groups and, in some cases, quotas. In this approach, ‘the emphasis shifts from equality of access to create conditions more likely to result in equality of outcome’ (Rees, 1998: 34). As highlighted by Stratigaki (2005), PA in Europe was the founding basis of equal opportunities and antidiscrimination policies for many years. PA has involved the adoption of specific actions on behalf of women in order to overcome their unequal positions in a male-​dominated or patriarchal society. PAs eliminate the factual disparities that women are subjected to in their working life and favour their integration into the labour market. This is the meaning that European Community law and the Court of Justice have, over time, introduced into the regulatory bodies of individual countries. Between the 1980s and 1990s, many European countries developed policies of PA as a consequence of a series of judgements that justified PA to help women catch up with men, particularly in respect to the labour market. The Commission’s action programmes on equal opportunities recommended that member states develop fair, comprehensive positive measures (training, flexible schedules and work–​life cycle, sharing of family responsibilities, childcare and so forth) covering a wide range of aspects that negatively affected women in the labour market (Crespi, 2007). The Treaty of Amsterdam (1997) recognised the legitimacy of positive actions as policies that do not constitute a violation of the principle of equality or the principle of freedom, but are instead measures aimed at creating the conditions for equal opportunities in social, economic and political life, in particular education, the labour market and political representation. The Treaty, with the inclusion of the principle of gender equality, the strengthening of antidiscrimination measures and the promotion of equal opportunities, reinforces this principle, according to which equivalent rights and dignities are

16

Gender equality and gender mainstreaming

recognised for different subjects. It provides the necessary legal basis for the legislative initiative and consolidates the most recent meaning of positive actions intended as measures to achieve mainstreaming and empowerment (Kantola and Nousiainen, 2012; Woodward, 2012). The experience of PA and the cultural and juridical debate that has developed around it over the years in the different countries of Europe have registered priorities, articulations and different solutions (Liebert, 2002, 2003). The principle of gender equality, as it is a fundamental right, refers to all areas of EU law. Its scope has been extended to access and provision of goods and services andin accordance to the European Court of Justice. Despite efforts to make the principle visible and accessible, some provisions remain unclear and contradictory. In some nations, although formal equality policies have a deep-​rooted tradition, equal opportunities and antidiscrimination policies have had and still do have a difficult life, for example in relation to equal pay and to equal access to and participation in high-​level positions (Masselot, 2007). The theoretical reflection on the definitions and experiences of positive actions does not end here:  it also recalls different conceptions of equality (between individuals, between subjects), of democracy (participatory, representative) and of equal opportunities (of starting conditions, of results; see Bacchi and Eveline, 2010; MacRae, 2013) such as positive discrimination. Looking at its effects and concrete consequences, PA can also take the form of positive discrimination, which seeks to increase the participation of women (or other underrepresented groups) through the use of reserved quotas. Positive discrimination finds many advocates among women’s rights activists but, in much of the world, it remains a controversial and conflicting approach, raising questions about the equity and individual rights of men and others who would then be discriminated against. In this sense, PA is in itself controversial, and some argue that it creates new inequalities since men and women are not given equal

17

Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Equality in Europe

treatment (Rossilli, 2000; Ellina, 2003) and come into conflict with universalism, which is understood as equal access to equal opportunities. The acceptance of equal opportunities by the Community legislator, including those adopted by Directive 54/​ 2006,4 appears to be entirely focused on the mere admissibility of positive actions, which remain essentially remitted to the discretionary choice of individual states. However, in the mid-​1990s, the judgements of the European Court of Justice challenged the legitimacy of gender-​based preferential treatment. This approach, previously justified in relation to the fact that PAs would fall within the social policies of individual states, would seem to contradict the current constitutional provisions which, starting with the Treaty of Amsterdam, assign fundamental importance to the promotion of gender equality and expressly articulate the Union’s objective of increasing the female employment rate. Gender mainstreaming: a multifaceted strategy for gender equality

The current phase of European policy, GM, has become a global strategy to promote equality between men and women and originated from a global perspective in 1995.5 The term ‘gender mainstreaming’ refers in particular to this element of the Report of the Fourth World Conference on Women: ‘governments and other actors should promote an active and visible policy of mainstreaming a gender perspective in all policies and programs, so that, before decisions are taken, an analysis is made of the effects on men and women, respectively’ (UN, 1996, par. 79 p. 32). The principle of GM consists of systematically considering the differences between the conditions, situations and needs of women and men in all Community policies and actions. The European Commission adopted the UN guidelines of 1995, using the concept of GM as the starting point for observing issues related to equal opportunities, and then tackled

18

Gender equality and gender mainstreaming

the problem of the relationship between the family and the workplace; as suggested by Lombardo (2005), this is the general framework from which European policies are currently evolving. The European guidelines on equal opportunities policies regard mainstreaming as a way of supporting women’s involvement in decision making; this strategy includes the horizontal implementation of equal opportunities in the widest possible range of sectors while ensuring that issues concerning equal opportunities are considered at all phases of the policymaking process and are strictly related to the idea of GM as a transformative agenda (Squires, 2005; Crespi, 2007, 2009). The European Commission (2005: 21) defined the concept of GM as the ‘the systematic consideration of differences between the needs of women and men in all Community policies, at the point of planning for the purpose of achieving equality’. Therefore, GM means that, in addition to specific policies addressing gender discrimination (which are still necessary to deal with actual gender discrimination), if the main strategy of gender equality policies is gender mainstreaming, one would probably have to seek gender perspective as the searched effect in other public policies (that is, whether public policies –​not the gender equality policy  –​are formulated, executed and evaluated with gender perspective), in addition to evaluating the gender policy itself. (Bustelo, 2003: 384) As defined by the Council of Europe (1998), ‘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’. Mainstream organisations are gendered in terms of their culture, rules and outcomes, and, therefore, ‘the decisions, policies, and resources from the mainstream are likely to neglect excluded

19

Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Equality in Europe

or disadvantaged groups, including women, thereby reproducing gender inequalities and existing hierarchies’ (March et  al, 1999: 9). This strategy to promote gender equality calls for the systematic incorporation of gender issues throughout all governmental institutions and policies. Moser (1993) emphasised this in regard to what has happened through the integration of a gender perspective in every phase of the processes related to policies, planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation with a view to promoting equality. In fact, the idea of mainstreaming involves overcoming the traditional concept of equal opportunities as the assignment of tasks and responsibilities, on the basis of an artificial and balanced distribution of positions and roles; this could be an example of empowerment, of responsible behaviour towards objectives with gendered outcomes, where women are no longer considered as a mere subject of legislation; in fact, it could trigger a kind of renewed politicisation of women, which would follow different practices in a context that, over the last 30 years, has undergone some profound changes. (Vincenti, 2005: 125) In this sense, policies for equal opportunities and GM essentially indicate the reorganisation, improvement, development and evaluation of policies and processes related to gender equality policies, such as those that incorporate a gender equality perspective into all social and family policies, as well as those for inclusion and the fight against poverty at all levels and stages by all the actors generally involved in the policymaking processes (Walby, 2005; Walby, 2007; Rees, 1998). The successful implementation of PA in political decision making had challenged the gender distribution of political power over policy institutions and technical, human and financial resources. This led to policy softening and institutional weakening

20

Gender equality and gender mainstreaming

due to counteraction by the European political and administrative hierarchies (Woodward, 2003). One consequence is that positive actions no longer worked as effectively as they did before. In fact, the European Community, which initially promoted positive actions, more recently has recommended that all member states incorporate equal opportunities considerations at all levels, in all policies and fields of action (European Commission, 2016). The model of equal opportunities, which underlies mainstreaming policies, is based on the notion of the politics of difference6, not of inequalities or discrimination. As suggested by Crespi (2007, 2009), while the significance of the concept of the difference between groups, rather than sameness among individuals, is now widely accepted, its implications for policies seeking to ensure equal opportunities are not well understood. The idea is to no longer think about policies ‘for women’, but instead policies that involve women and, therefore, evoke the principle of mainstreaming, as ‘actions to promote equality must not be limited to specific measures for women, but rather the overall objective of the general policies must be explicitly mobilised on the objective of equality’ (European Commission, 2005). This dualism between GM and PA was addressed in the Manual for Gender Mainstreaming: Employment, Social Inclusion and Social Protection Policies prepared in 2008 by the Directorate-​General for Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities, Unit G1. The manual juxtaposes the two terms: The strategy used to achieve this [gender equality] objective is based on a dual approach: gender mainstreaming and specific actions. Gender mainstreaming is the integration of the gender perspective at every stage of the political process  –​ design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation  –​ in order to promote equality between women and men. Gender mainstreaming is not a goal in itself, but a means of achieving equality. In the same way, it is not only interested in women, but in the

21

Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Equality in Europe

relationship between women and men for the benefit of both. Specific actions may be required in addition to remove the inequalities between men and women that have been identified.7 Considering this indication, an important point to be made in all these discussions of the gender policy issue, as suggested by O’Connor (2005) and Stratigaki (2005), is that GM does not in any way preclude the need for specific targeted interventions that address women’s empowerment and gender equality. In fact, the Beijing Platform for Action calls for a dual approach: GM complemented with inputs designed to address specific gaps or problems faced in the promotion of gender equality (UN, 1996). As already highlighted by Crespi (2007), these types of oriented initiatives do not challenge the mainstreaming strategy because this could be implemented in many different ways in relation to activities such as research, policy development, policy analysis, programme delivery or technical assistance activities. It is important to emphasise different possibilities of GM actions, as this enriches the various patterns which can then better apply to new potential situations. Starting from the promotion of PAs, today policymakers are invited to integrate equal opportunity in every policy and field of action at all levels and to implement GM as a systematic consideration of the needs of both women and men in the definition of all policies. Achievements in promoting equality and reducing gender gaps in strategic sectors, such as employment, social inclusion, education, research and external relations, have differed over time and in modalities, and in most of the strategic sectors, the differences continue to exist (Miller and Razavi, 1998; March et al, 1999; Hafner-​Burton and Pollack, 2009). In recent years, the European Commission has decided to intervene in a targeted manner in these areas (European Commission, 2016). In particular, the proposal that has emerged over the past ten years establishes

22

Gender equality and gender mainstreaming

some fundamental points, among which are the strengthening of women’s position in the labour market while promoting policies of conciliation and care, male involvement in reconciliation and equality, gender and domestic violence resources, and increasing women’s involvement in politics and business. Changes in gender equality perspectives in Europe In recent decades (1997–​2017), EU legislation on gender equality has created a coherent and consolidated legal framework that states are required to respect (Mazey, 2002; Subrahmanian, 2004), making the EU one of the most advanced regimes in the world that takes gender equality into account (Woodward, 2012; Bendl and Schmidt, 2013). The general progress of society has made these developments possible, even if changes did not occur automatically, and they are the result of strategic political initiatives to promote gender equality at the Union and national levels. There have been many discussions about what equality means (and does not mean) in practice, as well as how to achieve it; even though it is clear that there are global patterns of inequality between women and men, what is not as clear or common are the issues that they must struggle against (Verloo, 2001, 2007; Hafner-​Burton and Pollack, 2002). Furthermore, a cultural change in the ideas and conceptualisation of gender equality has occurred over recent decades in Europe, starting with equal treatment and positive actions and moving towards GM. As discussed earlier, a particularly debated issue is the very meaning of GM and its possible application, including positive and affirmative actions. Eveline and Bacchi (2005) questioned the fact that since the concept of gender is the subject of different interpretations, the development of policies could be affected by the different conceptual approaches to which they refer. ‘Gender’ is often used as shorthand for ‘women’. Most development policies direct the bulk of their ‘gender mainstreaming’ efforts

23

Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Equality in Europe

toward activities that aim to empower women economically and politically, protect their rights, and increase their representation in all manner of decision-​making bodies. But gender is not just about women. Gender refers to socially constructed roles of both women and men as well as the relationships between them in a given society at a specific time and place. For example, if the concept of gender often risks being flattened to the women’s question, this would imply that the strategies adopted would target only women (PA and/​or equal treatment). A static approach to gender roles as implied in these initial approaches tends to neglect the cultural components of gendered risks, reducing the meaning of biological differences, which would then risk being neglected later in an approach that neutralises those differences, such as GM). Gender difference is therefore overcome by a gender neutral approach, where the neutralisation of differences between men and women –​though inspired by the positive principle of doing away with inequalities –​might eventually prove to be a very doubtful advantage: when gender relations are considered solely in terms of equality/​inequality, there is a danger to lose sight of or remove attention from the original, positive difference underlying gender relations. This results in a gender neutral approach, where the actual value of gender difference is removed from political and cultural discourse. To solve or prevent inequalities, you null differences (Crespi, 2007). The authors consider the lack of a common conceptualisation as a possible reason for the absence of particularly evident results of this strategy. There is a need for recognition that inequality between women and men is a relational issue and that inequalities are not going to be resolved through a focus only on women. A relational perspective, which conceives gender in a perspective of the dynamics between genders, will instead orientate the political and legislative proposal by targeting both men and women (Crespi, 2009; Donati, 2007) in their spheres of life and in negotiation with gender relations.

24

Gender equality and gender mainstreaming

In addition, the traditional forms of interventions targeted at specific cases, such as positive actions favouring disadvantaged minorities in particular categories, produce more immediate effects but also expose the limits of this approach as explained earlier. GM, on the other hand, takes a long time and aims to transform cultures and policies in order to introduce substantial, far-​reaching and long-​lasting changes in society. In other words, the principle of GM invites us to adopt a strategy to prevent discrimination by framing the decisions taken in every institutional and social place within a ‘gender perspective’. The ending of -​ing in gender mainstreaming (and not gender mainstream) suggests applying gender considerations to reality in movement, in the making of society through laws, customs, institutional norms and so on. The likely impact that any decision can have on women and men in politics, the economy, organisations, institutions and schools must, therefore, be identified before the decision is made. Common to mainstreaming in all sectors or development issues is that gender equality is brought into the mainstream of activities rather than dealt with as an add-​on. Steps in the mainstreaming strategy include: the assessment of how and why gender differences and inequalities are relevant to the subject under discussion, identifying where there are opportunities to narrow these inequalities, and deciding on the approach to be taken (UN, 1996). A thoughtful transformation of the structures and systems, which are at the root of subordination and gender inequality, is required: to do this, we must uncover the hidden biases that limit women’s and men’s ability to enjoy equal rights and opportunities and find the most effective and culturally appropriate means to support women’s and men’s capacities to drive social change. (Ruprecht, 2003: 6)

25

Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Equality in Europe

Inherent in Ruprecht’s statement is the necessity for different ways of thinking about gender equality. As we have stressed, GM is not a goal in itself, but is a transnational process and strategy that consists of bringing the gender issue, which could be seen as marginal, to the centre of decisional and organisational processes. Furthermore, the successes achieved in promoting equality and reducing gender gaps in strategic sectors, such as employment, social inclusion, education, research and external relations, are different over time and between member states; although, in most strategic sectors, the gaps continue to exist.8 The implementation of progressive policies is often delayed, and member states sometimes implement EU gender law in welfare policies incorrectly or in different ways from other countries. This is a significant limitation to GM policies and overall equality  –​this point will this be discussed at more length later in Chapter Three. Several authors (Walby, 2005; Woodward, 2008; Eveline and Bacchi, 2005; Lombardo and Meier, 2006; Stratigaki, 2005) positively described the process of GM, which aims to foster significant social transformations, including the implementation of this perspective in all EU policies. This perspective implies a radical change in international and regional policy processes, where gender issues become a central concern not simply for a specific institution dealing with women, but rather for all actors across a range of issue areas and at all stages in the policy process: planning, managing and evaluation. This, at its heart, is the GM perspective. This means that, for example, for any policy and action undertaken, the consequences and impact should be assessed for both the lives of men and women. Some authors (Verloo, 2001; Kantola and Nousiainen, 2012), however, have also highlighted the insubstantiality of this transnational policy. In particular, reference has been made to the fragmentation in the implementation of GM processes, due to the different meanings

26

Gender equality and gender mainstreaming

attributed to the terms ‘gender’ and ‘mainstreaming’, as well as the different historical paths of gender relations present in the member states. The national governments, while receptive to the European suggestions, implement the strategy and apply the concepts to the implementation of policies in a diversified way (see Chapter Three). Nonetheless, gender disparities are a recurring topic in scientific and political debates, to the point that the European Commission reiterated the need for member states (old and new) to devote greater efforts towards equal opportunities in the coming years and identified some objectives on which to intervene. These include equal economic independence, wage equality for work of equal value, and equality in decision-​making processes (European Commission, 2010, 2014). The mainstreaming of gender within policies has contributed to an overall improvement to Europe’s current situation, when considering the starting point of equal pay in 1957. Nonetheless, new initiatives are needed to increase jobs in order to meet the current challenges, such as an ageing society, including the provision of adequate pensions for men and women, rising austerity, and crises becoming more and more significant. Particular attention should be paid to mobilising the full potential of women’s work and to promoting participation in the labour market by women who are no longer young, who are immigrants and who are the ones receiving the lowest salaries (Jacquot, 2010; MacRae, 2010, 2013).9 Although there are limits, fragmentation has been found in GM implementation, and it is difficult to verify whether these policies are actually having a sufficiently positive impact (Walby, 2005; Moser and Moser, 2005; Lavena and Riccucci, 2012). It is certain, however, that this strategy is of considerable importance for the cultural repercussions that such debate and directives have in institutionalising gender equality. In this sense, the EU is a fundamental transnational actor in the development of this strategy in requiring member states and candidate countries to

27

Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Equality in Europe

promote equality at the national level. As suggested by Hafner-​ Burton and Pollack (2001: 5), [GM] is a potentially revolutionary concept, which promises to bring a gender dimension into all international governance but … is also an extraordinarily demanding model, which requires the adoption of a gender perspective by all the central actors in the policy process –​some of whom may have little experience or interest in gender issues. While we must admit that European GM has been often accepted as the best possible strategy, it is also necessary to recognise that the possibilities of activating the processes of cultural change inherent in this strategy are potentially significant, even if some critical and difficult aspects still remain (see Chapter Six). Highlights from this chapter In this chapter, the main issue has been the definition, understanding and exploration of the multifaceted issue of the gender equality approach, used over the past 60  years (1957–​2017), which the EU has developed to promote equal opportunities between men and women. In the beginning, EU equal opportunities strategies were mainly focused on the implementation of specific measures addressing women (equal treatment phase), which led to the introduction of numerous PAs and antidiscrimination programmes (positive action phase). At a later stage, these approaches gave way to the adoption of the so-​called GM strategy, which involves the incorporation of equal opportunities between men and women into all political fields (GM phase). GM exposes a need for changes in goals, strategies and actions to ensure that both women and men can influence, participate in and benefit from development processes, both in structures, procedures and cultures, in order to create

28

Gender equality and gender mainstreaming

organisational environments that encourage the promotion of gender equality. This new strategy has formed a substantial and important pillar in the context of the individual rights of citizens of the Union by creating a basis of equal rights guaranteed to all, regardless of gender. Therefore, the principle of equal opportunities no longer involves only women, but women and men as subjects who should contribute in a profound sense to the emergence of their respective specificities and consequent responsibilities. As recently highlighted by the European Commission (2014), inequalities and discrimination between men and women are not only addressed through laws and sanctions –​otherwise, current legislation would contain all the tools needed to eliminate the phenomenon  –​but by breaking down invisible barriers due to societal gender roles (glass ceiling, access to high-​level positions, the gender pay and pension gaps) that obstruct the pursuit of effective equality. As suggested by several scholars (van der Vleuten, 2012; Hebson and Rubery, 2018), the goal is still a profound change to institutions, to society and to the workplace, where equality can easily materialise in a renewed cultural context.

29

TWO Gender mainstreaming in Europe: legislation and cultural changes

This chapter will focus on the different stages of the development of European legislation on equal opportunities and compare the existing framework of Community policies and legislation within European countries. The goal is to identify which regulatory initiatives have improved the female condition and gender equality over time. Recognising that gender is something that influences people’s everyday lives through their practices, experiences and relation­ ships may help policymakers who undertake a gender analysis1 to see how the policy process has gendered effects. Those effects need to be taken into account before they reproduce existing inequalities, as the cost of rectifying mistakes can be expensive. A recognition of how gendering is being done could also lead to a better mapping of policies that generate transformative change. A transformative agenda means challenging the norms and practices that produce gender inequalities by highlighting and intervening in the gendering process of policymaking (Bacchi and Eveline, 2010; Lavena and Riccucci, 2012).

31

Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Equality in Europe

During the making of the EU, issues of gender equality played a key role in fostering conditions of equality in the labour market and have started to have an important influence on the policymaking process of member states (Rees, 1998, 2005; Moser and Moser, 2005; Barbier, 2013; Allwood, 2013; Cavaghan, 2017a, 2017b). Promoting gender equality has been reinforced by law, as a core activity for the EU; equality between women and men is a fundamental EU value, objective and a driver for economic growth. The EU has always influenced the level of governance at the national level, and in the 2000s it reached a high of 70 per cent of member state legislation being derived from the European level. This corresponds to a partial loss of national sovereignty yet  also guarantees a common strategy of development and orientation towards a common set of values and rights. In particular, for gender equality policies, the implementation of a common strategy geared towards gender equality is reflected in recommendations, which are sometimes binding, for member states, as well as requirements that candidate countries must adapt to, including making their laws compatible with European values and standards (Crespi and Lomazzi, 2018). EU legislation changes towards gender mainstreaming In the evolution of European legislation on equal opportunities, there have been three fundamental stages: the protection phase and prohibition of discrimination; equal opportunities and positive actions; and the GM phase. Meyer and Prügl (1999) described the development of a GM strategy in the EU by illustrating how it was shaped initially by gender equality policy goals (equal payment, women’s participation in the labour force). By exploring the historical periodisation of equal opportunities delivery strategies, and challenging the compartmentalisation of these developments, they suggested that equality policies can better be conceptualised in terms of a three-​legged

32

Gender mainstreaming in Europe

equality stool (Booth and Bennett, 2002), which recognises the interconnectedness of three perspectives –​the equal treatment perspective, the women’s perspective and the gender perspective. Moreover, it has become commonplace to divide European equal opportunities policies into three different phases or three ideal-​ typical approaches to gender issues: equal treatment, PA and GM. In the early days of the European Community and its legislation, the policies of equality and parity had a rather limited meaning, coherent only with the aims of socioeconomic cohesion that was functional with the creation of the single market. In this light, equality is something that must be guaranteed to competitors in a market, which must not be discriminated against in pursuing their business and professional objectives. One of the main issues relevant to gender equality was the principle of equal pay. Gender equality is part of the first paragraph of Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome of 1957 (later corresponding to Article 141 of the Treaty establishing the European Community), which establishes the principle of equal pay for equal work between men and women: Each Member State shall during the first stage ensure and subsequently maintain the application of the principle that men and women should receive equal pay for equal work. For the purpose of this Article, “pay” means the ordinary basic it minimum wage or salary and any other consideration, whether in cash or in kind, which the worker receives, directly or indirectly, in respect of his employment from his employer. Equal pay without discrimination based on sex means: (a) that pay for the same work at piece rates shall be calculated on the basis of the same unit of measurement; (b) that pay for work at time rates shall be the same for the same job. Article 119 referred to the right of women to earn equal pay to men, but its inclusion in the Treaty was more concerned with

33

Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Equality in Europe

the prevention of market distortions rather than an explicit commitment to social policy. However, starting from equal pay, European Community legislation continued to consider equal treatment and equal opportunities, including parental leave and measures to combat sexual harassment in the workplace. In the same period, a fundamental role was played by the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice, which, when applying Article 119 and Directive 75/​117,2 contributed to the understanding of key concepts for the implementation of equal pay (the concepts of remuneration, direct and indirect discrimination and equal work/​equal value). This made it possible for the Commission to prepare directives on equal treatment, which proved highly significant, serving as the source for five gender equality directives between 1975–​1986.3 However, Article 119 (the legal basis) and the five directives, four recommendations and four action programmes that followed still largely focused on equal pay and related labour market matters. Like European Community social policy, ‘the policies on the equality of women have been substantially confined to measures essential to the making of the common market and the restructuring of labour markets’ (Rossilli, 2000: 5). It is clear that since the beginning of this process, the core concern has been work and employment with regards to gender equality, rather than family and education. It was argued by Woodward (2012) that equal treatment policies were blind to the unequal position of men and women in relation to labour market access, not only in respect to past discriminations (for example, the inferior and gendered education customarily offered to girls in the past), but also because this approach neglected the consequences of the caring and domestic responsibilities that have customarily been assigned to women. Thus, until the beginning of the 1990s, many equality initiatives were essentially confined to employment policies; however, they did allow for the achievement of important goals in the promotion of the equal treatment of genders in accessing and carrying out labour relations.

34

Gender mainstreaming in Europe

The second period of this evolutionary process came with the Treaty of Maastricht,4 which laid out the basic rules on equal opportunities between men and women in relation to the labour market and treatment in the workplace. To facilitate the carrying out of work by women, the protocol expressly establishes the legitimacy of positive discrimination, or those measures that give women priority over men in sectors where they have greater difficulty in establishing themselves. In addition to antidiscrimination policies, the second period also included PA, where ‘the emphasis shifts from equality of access to creating conditions more likely to result in equality of outcome’ (Rees, 1998: 34). This approach is based on the idea that membership criteria to a group makes a difference in outcome. This could be positive or negative, depending on different societies’ belonging and gender equality policies, and on the willingness of making actions effective. Furthermore, PA implies the adoption of specific actions on behalf of women in order to overcome their unequal starting positions in a male-​oriented, patriarchal society. Thus, in the 1990s, a number of countries within the EU developed policies of PA as a consequence of a series of judgements that justified PA to help women catch up with men –​particularly in respect to the labour market. These actions included training courses designed to attract women, childcare projects and assertiveness training (Crespi, 2007). States, in addition to this minimum protection, can adopt positive complementary measures for women. Following the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty, important directives and recommendations 5 were adopted regarding part-​time work, parental leave and the participation of women in decision-​making processes. The progress marked in these years of the EU’s gender policy evolution was underscored by the entry of ‘women friendly’ states into the European Community, such as Sweden, Finland and Austria, in relation to services and measures that help women balance work and family in different ways (Ellina, 2003).

35

Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Equality in Europe

Moreover, in the same period, a decisive contribution came from the birth and development of numerous European bodies and associations for the protection of women’s rights, which initiated coordinated lobbying activities at the Commission and the European Parliament. At the end of 1995, the third period began with GM,6 when the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing defined GM as the global strategy for gender equality and called for action: ‘Governments and other actors should promote an active and visible policy of mainstreaming a gender perspective in all policies and programs so that before decisions are taken, an analysis is made of the effects on women and men, respectively’ (UN, 1996, Art. 79). Issues did arise at the beginning of the process of implementing GM in the EU around 1996, but the focus remained on the potential role of the EU in bridging the gap between formal and substantive equality and its impact on women’s choices regarding maternity. To address the questions that arose from the introduction of mainstreaming into the political rhetoric and definition of EU policies, EU policies continue to promote a concept of equality that is at least partially in favour of formal and legal rights. However, this continued focus on formal rights has happened at the expense of a more global approach to gender and gender-​based gender roles (see Chapter Three). Furthermore, the implementation of a common strategy geared towards gender equality is reflected in frequent recommendations to member states, as well as homogenised requirements for candidate countries, which require that their laws are compatible with European values and standards. In Europe, regardless of its early acceptance of the principle of gender equality,7 it took almost 40 years before the European Commission, through the Communication on Incorporating Equal Opportunities for Women and Men into all Community Policies and Activities (on 21 February 1996), committed itself to GM as a strategy for the promotion of gender equality in all its policies and activities, alongside the implementation of specific measures.

36

Gender mainstreaming in Europe

In fact it committed itself to a ‘dual approach’ for realising gender equality that ‘involves not restricting efforts to promote equality to the implementation of specific measures to help women, but mobilising all general policies and measures specifically for the purpose of achieving equality’ (European Commission, 1996).8 GM was, therefore, launched to promote gender equality in all European policies, within the context of international and European mobilisation on women’s issues. It was aimed at transforming mainstream policies by introducing a gender equality perspective. This new approach was then definitively consecrated in the 1997 Treaty of Amsterdam, which included new forecasts meant to strengthen the competences of the Union in the area of equal opportunities. The original Art. 119 on equal pay was replaced by the more detailed provision pursuant to Art. 141,9 which, in addition to detailing the concept of ‘equal pay’, provides for qualified majority voting by the Board and co-​decision with the European Parliament on the issue of subsequent regulations on equal opportunities. It also contains a specific clause allowing states to adopt discriminatory policies for women in order to reduce the gender gap. The most innovative provisions of the Treaty of Amsterdam, however, are those referred to in Art. 2 and 3, recognising equal opportunities for men and women as a fundamental objective of the Union that must guide and be incorporated into all EU policies. In the end, the Amsterdam Treaty explicitly identified the elimination of inequalities between men and women and the promotion of gender equality in all activities of the European Community as one of its main objectives, thus validating concepts of GM opportunities in a legal and institutional framework. This process involved systematically considering all differences in the status and needs of women and men in all fields of European Community intervention. Gender and equality issues must, therefore, be introduced in all activities, particularly in planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation, as suggested by the Treaty. This strategy has proved to

37

Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Equality in Europe

be a valuable tool in promoting gender equality and integration that, when combined with specific actions, especially legislative and financial programmes, is the two-​track approach defined in the Community framework strategy on gender equality. However, in reality, these rules are not directly effective and do not create legally enforceable rights for European women. They do, though, represent the constitutional affirmation of the Union’s commitment to GM, which has become the necessary prerequisite for conferring legal authority and political coverage to subsequent Commission proposals. The principle of GM is also explained in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, proclaimed in Nice in 2000. It is reflected in some important directives issued at the beginning of the 2000s too, which tend to consolidate the principle of equal treatment between men and women at various levels of economic and working life.10 In March 2000, the Council of Europe, held in Lisbon, set out some daring and ambitious goals, whereby the EU sought to become the most dynamic, competitive and sustainable knowledge-​based economy in the world within ten years (2010) in a framework of full employment and stronger social and economic cohesion (the so-​called Lisbon strategy). The Council also identified new objectives for women in employment, essentially aimed at increasing female employment rates. One of the main new elements introduced in the Lisbon document was employment targets, namely female employment rates. Until then, European governments had aimed at reducing unemployment rates. Further, since the Lisbon Council, national governments have set new targets in their employment rates, including raising the female employment rate to 60 per cent. The Lisbon strategy reinforces and explicates the principles already established in previous treaties on equality and GM. In particular, it explicitly qualifies gender equality as one of the founding values of the Union (Article 1) and highlights it as one of the objectives to be pursued, together with the fight against

38

Gender mainstreaming in Europe

discrimination (Article 2). It also establishes the commitment to include the gender perspective in all the activities of the Union as a horizontal principle. However, it was only in Directive 2002/​73 that Community legislators made an explicit call to member states to consider the objective of equality between men and women in formulating and implementing laws, regulations, administrative acts, policies and activities in compliance with the directive (an invitation that was then reiterated in the subsequent Directive 2006/​ 54). There was, then, a significant change of course: a general principle of planning became an express regulatory command; however, the cogency is mitigated by the fact that the directive identifies only one method (GM) for achieving the objective of equality between men and women and left the responsibility for its application to member states. In March 2002, the Barcelona European Council set objectives in this area following the previous directive: Member States should remove disincentives to female labour force participation, taking into account the demand for childcare facilities and in line with national patterns of provision, to provide childcare by 2010 to at least 90 per cent of children between 3 years old and the mandatory school age and at least 33 per cent of children under 3 years of age.11 In addition, the Barcelona objectives were related to ‘the development of childcare facilities for young children in Europe with a view to sustainable and inclusive growth’ as cited in the title of the document, aimed at reducing discrimination against women when considering the issue of childcare services. Further, the Commission expects the Barcelona European Council to provide drive for: developing employment policies, particularly in the area of active labour market policies. Low employment and a

39

Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Equality in Europe

high level of unemployment mean that too many European men and women are kept idle against their will, when they should be working to create wealth and promote social inclusion. The Union simply cannot afford to continue in this fashion. Action must be geared up to helping people to enter and remain in the workforce, as well as improving skills and mobility in the European Union.12 The EU adopted its first Resolution on GM in the European Parliament on 13 March 2003, committing to regularly adopting and implementing policy plans for GM and suggesting guidelines for applying GM in the committees’ and delegations’ policy work. This resolution in particular stressed those aspects of gender balance, work–​family balance and antidiscrimination within the organisation of the EU itself. The Roadmap for Equality: a shift in gender oriented legislation In 2006, the EU’s A Roadmap for Equality between Women and Men for 2006–​2010 (1 March) outlined the following priorities: equal economic independence for women and men, reconciliation of private and professional life, equal representation in decision making, eradication of all forms of gender-​based violence and gender stereotypes, and promotion of gender equality in external and development policies. The Roadmap aims to eliminate disparities between men and women by identifying specific reasons for them in the first place, such as the absence of flexible working conditions and care services, the persistence of gender stereotypes and the unequal division of family responsibilities. It identified six priority areas of intervention for gender policies for the period of 2006–​2010: • achieving equal economic independence between men and women through the female employment objective set by the Lisbon European Council in 2000 (60 per cent in 2010,

40

Gender mainstreaming in Europe

• • • • •

which has almost been reached, given that, despite the 2008 financial crisis, the rate recorded at the end of 2010 in the 27-​country EU was 58.6 per cent), the reduction of the salary gap and professional segregation between men and women, the access of women workers and entrepreneurs to financing and training and social security protection and adequate healthcare; improving the reconciliation of work and private life: more flexible working conditions and working hours, better care services, greater responsibility for males in family life; promote equal participation of men and women in decision-​ making processes and in managerial functions, especially in public facilities and research; fight gender-​based violence and trafficking of human beings; eliminate gender stereotypes in society, starting with education and culture; and promote gender equality outside the EU by applying cooperation agreements and requiring third party countries to implement the principles recognised by international organisations.

Considering the importance of the area of intervention fixed in the Roadmap, at the European Council of 23–​24 March 2006, the member states approved the First European Pact for Gender Equality. The Pact demonstrates the member states’ determination to implement policies aimed at promoting the employment of women and guaranteeing a better balance between professional and private life in order to meet the challenges of demographic change. In particular, the European Council has adopted the Pact in order to encourage action by the member states at the European level in the following fields: measures to close gender gaps and combat gender stereotypes in the labour market, measures to promote a better work–​life balance for all and measures to reinforce governance through GM and better monitoring. In this context, it appeared essential to develop

41

Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Equality in Europe

childcare services in order to achieve the Barcelona objectives (2002), but Europe still needed a legal framework to make the objectives become practices. The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) was signed in 2007. Article 19 of the TFEU provides the legal basis for EU legislation combating discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age and sexual orientation. The Treaty also takes gender into account in the following fields: the principle of GM –​‘In all its activities, the Union shall aim to eliminate inequalities, and to promote equality between women and men’ (Article 8); social exclusion and discrimination (Article 9); the principle of equality between men and women with regard to labour market opportunities and treatment (Article 157); prevention and action against all kinds of trafficking and the sexual abuse of women (Article 79); and the fight against domestic violence (Declaration on Article 8 of TFEU). In addition, the European Commission communication Nondiscrimination and Equal Opportunities: A Renewed Commitment (European Commission, 2008)  further presents the EU’s approach to fighting discrimination on the grounds of race or ethnicity, religion or belief, disability, age, gender or sexual orientation and promoting equal opportunities. It seeks to ensure that everyone is given a fair chance to realise their potential and that the EU strengthens its fight against discrimination through policy tools for the active promotion of equal opportunities. This European Commission communication also points out that the fight against discrimination cannot be won by legislation alone. Nevertheless, effective and properly-​enforced laws can play an important role in delivering changes in people’s attitudes and behaviour. Here, the Commission has two important tasks to perform: • ensuring that existing EU laws are implemented (examples include the directives on equal treatment in employment

42

Gender mainstreaming in Europe

and occupation, on equal treatment, irrespective of racial or ethnic origin, and on the equal treatment of men and women outside the employment market); and • proposing new laws to extend the scope of legal protection from all forms of discrimination in all areas of life (for example, the proposal for a directive on the equal treatment of persons, irrespective of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation). After the indicative goal in that 2008 communication, in 2009, the Treaty of Lisbon13 included enhancements to the social dimension of the EU. It adds the non-​discrimination principle a nd equality between women and men to the values of the EU (Article 2)  and mandates that the Union shall combat discrimination and promote equality between women and men (Article 3). This Treaty was the first mandatory document to fight against discrimination and make the narrative of gender equality an essential issue of the debate. The Charter of Fundamental Rights (30 March 2010), through Art. 21, affirms the principle of non-​discrimination based on any ground, including sex. Furthermore, Art. 23 relates to women’s rights and gender equality, affirming that ‘equality between women and men must be ensured in all areas, including employment, work and pay’. In the same year, the EIGE14 was established.15 In September 2010, the Strategy for Equality between Women and Men for 2010–​2015 identified the following priority areas for action: equal economic independence; equal pay for equal work and work of equal value; equality in decision making; dignity, integrity and an end to gender-​based violence; and gender equality in external actions (including the EU plan of action). In this Strategy, the Commission specified gender equality goals for each priority field. Furthermore, all Directorates-​General are invited to set gender equality objectives in the Commission’s yearly programming cycle and work programme. The actions

43

Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Equality in Europe

demonstrate the commitment of Directorates-​G eneral concerning gender equality in their respective policy field. Five years after the first Pact, on 7 March 2011, the Council of the EU approved another European Pact for Gender Equality 2011–​2020. This new version acknowledged that equality between women and men is a fundamental value of the EU and that gender equality policies are vital to economic growth, prosperity and competitiveness. Within this period, the ‘Five-​ year strategy for the promotion of equality between men and women (2010–​2015)’ was introduced, which included a series of measures based on five priorities: the economy and the labour market, equal pay, equality in positions of responsibility, the fight against gender-​based violence and the promotion of equality outside of the EU.16 One of the most recent documents on gender equality is the H2020 Programme Guidance on Gender Equality in Horizon 2020, delivered on 22 April 2016. It mainly refers to science and research rather than all aspects of GM, but in any case, it is an important continuation of GM policies in different areas of political and civil actions. The text is an important document regarding the implementation of gender equality where gender is a cross-​cutting issue and is mainstreamed in each of the different areas of interests and disciplines, ensuring a more integrated approach to research and innovation. It is the first time that the field of science and research is strictly connected to the need to measure and check women’s opportunities for entrance and to be part of the innovation process in different areas. On 20 September 2016, the Strategic Engagement for Gender Equality 2016–​2019 became a reference framework for increased effort at all levels, be they European, national, regional or local. It further corroborated the 2011–​2020 European Pact for Gender Equality. Promoting gender equality is again reinforced as a core activity for the EU: equality between women and men remains a fundamental EU value and driver of economic growth.

44

Gender mainstreaming in Europe

Therefore, the Commission continues its practical work to promote gender equality. Action will continue with a focus on all four priority areas (European Commission, 2015): • reducing the gender pay, earnings and pension gaps and thus fighting poverty among women; • promoting equality between women and men in decision​making; • combating gender-​b ased violence and protecting and supporting victims; and • promoting gender equality and women’s rights across the world. The last guidelines regarding gender equality and GM are stated in the Council of Europe’s Gender Equality Strategy 2018–​2 023, delivered in April 2018. The new strategy highlights the need to increase the number of women who can potentially benefit from GM and GM policies, including through the protection of particularly disadvantaged groups of women, such as poor women, women with disabilities, and migrant and refugee women. These potential discriminations intersect in a perspective of greater complexity and require the ability to consider the debate on multiple discriminations while concentrating on the inclusion of multiple identities and intersectionality.17 Intersectional discrimination based on ethnicity, age, disability, sexual orientation or gender identity, among others, undermines certain groups of women. Therefore, intersectionality is addressed as a cross-​cutting issue between the priority objectives of the new strategy. Highlights from this chapter Legislation aiming to promote gender equality has evolved substantially, starting from a global strategy in 1975, when the UN established International Women’s Year, prompting most

45

Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Equality in Europe

Western nations to acknowledge gender inequality  –​then known as women’s discrimination  –​as a public issue that deserved public intervention, strategies and political instruments. As observed, in the evolution of gender equality and GM legislation, the principles set out in the treaties and directives have been accompanied over time by constant stimulating action by the Community’s institutions, through many programmes, including the equal opportunity action programmes set up since the 1980s. The issues raised at the beginning of the GM implementation process in the EU around 1995 focused on the potential role of the EU in bridging the gap between formal and substantive equality, and its impact on women’s choices about motherhood. GM was launched in 1996 to promote gender equality in all European policies, specifically in the context of international and European mobilisation on women’s issues. It was aimed at transforming mainstream policies by introducing a gender equality perspective. Furthermore, the implementation of a common strategy oriented at gender equality reflects frequent recommendations to member states, as well as homogenised requirements for candidate countries, which require that their laws be compatible with European values and norms. The most recent strategic guidelines (2016–​2019 and 2018–​ 2023) aim for equality and equal opportunities between men and women, which are strategic objectives both for the Community and for the definition of regulations and actions at the national and local levels. GM could be considered as an extraordinarily demanding concept, requiring the adoption of a gender perspective by all the central actors in the policy process and, even considering its limits and blunders, European GM is still the most crucial transnational strategy currently in existence that promotes gender equality in all domains of social life.

46

THREE Gender mainstreaming and social policies in Europe From its earliest days, the principle of gender equality was considered a key factor of GM policies. This general notion includes the different identities of European citizens, the acknowledgement and protection of minority groups, the valuing of differences, and the creation of a social, cultural and legal framework supporting gender balance. The notion of mainstreaming is a way to combine social responsibility and the promotion of women’s participation in all European policies and political decision-​making positions with a bottom-​up approach. The main issues regarding equal opportunities have moved from social policies for unemployed women and improvements for childcare facilities to the consideration of GM in other policy areas, as well as the macroeconomic effects on the labour market for women. Increasing the employment rate was generally considered crucially important for safeguarding the sustainability of the welfare state and achieving a number of other socioeconomic objectives. Later, more areas, such as work–​family balance, childcare services, women’s representation in politics, female employment and, more recently, eliminating gender violence, have been considered. This implies a greater

47

Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Equality in Europe

extension and pervasiveness of the theme of gender equality in all policies and in different cultural contexts.1 The question today is how and how much is this gender perspective introduced by European directives and guidelines through legislation influencing policies at different levels, particularly at the national level? In what ways are different welfare states and regimes implementing the GM perspective and mediating it within their culture and society? In this chapter, the focus will be on how GM was and is a guide for European social policies at all levels and if the implementation process highlights difficulties or misunderstandings in its application. The specific issue of work–​family balance is taken as an example of GM applied policies. Lastly, the evaluation of gender equality and GM policies is conducted using gender budgeting and auditing. Implementing gender mainstreaming in social policies Europe’s concern over the issue of gender discrimination and the principle of gender equality was a key factor in the development of GM. The importance of the GM strategy for social policies is in its approach to gender equality and, in particular, in introducing a gender equality perspective into all policies at all levels of governance (Council of Europe, 1998). The issue, then, is the intersection of gender equality and GM, which is an approach to gender policies that is now widespread and has been constitutive at the European level since 1996, and the fragmentation and separation of the various gender equality initiatives by placing gender in policies at all levels of implementation. The notion of mainstreaming goes beyond the prior understanding of equal opportunities for assigning tasks and responsibilities and the artificially balanced distribution known as the ‘quota system’, as well as equal treatment policies and positive actions. Instead, it is a possible way of combining social

48

Gender mainstreaming and social policies in Europe

responsibility and the promotion of women’s participation in all European policies and political decision-​making positions with a bottom-​up approach (Crespi, 2007, 2009). This does not mean that specific gender equality policies and state instruments for delivering them should disappear, but it does mean that an all-​encompassing GM strategy should complement the national policy approaches to gender equality that are already in place (see Abels and Mushaben, 2012; Forest and Lombardo, 2012). What is important and innovative is the idea of considering social policies not only as helping but involving women since mainstreaming policies aim to increase efforts to promote equality and to implement specific measures for women. Overall, this helps in ‘activating all general policies and measures specifically for the purpose of achieving equality’ (European Commission, 1996). It is, therefore, an approach that, when incorporating gender into policies and placing it within the ‘mainstream’ of political action, envisages an inclusive way of defining gender policies that are capable of tackling the interrelated causes that create inequality in all areas of life (work, politics, sexuality, culture, violence, and so on) (Crespi, 2007; Caracciolo di Torella, 2018). Thus, GM is presented as a strategy of socio-​p olitical intervention that • must be integrated into all levels of decision making; • involves both men and women and makes full use of human resources; • considers the diversity between men and women; and • makes gender equality visible in the mainstream of socioeconomic development. Policymakers are, therefore, encouraged to take these factors into consideration with respect to citizens’ situations in life and their needs when implementing GM at the various levels of

49

Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Equality in Europe

intervention, starting with the priority plans and programmes that are intended to address socioeconomic development in the common interest. GM proposes to influence society as a whole by changing its norms and practices on the basis of gender inequality; norms and practices sustain gender inequality, maintaining barriers to women’s career progression and the fixed gender role structure. In order to bring about the preferred changes, GM introduces a gender perspective at all levels of the policy process, the emphasis being on the practices. This means not just immediate changes, but a continuous, sustainable process, in which gender objectives are permanently emphasised (Bendl and Schmidt, 2013). In the beginning, GM and equal opportunities mainly focused on social policies for unemployed women and improvements for childcare facilities while little attention was paid to other policy areas or was delayed. Later, as stated in the 2004 European Commission Report on the parity between men and women, [i]nequality between women and men is a multidimensional phenomenon that has to be tackled by a comprehensive mix of policy measures. The challenge is to ensure policies that support equal opportunities for women and men in education, employment and career development, entrepreneurship, equal pay for equal work or work of equal value, better sharing of family responsibilities, balanced participation of women and men in decision-​ making and the elimination of gender-​based violence. (European Commission, 2005) Later, more areas were added, such as equal economic independence, childcare services, women’s representation in politics and in business, women’s health and, finally gender and domestic violence (European Commission, 2016). More recently, however, the problem of the gender pension gap2 has arisen, influencing the situation of women across Europe and

50

Gender mainstreaming and social policies in Europe

highlighting a new area of potential gender inequality (Bettio et al, 2013; Zanier and Crespi, 2015). Today, policies for equal opportunities and GM suggest the reorganisation, development, advancement and assessment of policies and processes related to gender policies, such as inclusion, the incorporation of a gender equality perspective into all social policies, and the fight against poverty and violence at all levels (Verloo, 2005). If the implementation seems to be clearly defined from a legislative and declarative point of view, one must wonder how it is still not possible to draw up a balance sheet after more than 20 years of GM. The difficulty in drawing up an overall balance of gender and social policies in relation to GM is likely due to: a) the uncertainties and disagreements concerning the conceptual framework adopted to define such policies, starting from the meaning of gender equality and considering the different approaches (equal treatment, PA and GM) exposed in Chapter One3; and b) differences related to countries’ welfare regimes. First, in the debate around limitations or uncertainties of defining gender equality (identified in Chapter One), there are at least three possible ways of understanding the gender issue that then link specifically to the different ways of implementing gender policies: an approach oriented towards equality and ‘equal treatment’ that puts policies at the centre of achieving greater impartiality and reducing the gender gap in the fields of education, work, family, health and politics; an ‘antidiscrimination strategy’ that underlines the productive meaning of the difference and thus demanding the implementation of open policies towards gender specificity; and a ‘displacement strategy’, which aims to ‘go beyond gender’, starting from the assumption that gender identities are socially determined and are themselves the product of particular political discourses (and, therefore, power talks) that tend to reproduce them. It is evident, then, that the policies inspired by the different strategies differ in terms of goals to be

51

Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Equality in Europe

achieved, resources to be mobilised, implementation procedures and evaluation methods. In addition, there are many misgivings about both the conceptual approach and practice of GM. It has been observed (Squires, 2005) that this approach is substantially configured as a technical process carried out by the normal policymakers using methodological tools that present themselves as neutral. In this way, an integrative, rather than a transformative, optic is adopted, which is still far from the path of a greater gender democracy capable of really giving a voice to the female component, particularly in decision-​making processes. It can also be observed that incorporating gender into policies that have priority (especially economic ones) means risking losing sight of the specificity of the female condition, the specificity that the ‘positive actions’ approach introduced at the beginning of the 1990s tried to recognise in several specific areas (think of the system of quotas in politics and in company positions). This leaves the field open to various ways of setting gender policies, but does not facilitate the acquisition of well-​ defined methods for evaluating these policies. According to Crespi and Strohmeier (2008), the Europeanisation of important aspects of economic policy and the persistent differences across EU welfare states in social outcome indicators and capacity for redistribution contribute to the considerable constraints on the open method of coordination for social inclusion. Bruno et al (2006) explained that this is set within a culture of equal opportunities (such as GM), which receive significant attention at the European level and have been set as one of the main goals for a fairer society. Fulfilling GM’s potential is dependent on national policy legacies, political contexts and the involvement of a wide range of national actors in the formulation and monitoring of a National Action Plan. Second, there are many differences in application depending on various welfare regimes and their relationship with the issue

52

Gender mainstreaming and social policies in Europe

of gender. Despite the progress made, the level of achievement of gender equality has been uneven across regions and within countries. In particular, different approaches to the welfare state in cross-​national comparisons consider the interaction of the levels behind and between the state (national level and cross-​national level), the family, gender roles and the market in shaping people’s situations (Jo, 2011; Sumer, 2016). The role of culture is particularity helpful in illuminating welfare regime differences, though for a long time it has been marginalised. Culture is a powerful concept in welfare analysis concerning issues such as why someone should care about others and who is responsible for care (Pfau-​Effinger, 2005; Van Oorschot, 2007; Saraceno and Keck, 2011). Welfare state policies are based on specific ideas about social services and the ways they should be provided by the state, the family and/​or the market, and they differ on how much importance should be attributed to the family in the different aspects of social/​family life. How much does this impact gender roles and gender equality in a specific country? Several authors (Sainsbury, 1996; Daly and Lewis, 2000; Korpi, 2000; Lewis, 2009) have tried to reconceptualise the dimensions of welfare state variation, including the gender dimension. Analysing the mainstream welfare state typologies by the different roles of men and women within welfare states would, according to these authors, produce valuable insights. Gender analysis suggests that there are whole areas of social policy that Esping-​Andersen (1990), in his famous typology, simply missed. According to Pierson and Castles (2006), what seems to be missing is an efficient discussion of the gender issue, one that would mean no further omission of the question of gender nor the degree to which women are excluded from or included in the labour market. Other scholars (Lombardo and Meyer, 2006; Bacchi and Eveline, 2010) explored the extent to which a feminist reading

53

Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Equality in Europe

of GM has been incorporated into the European political discourse. The frame analysis of European documents on gender inequality in politics reveals a partial adoption of a feminist understanding of GM but only in the area of gender inequality in politics. So, GM is treated as a general ‘container’ that can be filled with both the feminist and non-​feminist perspectives. This could be a good option, as it allows the keeping together of various approaches to gender equality and different possible implementations of the concept. In a similar way, building on elements of existing feminist and mainstream comparative welfare state scholarship, Daly and Lewis (Daly, 2000; Daly and Lewis, 2000) analysed dimensions that are designed to capture the distributive principles underpinning welfare state provision, namely: the treatment of ‘male’ and ‘female’ risks within the tax-​benefit system; the construction of entitlement and treatment of different family types within the tax-​benefit system; and the nature and extent of service provisions, especially care services. The framework attempts to capture the processes through which welfare states construct gender relations. The most important and relevant issue here is the focus on outcomes and the relation­ship between social policy inputs and outcomes, which is perhaps the most appreciated component of Daly and Lewis’s studies, both at the conceptual and empirical level (Crespi, 2007). Korpi (2000) and Korpi et al (2013) distinguished between three ideal-​typical models of gendered welfare state institutions of relevance for this discussion. In this typology, the distinction between paid and unpaid labour is of central importance, and institutionalised family policy measures are conceived of in a two-​dimensional space according to what consequences these measures have for the distribution of paid and unpaid work in the family and in society. More specifically, the categorisation of social policy measures is based on whether a specified policy primarily contributes to the general support of a nuclear family

54

Gender mainstreaming and social policies in Europe

(especially one of the single-​earner type), or whether it is likely to enable and promote married women’s work and thus a dual-​ earner family. From a different perspective, other scholars (Crespi, 2009; Bendl and Schmidt, 2013; Bergqvist et  al, 2013; van der Vleuten, 2016) have also suggested that the gaps between countries in achieving gender equality are mainly linked to a problem of ‘effectiveness’ within the rules, which reflects the degree of affirmation of the gender issue in the system of dominant values in a society. This recalls the need to introduce tools of a general scope, capable of giving concrete forms to the principle of GM (statistics, gender budgets, ombudsman, interventions on the media and education). In terms of specific sector policies, ad hoc measures aimed at encouraging cultural change in the distribution of male and female roles in society (parental leave reform, for example) are important, as, if necessary, they can also impact existing balances in order to eliminate the potential exclusion of women from decision-​making processes (gender quotas). In particular, two interventions seemed useful for possibly determining a turnaround in a more GM oriented perspective, even in traditionally less ‘women/​gender issue friendly’ countries: a) cross- ​ c utting interventions, 4 which act on culture and awareness; and b) positive actions that can ‘force’ a change of course in cases where discrimination is perceived. In general, it can be observed that, regardless of the type of instrument used for this purpose, the achievement of an adequate political representation of women is perhaps the first and foremost prerequisite for effective implementation of the principle of GM. Among the useful instruments there is the model of gender budgeting (see later in this chapter) but to be  efficient it requires an active presence of women in the elaboration and approval phases of measuring socioeconomic policies that affect the collectivity of women and men –​that is to say, a GM approach.

55

Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Equality in Europe

Work–​family balance: social policies and gender mainstreaming in practice The relationship between family and work reconciliation policies, the evolution of equal opportunities and the reality of work and professional life have long been at the centre of a profound transformation in Europe and the object of reflections on how to make things fairer with a view to GM. Gender equality may or may not be explicitly included in welfare policies, but at any rate, these policies are both influenced by normative representations of gender and, in turn, have an important impact on women’s social citizenship, gender relations and family policies (Stratigaki, 2000; Crespi and Strohmeier, 2008; Hadas Mandel, 2011). In considering work–​family policies, the choice of a gender perspective is reinforced by the assumption that the (institutional and organisational) distinction between work policy and family policy is rooted in the gendered division of labour (Aboim, 2010; Moen, 2015). Observing the European situation, the overall figures shared by the various member states show that the relationship between family and work has been undergoing a process of progressive deterioration for several years, despite family and work being considered two fundamental areas of daily life and adult identity (Crespi and Rossi, 2012; Minguez and Crespi, 2017). Over the past decade, the socioeconomic context in all European countries has drastically changed as a consequence of significant changes in the labour market and family management, so that the difficulties in balancing work and family life have become more visible and more problematic (Fahlén, 2014; Lewis, 2018). According to Ackers (2003), in the context of this change, the flexibility, the irregularity, the unpredictability and the precariousness of today’s labour market and the fragility of family structures have made the boundaries between the different spheres of everyday life less clear, particularly between family and work. Further, one of the main reasons for low

56

Gender mainstreaming and social policies in Europe

female employment is the difficulty of reconciling professional activity, family and, in general, private life. How access to stable employment is a condition for economic independence and how women’s participation in decisions contributes to making political action more effective and building stronger, more prosperous democracies has become a major point of consideration for some scholars (Stier et al, 2012; Dotti Sani, 2018). In order to respond to European priorities, actions are needed to overcome horizontal and vertical segregation in the labour market, encouraging changes in the organisation of work, promoting a more equitable situation that is capable of fostering a greater sharing of family responsibilities between the genders and achieving a better balance between career and private life. The problem of reconciling work and family is a crucial point for the creation of equal opportunities in the European context. The resolution of the problem, therefore, should influence the social policies of all EU member states. In fact, it has implications for a range of different policy fields, like employment, labour organisation, social protection and family policies, and it mainly concerns women, who still carry most of the care work burden. Furthermore, work–​family balance is a sensitive issue, arising from the current demographic trends of populations and the related care needs, such as older people, dependents and disabled persons. As highlighted by Fahlén (2014), achieving the goals of the March 2000 Lisbon agreements is important for the goal of reconciliation measures, not just for work–​family balance, but because there are increasing concerns within various countries about lower birth rates, the postponement of childbearing, and the inevitable ageing of the population. Looking at the issue of reconciliation policies as an example of GM, gender equality is related to work and family issues because the traditional expectation that women will be responsible for their children can be a significant barrier to women’s employment opportunities, and this maintains gender inequality. Therefore, gender equality cannot be achieved without societal

57

Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Equality in Europe

recognition of the need to provide resources and support to help employees (men and women) in managing both work and family responsibilities (Crespi, 2007; Lomazzi et al, 2019). GM takes into consideration the relationship between work and family, favouring its adaptive dimension: privileging and observing this relationship only from the point of view of the need to provide women with resources in terms of formal rights, economic resources and time, therefore allowing them to adapt to changing economic and cultural conditions that require greater availability and participation in the labour market. In the European Community, work–​family balance is an expression that was first used in early-​1990s European Commission documents to identify the principles underlying the Community’s directives, briefings, recommendations and suggestions addressed to members states for encouraging them to support family-​friendly policies. In recent literature, work–​family balance policies include all those arrangements intentionally or unintentionally promoting a balance between paid work and care responsibilities, as well as all strategies aimed at balancing conflicting time demands in order to reduce time conflicts in everyday life (Crompton, 2006; Lewis et al, 2008; Crespi and Miller, 2013; Brandth et al, 2017). In the ten-​year period from 1990 to 2000, European Commission policies were mainly focused on the promotion of work–​family balance through the provision of care services for children and other dependents. Therefore, the issue of how to organise childcare services entered the political debate, and new political measures regarding childcare services and their availability have been taken in many European countries (Caracciolo di Torella and Masselot, 2010; Lewis, 2018). Another approach by the Council of Europe, held in Lisbon in 2000, defined some specific goals regarding full employment, the competitive position of Europe in the global market and, in particular, focused on women in employment, basically aiming at increasing female employment rates. This included

58

Gender mainstreaming and social policies in Europe

measures to reduce occupational segregation and increase the possibility of balancing work and family life. Therefore, new benchmarking standards were set to enhance childcare services and recommendations were made for full female integration into the so-​called new economy (Lomazzi et al, 2019). Later, the European Commission issued a report on equality between men and women, showing the main developments in the relative situation of women and men in education, employment and social life (European Commission, 2005). It emphasised that reconciling work and family life remains a problem for many women because women with children have lower employment rates than those without, the majority of domestic work is still carried out by women and the lack of affordable childcare remains an obstacle to equality. Women’s lower participation in the labour market means that their pension entitlements are significantly lower than those of men are and, consequently, gaps between older men and women are more acute, with elderly women at a higher risk of poverty than men (European Commission, 2013). The purpose of GM policies in this sector was not only to promote a balance between work and family responsibilities –​ which is needed to achieve the Lisbon targets –​but also to help solve the increasing problems affecting several European countries, such as lower and later fertility and the ageing population. These problems, set within a European framework of public spending cuts and austerity, make it difficult to maintain and sustain the type of welfare state that has been seen so far (Rubery, 2015; O’Dwyer, 2018). Furthermore, attention to gender equality was increasingly justified on instrumental grounds, for example, by promoting childcare provisions to enable women to do wage work. After the 2008 crisis, all policy was justified on efficiency grounds, and EU policies, such as advocating cuts to public expenditure and public sector wages, actively undermined gender  equality (Rubery, 2017). The EU has laid out some principles to inform the design of more effective, family-​friendly policies in all member states

59

Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Equality in Europe

(European Commission, 2017). This was especially true in the number of projects financed for helping women to re-​enter the labour market after maternity, the discussion about compulsory parental leave for men and targeted policies oriented at the female employment rate in a situation of occupational crisis. As explained in Chapter Two, the EU has been tackling gender equality issues in the labour market for a long time and has tried to promote a balance between professional and family life as a guiding strategy through the use of legal provisions that encourage the reconciliation of family and work with aspects that include both women and men (consider legislation and policies on parental leave).5 In particular, legal developments on maternity and parental leave at the national level have been largely determined by EU legislation. However, while work–​family balance issues have been on the European political agenda  –​ although they are treated with varying degrees of importance in different countries  –​in recent years, the compelling questions arising from the relationship between these two aspects of adult identity have led to increased work–​family conflict and a greater demand for actions and policies to meet work–​family needs, in line with the indications of the European directives (European Commission, 2017). Policies enabling individual women to achieve equality with individual men –​policies against sex discrimination, for parental leave, for equal opportunities –​have brought women into the labour market while supporting their opportunities to care for their children (Daly, 2013). But they have also created income diversity in labour markets and in households, with gender equality being accessible only to advantaged women. This issue is related to the problem of multiple inequalities, where different aspects of inequality intersect (Lombardo and Rolandsen, 2012). In this sense, the issue of equality promoted, for example, for women with high levels of education looking for employment full time is unbalanced when compared with women who have less education not finding work. Policies

60

Gender mainstreaming and social policies in Europe

are not always able to consider the multifaceted situation of inequality and could amplify some inequalities within the same social groups with different features. Moreover, the way in which the reconciliation between family and work has been done so far –​the philosophy of equal opportunities –​has not always had a positive outcome. If, in principle, it is possible to share the importance of the concept of equality to ensure that women also have the same opportunities as men, to indicate ‘the same’ does not mean equal, uniform and/​or standardised because policies are not implemented in the same ways across different countries. This happened because, as suggested by Pascall and Lewis (2004: 384), countries have brought ‘gender equality to women on men’s terms’, enabling women to balance work and family, but offering no challenge for men to do the same, and this can create a gender conflict in personal relationships. There is a need for recognition that inequality between women and men is a relational issue, and that inequalities are not going to be resolved through a focus only on women (Donati, 2007; Crespi and Miller, 2013). To overcome the emerging difficulties of reconciliation between family and work, the reconciliation measures at the European level have relied essentially on three pillars: ‘care, cash and time’ (Millar, 2006: 189). They concern: first (care), the care of children and the younger generations, addressed through an increase in the supply of services and the improvement of their adaptability to differentiated contexts; secondly (cash), financial support for families in difficulty through direct contributions or tax relief; and last (time), a better management of family time, with the extension of the duration of parental or sick leave, as well as compulsory leave for fathers. These three aspects refer for instance to the fact that women with children have lower employment rates than those without; the majority of domestic work is still carried out by women; and the lack of affordable childcare remains an obstacle to

61

Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Equality in Europe

equality. In addition, work–​family reconciliation has been widely understood as the attempt to achieve a work–​family balance. Its declared aim is to create a sort of balance between these two spheres of life so as to resolve the conflict underlying the problems related to the temporal organisation of daily life. Consequently, reconciliation measures are mainly designed for some critical times –​such as the birth of a child or times of sickness  –​and to a much lesser extent for the routine management of daily life. As explained, reconciliation policies occur in many different forms that can be placed along an imaginary continuum, yet somehow, each carries with it different implications for promoting an increase in fertility rates among working women. At one end of the continuum are those measures that capture aspects of traditional demographic policy, ensuring that women can leave work on a more or less permanent basis. These include subsidies for offspring and tax relief to compensate for the loss of earnings of women who leave their jobs to take care of their children. At the other end of the continuum is the provision of childcare services, including feasible solutions for children aged 0–​3, which are crucial for the reintegration of mothers into the workplace (Minguez and Crespi, 2017). Beyond that, the process of women’s emancipation and the improvement of women’s status through a massive entry of women into the employment market, also in relation to the indications of the Lisbon document (2000), has affected not only an increase in rates of schooling, but has had, as a fundamental consequence, the entry of many women into the labour market looking for more qualified positions than ever before. It is clear that there are some significant improvements compared to the past  –​ above all in terms of women’s emancipation, fairness and the promotion of motherhood –​but it is necessary to recognise the permanence of some fundamental issues that are still unresolved or at least problematic. For example, parental leave is mostly used by women, and doubles the female

62

Gender mainstreaming and social policies in Europe

burden, inequalities in wages and ability to hold down a career, which then also affect retirement aspects (Janta and Stewart, 2018). In this regard, the directive on parental leave6 provides for the individual right of each parent to four months of parental leave to take care of their child until they are eight years old. One month is not transferable between parents and the directive does not provide for mandatory financial compensation. This encourages secondary income earners of the family (in most cases women) to take parental leave but does not offer sufficient incentives to the primary earners (mainly men). The positive effect of adequate compensation for using leave by fathers (or second parents), the value of flexible leave (fragmented or part-​ time) and non-​transferability between parents are demonstrable (Duvander and Johansson, 2012; Castro-​García and Pazos-​ Moran, 2016; Farré, 2016). Work–​family balance and welfare state regimes

In analysing work–​family policies and focusing primarily on their gender dimension, it is important to take into account the differentiations in gender introduced by cultural dimension as often as possible. This gender focus is based on the acknowledgement of the fact that due to the gendered division of labour, the work–​family balance is socially constructed as a women’s issue (England, 2010) and not as a mother/​father one. This implies that GM policies oriented to this issue are strongly influenced by the gender roles situations in different countries. Also in the field of work–​family balance, how different welfare state regimes politically and socially define gender equality in work–​family balance needs further consideration, especially when examining different countries. As observed by Stier et al (2012), work–​family measures in different countries are the outcome of different social policies that consider aspects related to work, gender roles, family models and the different welfare strategies mentioned previously.

63

Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Equality in Europe

In short, policies can be placed on a continuum and on one side, negotiation is be left to the private life of the couple or to the local community, so that each family decides the best way to use and evaluate the available possibilities (Southern countries). On the other hand, the market, or a supply and demand for services (the UK), can regulate the work–​family balance choices, or this regulation can take place in a mixed way (public/​private) (the Netherlands, France and Germany) with a minimum involvement of the public sphere. Lastly there is the Nordic-​Scandinavian model, with state intervention and regulation. The first arrangement mainly includes Southern European countries (such as Italy, Greece, Spain and Portugal), where unpaid care work involves the extended family and work–​life strategies are mostly ‘family-​oriented’. In this framework, all care responsibilities fall on women and there is a conservative corporatist-​family-​oriented approach to work–​family balance (see Leitner, 2003; Crespi and Minguez, 2017). Work–​family balance is considered a political action that offers only limited, unstable support to women’s labour market participation; this results in the poor development of external services and in fewer benefits for women, who have to undertake multiple roles inside and outside the family (Escobedo and Wall, 2015; Minguez and Crespi, 2017), increasing the gender gap in other dimensions such as earnings and pensions. In so-​called continental countries (France, Germany, Austria, the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg), which adopt a conservative corporatist approach to work–​family balance, the commitment to care and assistance falls on the nuclear family and reconciliation is based on segregationist strategies with a clear separation of unpaid family work and paid work (women/​men), which do not occur concurrently due to long parental leaves and the inadequate provision of childcare services (Hagqvist et al, 2017). This model differs from others in that the family here is considered as the institution mediating

64

Gender mainstreaming and social policies in Europe

between the individual and society, which is why some tasks are not recognised and allocated to it, and in the end is still reproducing gender inequalities. Another model is that of the traditionally liberal British Isles (the UK and Ireland), where work–​family balance is dealt with by means of a conservative-​liberal approach (Millar, 2006; Russell et  al, 2009). It is conservative in that, as happens in Continental Europe, the family is deemed an important source of childcare. On the other hand, it is liberal because the state, after ensuring minimum support, delegates the provision of support measures to families and civil society. The state does not aim to replace the family or even support it above the bare minimum; on the contrary, it leaves most of it to families. Work–​family balance is considered as a political action to sustain women’s labour market participation and ensure them basic support for a decent lifestyle. In this situation, very often women still fill the gap left by the lack of help in childcare. In the end, we can find an interventionist model in Sweden, where mediation and solutions to problems of reconciliation are entrusted mainly to the state. In order to achieve the objectives set, this model establishes the obligatory nature of certain decisions and some modalities for managing the relationship between family and work. In Scandinavian countries, which are characterised by minimal familial duties and direct state intervention, work–​family balance and family-​friendly policies are inspired by an integrationist approach aimed at combining work and family life by preserving gender equality (in parental leave schemes and labour market flexibility) as well as children’s rights (Eydal et al, 2018; Leira, 2018). Work–​family balance is thus viewed as guaranteeing the highest female employment and, at the same time, ensuring universal access to equal services for all, both men and women. The state tends to protect women especially as workers, much less so as wives and mothers. In this way, a sort of gender equality among men and women as workers is guaranteed.

65

Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Equality in Europe

The point here is: which of these different forms of welfare state regimes and gender differentiation favours GM policies? From the most recent research (Hadas Mandel, 2011), a series of paradoxical phenomena7 have occurred, challenging the previous reflections on work–​family balance. Overall, a framework emerged that encourages the participation of women in the labour market, especially in the absence of a concrete series of interventions and cultural changes, but where the family and its organisational methods based on gender represent a kind of impediment to what is considered the main purpose of GM. Another perspective (Kremer, 2007; Van Oorschot, 2007; Jo, 2011) focuses on cultural changes, investigating if this greater presence of women in the labour market has triggered transformations because they are structured relationships or if new forms of reconciliation between work and family are appearing beyond the traditional models. This has also led to the emergence of new models and new meanings that come to assume, for example, gender relationships between men and women in the family. Realistically, there is the problem of how to promote (without necessarily imposing by law) a cultural change that makes men more involved in the care of children and in ‘domestic’ work, as it still seems to be a subtle fact that, in reality, family = woman and work = man. On the other hand, it is evident that if the men and women themselves cannot share their different projects, reconciliation itself is impossible, as it requires, in part, a cultural change. In both the more advanced gender-​equal countries and the low-​ level countries, it is indeed difficult and sometimes impossible to make effective reconciliation policies –​particularly in legislation on parental leave –​if it is not possible to introduce a real change in mentality. The persistence of the cultural problems prevalent in the hierarchical relationships between men and women, as well as in the workplace, then emerges. So, the policies of reconciling family and work and promoting equal opportunities still seem far from guaranteeing

66

Gender mainstreaming and social policies in Europe

effective and efficient solutions. The female condition in particular is still burdened by the need to reconcile time and roles. This delicate commitment cannot only concern women, but inevitably confronts the desires, expectations and rights of the family in which the woman is inserted; moreover, it cannot be resolved in simple interventions addressed, exclusively and sectorally, at single subjects (women, children) but should be translated into a series of measures and social policy interventions aimed at favouring the reconciliation between life, work commitments and care responsibilities that account for all the subjectivities involved, including the family. The real objective of Community policies should, therefore, not only be the achievement of an equalitarian situation in a strictly statistical sense but the promotion of cultural changes realised through a permanent progress in social and personal relationships (Hantrais, 2002). Given all this, it seems that the EU is reflecting on the push for a project of equal opportunities only in relation to the labour market. The individual, regardless of gender, should not simply comply with the market, as this equality of opportunity is a neutralisation of gender; it no longer counts in the sense that it is homogenised or standardised by the market (Crespi, 2007; Donati, 2007). In this sense, the final effects could be negative, as observed by Olsson (2012), and create a situation of non-​free choice. This means that it would be important to overcome the idea of inequality of opportunity through that of reciprocity between genders. Gender budgeting and gender auditing: evaluating gender policies The evaluation of gender policies from a GM perspective depends on a series of factors, including the undoubted complexity that the theme has for the breadth, variety and transversality of policies. In addition, the women to whom the policies are directed do not constitute a homogeneous group,8

67

Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Equality in Europe

both because of the heterogeneous characteristics of the labour market and the employment structure in various professional sectors and geographical areas, and, even more importantly, due to the impact of the 2008 economic crisis that calls into question employment, welfare models and even acquired rights (Dotti Sani, 2018). In addition, cultural stereotypes are widespread, difficult to overcome and serve as large obstacles to the processes of change. All these factors make the relationship between actions taken and results achieved uncertain (or at least greatly delayed over time). Furthermore, there is no single methodology for drafting GM’s influence on policies at the international level or in various countries at the national level, as they have all followed and developed different methods of analysis. The differences often derive from the various types of institutions and from the different skills and functions attributed to them, therefore representing different aspects of the financial system. However, according to Himmelweit (2002), in general, it is possible to trace the essential points of the elaboration of a budget analysis with a GM perspective, considering the effects of complex mechanisms on the economy and labour market (gender occupational segregation for women, glass ceiling, gender pay gap). In this sense, some tools are increasingly used to assess the effects of GM, including gender budgeting and gender auditing. Gender policies evaluation, first of all, is concerned with the anticipatory assessment of decisions (gender budgeting), and can, therefore, be carried out on budgets and programmatic documents, or it can refer to the decisions and resource management policies implemented by an institution (gender auditing). The two practices are closely linked and represent the two basic steps for the construction of a gender budget: starting from the evaluation of the policies carried out, a useful analysis should be provided to redefine future ones.

68

Gender mainstreaming and social policies in Europe

Gender budgeting

According to Stotsky (2016:  3), gender budgeting ‘refers to the systematic examination of budget programs and policies for their impact on women’. This is to say that any document that analyses and evaluates the political choices and economic-​ financial commitments of an administration and pursues a specific mission (the promotion of an effective and real equality between women and men) from a women’s/​gender perspective necessarily integrates the budget with the analysis of the gender variable (Çağlar, 2010; Elson, 2016). At the international level, the first country to experiment with gender budgeting was Australia in 1984. Subsequently, other countries have promoted and used this tool, notably, South Africa, Canada, the UK, France, Israel, Switzerland, Norway, Sweden and Denmark (Budlender et  al, 1998; Sharp, 2000; Sharp and Broomhill, 2002). The importance and effectiveness of this tool were recognised by the international community at the Fourth World Conference on Women (in Beijing in 1995) in the ‘Beijing Platform for Action’, where it is stated that gender budgeting is a useful action for the promotion and implementation of the principle of GM, as it is a strategy that aims for cultural changes involving all the components of these systems; it requires that before decisions are had, the likely impacts that they could have on women and men are identified (UN, 1996). The EU has implemented the suggestions and perspective of the Fourth World Conference on Women and, since 2001, it has begun to engage in the dissemination and promotion of gender budgeting, inserting this tool into a broader framework of initiatives for equal opportunities. In 2003, a report and resolution proposal on gender budgeting, Gender Budgeting –​ The Construction of Public Budgets from a Gender Perspective,9 was presented to the European Parliament by the Commission on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities. In 2005, the

69

Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Equality in Europe

Council of Europe defined gender budgeting as a ‘gender-​based assessment of budgets incorporating a gender perspective at all levels of the budgetary process and restructuring revenues and expenditures in order to promote gender equality’ (2005: 10). The purposes of gender budgeting are, then: • to promote accountability and transparency in fiscal planning; • to increase gender responsive participation in the budget process, for example, by undertaking steps to involve women and men equally in budget preparation; and • to advance gender equality and women’s rights. Reading gender budgets through the GM point of view integrates the gender perspective at all levels of the budgetary procedure and restructures revenue and expenditure in order to ensure that the needs of the whole community are properly taken into account (Stotsky, 2016). At the core of gender budgeting, in fact, there is the consideration that there are differences between men and women regarding needs, conditions, paths, opportunities in life, work and participation in decision-​making processes, meaning then that policies are not gender neutral but, on the contrary, determine a differentiated impact on men and women. Within the framework of GM, among the reasons for using a gender budget tool are those important to the achievement of fundamental objectives of local governance:  efficiency, effectiveness, transparency and fairness (Elson, 2016). Gender budgeting allows some main actions. It: • educates administrators and citizens on the gender issue and on the diversified impact of policies; • reduces gender inequalities through a more equitable distribution of resources; • improves the effectiveness, efficiency and transparency of administrative actions;

70

Gender mainstreaming and social policies in Europe

• promotes a reading and analysis of the population and of the different needs present in the community and responds coherently to them; • develops gender-​sensitive data and statistics; and • strengthens the principle of transparency and participation with regard to the management of collective resources and public policies. Gender auditing

Gender auditing is used, above all, in the public sector, carrying out precise analyses of several socioeconomic indicators that identify potential discrimination in terms of gender equality between men and women (Agerberg et al, 2018). Making an impact analysis of the different budget items and public policies from a gender perspective offers an initial explanation of the existing gender differences in terms of behaviour, reactions to the same policies and socioeconomic conditions. These differences have been underlined in various fields of social policy analysis with reference to gender (consider, for example, the different wage pay or the unequal distribution of working time between men and women), and it is difficult to argue that a policy that does not consider these differences could be neutral with respect to gender in its application. The motivations of gender auditing in the literature focus on issues of both fairness and efficiency. The analysis of gender auditing is, in the first place, the verification of the degree of equity achieved by the sexes and is, therefore, a tool to monitor equity and promote its improvement (Elson, 1998; Bettio et al, 2002). From a mainstream perspective, the beneficiaries of gender auditing are: policymakers (who, on the basis of the reports, can make resource allocation policies more efficient), the institution’s staff (who is involved and encouraged to manage the services from a gender perspective) and the community (the gender

71

Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Equality in Europe

balance, in fact, represents a form of social reporting) (Council of Europe, 2005). The starting phase of the elaboration of a gender auditing process is represented by the analysis of the context of the male and female population in the territory concerned. In this phase, it is fundamental to choose the proper sources to obtain the necessary data (both national and local sources), but also the possibility to carry out ad hoc surveys to identify quantitative and qualitative data, and to develop useful statistics for the analysis of the territory from a gender-​sensitive perspective (De Cataldo and Ruspini, 2016). After the analysis phase and assessing the budget documents from a gender point of view, it is necessary to carry out a reclassification, according to criteria that allow the budget items to be re-​aggregated into gender issues (Stotsky, 2016). Also, in this case, the choice of classification is not univocal but is linked to the type of institution and the methods of analysis. However, we can identify two generally used macro areas: areas directly related to gender (activities and resources aimed at equal opportunities) and indirectly related to gender (activities aimed at specific targets that have an impact on gender differences, such as services for children). Once this process has been completed, the last phase should be the analysis of the budget and the evaluation of the allocation of resources from a gender perspective; therefore, it is verified that the policies and services/​activities developed by the institution are effective and efficient with respect to the general budgetary needs of the institution, the institutional objectives and the specific needs of the women and men of the community. As observed by Siboni et al (2016), this phase presents some difficulties, above all because, even today, there are no specific standard indicators of gender to objectively evaluate efficacy and efficiency. It is precisely this aspect, together with the common lack of data and statistics broken down by gender that represents the main problems of gender budgeting in many

72

Gender mainstreaming and social policies in Europe

European countries. The general assessment of the management of resources and the verification of the activities carried out by the institution should ultimately represent the basis on which to build the project’s budget, thus concluding the gender auditing–​ gender budgeting cycle, according to the objectives initially set. Highlights from this chapter This chapter provided an overview of the interconnections between the GM perspective and gender policies in the context of European social policies. This issue is relevant because it invites further inquiry into the different potential tools available in the gender equality perspective. The importance of the GM strategy for social policies is in its approach to gender equality, particularly in introducing a gender equality perspective into all policies at all levels of governance. The thinking is focused on how policies are related to GM and how the comparative situation of different welfare states and regimes could influence the way different measures and policies are implemented. As observed, the different typology and cultural frameworks of the European member states could provide a different sociocultural implementation of the same ideas and aims regarding gender equality. To make this more consistent, we considered the issue of work–​family balance as a specific example that has been and is still so relevant in evaluating the degree of gender equality options within a welfare state system, as will be discussed in Chapter Five. In particular, work–​family balance measures dealing with the different national frameworks are the result of the diverse social/​gender/​family policies designed around work, gender roles, family forms and the different welfare strategies mentioned in this chapter. The chapter closes with the theme of policy evaluation in reference to the gender budget, considered in the dual form of gender budgeting and of gender auditing. If GM is an important

73

Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Equality in Europe

step in the development of equal opportunities policies, it is also a key part of the application of policies, as it allows for the determination of the impact of public policies on women and men, and pursues the objectives of fairness, efficiency, transparency and participation. These tools can support policymakers in the development of socioeconomic policies that account for the differences between men and women, allowing the use of public resources with increasing equity with regard to citizenship. Through the processing of data, statistics and analysis centred on gender, policymakers and citizens can more accurately assess their choices in order to improve their actions and, if necessary, recalibrate the priorities of intervention with respect to needs.

74

FOUR Gender equality in Europe: measures and indicators Assessing gender equality and the development of instruments suitable to monitor it started to be recognised as a relevant area of research in 1995, when the World Conference on Women in Beijing addressed the issue of gender equality, introducing the concepts of empowerment and mainstreaming (UN, 1996). The conference identified 12 areas that are critical to women’s status globally, including health, education, poverty, decision making, economy, violence, armed conflicts, power and decision making. This boosted interest in developing gender statistics and laid a foundation for more gender-​sensitive research. In the wake of the Conference in Beijing, the need for gender statistics became part of a broader awareness. Nevertheless, the need for statistics to help understand gendered life experiences had been raised in 1975 during the First World Conference on Women in Mexico City, when participants pointed out that information concerning people’s living conditions always was provided without gender distinctions in case studies. At the Second World Conference on Women in Nairobi, Kenya, in 1985, some statistics on the status of women were first made available. In addition, the discussion in Nairobi addressed the

75

Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Equality in Europe

important shift from statistics concerning ‘only women’, which neglected the relative status of men, to statistics on ‘women and men’. This was an important step because it introduced the idea that women’s status could be described and examined only when compared with that of men (Decataldo and Ruspini, 2016). Ahead of the Third Conference on Women in Beijing in 1995, many statistical offices and international organisations were pressured to prepare gender statistics. According to Corner (2005: 3), to be considered gender statistics, three requirements needed to be fulfilled: • Statistics on individuals should be collected and presented disaggregated by gender. • All figures should be analysed and presented with gender as the primary classification. • Efforts should be made to identify gender issues and ensure that collected data address these issues. These preparations for the Conference in Beijing were a crucial turning point in the history of gender-​sensitive research. The use of gender statistics as indicators individually, or to build indices that measure complex concepts such as gender equality, is the next important step along this journey (Mecatti et  al, 2012). In fact, by adopting these quantitative measurements, it became possible to assess gender equality in society, compare the situation across societies and observe its change over time. This is particularly relevant to the establishment and development of policies aimed at promoting gender equality. However, measuring to what extent society is egalitarian with regards to gender differences is anything but simple. In Chapter One, we pointed out how the definition of gender equality evolved over time and how different conceptualisations were reflected in legislation and social policies. Similarly, the task of measuring gender equality also responds to the complexity of defining it.

76

Gender equality in Europe

The concept of gender equality is multidimensional, and the instruments that can be adopted to measure it can differ significantly based on which dimensions they investigate, on which spheres of life they focus and the degree to which macro and/​or micro perspectives are included. The unequal treatment of gender differences can be measured and studied in several life domains. Gender equality can refer to public and private spheres, and within both realms one could identify many sub-​dimensions. For example, regarding the public sphere, one could consider gender equality within the labour market, decision-​making processes, the educational system, social and political participation, and so on. Similarly, in the private sphere, issues such as power dynamics between partners or relations between siblings and parents can be the context of gender (in)equality. Furthermore, gender equality could be measured by considering institutional and contextual (macro) aspects, or individuals’ perspectives (micro aspects). For example, in the first case, the rate of women employed in technical versus service sectors can provide an indicator of the labour market’s horizontal segregation, while studying laws can provide indicators of the legal climate for norms and practices related to the opportunities for women and men. For example, in Poland, until 1996, women were not allowed to work in some jobs, such as driving public transportation vehicles (Bretherton, 2001). Because of this complexity, a single solid indicator of gender equality does not exist but, instead, several strategies can be adopted to identify and measure the level of gender equality in society. In this chapter, we consider two principal instruments that can be used to detect, measure and study gender equality. These two instruments rely on two approaches related to the ways in which the information necessary to build comparable indices is collected. On one hand, information that official statistical offices collect can be used to compute indices. Several transnational agencies adopt this strategy to compare gender equality across societies and over time, considering different

77

Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Equality in Europe

dimensions. The second approach favours directly collecting information from individuals through surveys among population samples. Most surveys that independent academic groups have carried out can offer unique views not only on what people do, but also on what people think and believe about gender equality issues, or concerning the role that they believe women and men should have in society. This chapter offers a review of the most relevant gender equality indices that have been developed by transnational agencies –​such as the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the World Economic Forum (WEF) and the European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) –​and provides a comparative overview of European countries’ situations to assess whether gender equality in Europe is improving. The focus then shifts to measuring gender equality adoption information collected through surveys. After illustrating this approach’s principal aspects, the measurements adopted in recent authoritative surveys, such as the Eurobarometer (European Commission and European Parliament, 2015) and the International Social Survey Programme (ISSP, 2016), are used to describe differences among European countries. Transnational agencies’ gender equality indices Nowadays, many transnational agencies provide indices aimed at measuring gender equality across countries. Among those, the most well-​known are those developed by the UNDP, OECD, WEF and EIGE. These indices investigate gender equality following different frameworks and, even if they may investigate similar dimensions, they do not overlap. This implies the need for sufficient awareness of the differences between these indicators in order to employ them properly. The UNDP has examined women’s status since 1995 when, in the frame of the Human Development Index (HDI), two

78

Gender equality in Europe

specific indices were added to consider the gender dimension in the human development perspective. The Gender-​related Development Index (GDI) was launched with the objective of evaluating to what extent gender differences in life expectancy, education and income affect human development. However, this index has been criticised because it could be misunderstood as a pure measure of inequality between men and women, but as Klasen (2006) argues, it does not measure inequality, but rather adjusts the HDI so that it could factor in gender differences. Regardless of this effort to include inequities between social groups, this index considers only three aspects –​life expectancy, education and income  –​while inequities can concern many more domains of life (Klasen and Schüler, 2011). Furthermore, the index does not factor in that inequities can affect women in some dimensions, or men in others. Because of the way in which the index is computed (see Klasen, 2006), it is impossible to distinguish situations in countries where women face inequities in all three dimensions from those where women have more advantages compared with men. With the second index, the Gender Empowerment Measure (GEM), the UNDP measured, apart from the HDI, women’s empowerment, with an emphasis on economic and political life, as well as the decision-​making process. However, this index presents methodological issues concerning comparability between different parts of the world, for example between Western urban areas and developing nations’ rural areas (Klasen, 2006). In fact, in such contexts, access to education and other resources differs greatly, and the measurement does not account for this gap. Because of these conceptual and methodological restrictions, in 2010, the UNDP implemented a new measure, the Gender Inequality Index (GII), which aimed to measure gender inequalities in three domains of human development: reproductive health, measured by maternal mortality ratio and adolescent birth rates; political empowerment, measured by the proportion of parliamentary seats that females occupy and the proportion of adult females and males

79

Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Equality in Europe

aged 25 and older with at least some secondary education; and women’s economic participation compared with that of men in that particular country. The index, computed annually, is published in the annual Human Development Report, first published in 2010. The most recent edition (Selim, 2016) covers 189 countries and territories. The GII is a combination of indicators used in previous indices, which risks maintaining some GDI and GEM limits. These limits were viewed as a risky ‘false start’ in measuring gender equality (Dijkstra, 2006) because they combined measures of absolute welfare levels and gender equality that are difficult to interpret, as they belong to different levels of reasoning. Furthermore, one measure could explain another. However, the new GII indicator is better than the older ones. For example, it extended the dimensions used to detect gender disparities to provide a measure of the loss in human development due to gender inequality in the included dimensions (Gaye et al, 2010). However, this most recent index that UNDP developed has elicited some criticism. The areas included are still limited, and because the areas contribute differently to the computation of the final index, the procedure can penalise low-​income countries. Permanyer (2013) also notes that the GII combines indicators describing the status of females, such as reproductive health, together with indicators that deal with women’s achievements compared with those of men. More than a pure measurement of gender inequality, the UNDP’s GII provides information on gender disadvantages that considers relevant societal structural aspects. Therefore, it could be employed as a useful indicator the structural context for gender inequities. As Gaye et al (2010: 2) argue, the GII ‘is designed to reveal the extent to which the realisation of a country’s human development potential is curtailed by gender inequality, and provides empirical foundations for policy analysis and advocacy efforts. Romania registers the highest GII score (Figure 4.1), which means that, according to this perspective, human development there faces bigger gender inequities than elsewhere in Europe. Romania is

80

newgenrtpdf

Figure 4.1: Gender Inequality Index (GII) by country, 2016 0.041 0.044 0.048 0.053 0.056 0.066 0.073 0.075 0.078 0.081 0.085 0.091 0.102 0.116 0.119 0.121 0.127 0.129 0.131 0.131 0.137 0.141

Gender equality in Europe

81

Denmark (DK) Netherlands (NL) Sweden (SE) Slovenia (SI) Finland (FI) Germany (DE) Belgium (BE) Luxembourg (LU) Austria (AT) Spain (ES) Italy (IT) Portugal (PT) France (FR) Cyprus (CY) Greece (GR) Lithuania (LT) Ireland (IE) Czechia (CZ) United Kingdom (UK) Estonia (EE) Poland (PL) Croatia (HR) Slovakia (SK) Latvia (LV) Malta (MT) Bulgaria (BG) Hungary (HU) Romania (RO)

0.179 0.191 0.217 0.223 0.252 0.339 0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

Gender Inequality Index (GII)

Note: GII scores range from 0, indicating the highest gender equality possible, to 1, meaning the highest gender inequality. Source: Based on data from the Human Development Report 2016 (Selim, 2016)

0.4

Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Equality in Europe

followed by Hungary, Bulgaria, Malta and Latvia. Conversely, Denmark registered the lowest inequality between men and women in the dimensions that the GII considered. After Denmark are the Netherlands, Sweden, Slovenia and Finland. In focusing on developmental concerns, the OECD in 2009 developed a different type of indicator to measure discrimination against women in social institutions. The latest edition (OECD Development Centre, 2014) covered 160 countries. The OECD’s Social Institutions and Gender Index (SIGI)1 remains the UN’s chosen indicator in the developmental field. However, it does not consider figures concerning the achievements related to women’s economic, social or political participation, but rather examines the legislative frame­ work that enables, protects or limits women’s access to social life. In particular, the SIGI factors in discrimination within formal and informal laws, social norms and practices in five dimensions: • Discriminatory family code. This dimension concerns aspects of family norms and laws, such as the legal age for marriage, early marriage, inheritance rights and parental authorities. • Restricted physical integrity. It considers elements concer­ ning violence against women, such as whether laws against domestic violence, rape and sexual harassment exist. This domain also includes information about practices such as female genital mutilation, experienced violence and reproductive autonomy. • Son bias. This dimension concerns fertility preferences and so-​called ‘missing women’, a term that refers to the practice of gender-​selective abortion, female infanticide, and depriving female children of health care and proper nutrition. • Restricted resources and assets. This domain includes information about gender equality in securing access to land and non-​land assets, and financial resources.

82

Gender equality in Europe

• Restricted civil liberties. This dimension concerns discrimi­ nation in access to the public sphere, including public spaces, political voice and political representation. The SIGI is often used in the context of developmental studies and projects to include connections between discriminatory social institutions and development outcomes. Branisa et al (2014) clearly explain the construction of this composite index. They also report on the remarkable tests done to assess each sub-​index’s content validity. To build the index, no specific arbitrary weight is provided so that possible inequities in one domain do not distort the other dimensions; thus, equality in all dimensions is considered important. However, the indicators used render the SIGI suitable mostly for studying gender inequality in non-​OECD countries. In fact, most OECD countries’ laws nowadays are not discriminatory, and scores would be meaningless (Branisa et al, 2014). Of course, this does not mean that in OECD countries, discriminatory phenomena do not exist, but they are not legitimate by institutional norms, which are the factors that SIGI considers. Therefore, the comparison across European countries is not displayed here because of a lack of variability. However, the SIGI approach shows the relevance of the institutions’ influences on individual preferences and role models. This is an important aspect that will be addressed in Chapter Five, which concerns the role of contexts and institutions in the development of gender cultures. The WEF proposed another interesting composite index aimed at measuring gender inequality in 2006. The Global Gender Gap Index (GGGI) 2 employs a more complex structure compared with the UNDP Gender Inequality Index, as it measures the gender gap across 144 countries in four areas:  Economic Participation and Opportunity, Educational Attainment, Health and Survival, and Political Empowerment. This index has been developed with the precise and unique scope

83

Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Equality in Europe

for measuring gender equality, and its operationalisation is more complex and complete than that of UNDP. In fact, the GGGI includes more dimensions that, unlike the GII, can be considered separately thanks to the computation of sub-​indices. The sub-​ index Economic Participation and Opportunity, for example, is particularly interesting for monitoring gender equality in the labour market. In addition to female participation in the labour force and the gender pay gap, it also includes indicators that can measure two well-​known phenomena, horizontal and vertical segregation, which refer to the concentration of women in some economic sectors (generally service and clerical jobs) and to career difficulties in reaching top-​level positions (glass ceiling), respectively. The GGGI is computed with 14 indicators, provided in Table  4.1. Detailed information concerning computation of the index can be found in the Global Gender Gap Report (WEF, 2017). From a methodological perspective, it is interesting to note that all the statistics considered to build the index are expressed as a ratio of female values over those of males. This means not only that it considers the status of both men and women, but that the perspective adopted also focuses on the relation between the statuses of both genders. The indicators also consider the gap in access to resources and opportunities, instead of considering availability in each country. In this way, different types of economies or modernisation levels do not affect the index, allowing for proper comparisons across countries to ensure it is not weakened by the variety of life conditions existing in different parts of the world. Figure  4.2 displays European countries’ GGGI scores and provides a ranking of European countries according to this index. The lowest gender gap is in Finland (0.823), followed by Sweden (0.816), Slovenia (0.805), Ireland (0.794) and France (0.778), while the highest is in Hungary (0.670), followed by Malta (0.682), Cyprus (0.684), Czechia (0.688) and Italy (0.692).

84

Gender equality in Europe

Table 4.1: Global Gender Gap Index (GGGI): indicators by sub-​index,  2017 Sub-​index

Indicator

Economic Participation and Opportunity

Ratio: female labour force participation over male value Wage equality between women and men for similar work (survey data, normalised on a 0–​1 scale) Ratio: female estimated earned income over male value Ratio: female legislators, senior officials and managers over male value Ratio: female professional and technical workers over male value

Educational Attainment

Ratio: female literacy rate over male value Ratio: female net primary enrolment rate over male value Ratio: female net secondary enrolment rate over male value Ratio: female gross tertiary enrolment ratio over male value

Health and Survival

Sex ratio at birth (converted to female-​over-​male ratio) Ratio: female healthy life expectancy over male value

Political Empowerment

Ratio: females with seats in parliament over male value Ratio: females at ministerial level over male value Ratio: number of years with a female head of state (last 50 years) over male value

Source: WEF, 2017

85

newgenrtpdf

Figure 4.2: Global Gender Gap Index (GGGI) by country, 2017 0.823 0.816 0.805 0.794 0.778 0.778 0.776 0.77 0.756 0.756 0.746 0.742 0.739 0.737 0.734 0.731 0.728 0.711 0.709 0.708 0.706 0.694 0.692 0.692 0.688 0.684 0.682 0.67 0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

Global Gender Gap Index (GGGI)

Note: GGGI scores range from 0, indicating the highest gender gap possible, to 1, meaning the absence of a gender gap. Source: Based on data from the Global Gender Gap Report (WEF, 2017)

Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Equality in Europe

86

Finland Sweden Slovenia Ireland Germany France Denmark United Kingdom Latvia Bulgaria Spain Lithuania Belgium Netherlands Portugal Estonia Poland Croatia Austria Romania Luxembuorg Slovakia Italy Greece Czechia Cyprus Malta Hungary

0.9

Gender equality in Europe

Unlike the previously presented indices, which are developed to be suitable for measuring gender equality from a global perspective, the EIGE3 started measuring gender equality in Europe in 2005, adopting a Gender Equality Index specifically built for the European context. This index relies on a multidimensional approach to gender equality that considers six domains: Knowledge, Work, Money, Time, Power, and Health. For each of these domains, a separate score also is calculated on the basis of 32 indicators,4 reported in Table 4.2. The EIGE composite index allows for measuring gender equality in terms of the complexity of the concept itself and the differing conditions in each country that contribute to characterising the gender equality climate in Europe. Figure 4.3 provides European countries’ scores and rankings. Sweden registers the best gender equality climate (82.6), followed by Denmark (76.8), Finland (73), the Netherlands (72.9) and France (72.6). Greece (50) registers Europe’s worst gender equality climate, closely followed by Hungary (50.8), Romania (52.4), Slovakia (52.4) and Croatia (53.1). One of the EIGE Gender Equality Index’s peculiarities is that, unlike the other indices examined earlier, its framework includes the dimension of time as one of the contexts where gender inequality can take place (Table 4.2). The introduction of this element contributes to making the EIGE index particularly innovative, not only because the different use of time has never been included in similar computations, but also because it could be one relevant aspect of inequities in modern societies. The fact that more women are participating in the labour market does not imply that men are increasing the time that they spend taking care of family duties. Thus, when a traditional division of roles remains in place, with specialisation of tasks by gender, women could tend to have less time than men to dedicate to leisure, sports or cultural activities, creating a higher burden for women. In European societies, inequities in the use of time could reflect the level of gender equality in the private sphere

87

Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Equality in Europe

Table 4.2: EIGE Gender Equality Index: indicators by sub-​index, 2017 Domain

Sub-​domain

Indicator and reference population

Work

Participation Full-​time equivalent employment rate (%, 15+ population) Duration of working life (years, 15+ population) Segregation and quality of work

Employed people in Education, Human Health and Social Work activities (%, 15+ employed) Ability to take an hour or two off during working hours to take care of personal or family matters (%, 15+ workers) Career Prospects Index (points, 0–​100)

Money

Financial resources

Mean monthly earnings (Purchasing Power Standards (PPS), working population) Mean equalised net income (PPS, 16+ population)

Economic situation

Not-​at-​risk-​of-​poverty, ≥60% of median income (%, 16+ population) S20/​S80 income quintile share (16+ population)

Knowledge Attainment Graduates of tertiary education and (%, 15+ population) participation People participating in formal or informal education and training (%, 15+ population)

Time

Segregation

Tertiary students in the fields of Education, Health and Welfare, Humanities and Art (tertiary students) (%, 15+ population)

Care activities

People caring for and educating their children or grandchildren, elderly or people with disabilities daily (%, 18+ population) People doing the cooking and/​or housework daily (%, 18+ population)

Social activities

Workers doing sporting, cultural or leisure activities outside their homes at least daily or several times a week (%, 15+ workers) Workers involved in voluntary or charitable activities at least once a month (%, 15+ workers)

Gender equality in Europe

Table 4.2 (cont.) Domain

Sub-​domain

Indicator and reference population

Power

Political

Share of ministers (% W, M) Share of members of parliament (% W, M) Share of members of regional assemblies (% W, M)

Economic

Share of members of boards in the largest quoted companies, supervisory boards or boards of directors (% W, M) Share of board members of central banks (% W, M)

Social

Share of board members of research-​funding organisations (% W, M) Share of board members in publicly owned broadcasting organisations (% W, M) Share of members of the highest decision-​ making body for national Olympic sports organisations (% W, M)

Health

Status

Self-​perceived health, good or very good (%, 16+ population) Life expectancy in absolute value at birth (years) Healthy life years in absolute value at birth (years)

Behaviour

People who don’t smoke and are not involved in harmful drinking (%, 16+ population) People doing physical activities and/​or consuming fruits and vegetables (%, 16+ population)

Access

Population without unmet medical-​ examination needs (%, 16+ population) People without unmet dental-​examination needs (%, 16+ population)

Additional variable

Population in age group 18 and older

Source: EIGE, 2017b

89

Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Equality in Europe

Figure 4.3: EIGE Gender Equality Index by country, 2017 Sweden Denmark Finland Netherlands France United Kingdom Belgium Ireland Luxembourg Slovenia Spain Germany Austria Italy Malta Bulgaria Lithuania Poland Latvia Estonia Portugal Cyprus Czechia Croatia Slovakia Romania Hungary Greece 0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

82.6 76.8 73.0 72.9 72.6 71.5 70.5 69.5 69.0 68.4 68.3 65.5 63.3 62.1 60.1 58.0 57.9 56.8 56.8 56.7 56.0 55.1 53.6 53.1 52.4 52.4 50.8 50.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0

EIGE Gender Equality Index

Note: The EIGE Gender Equality Index goes from 0, indicating a situation of high inequality, to 100, indicating the highest gender equality possible. Source: Based on data from EIGE (2017a)

and provide meaningful insights when combined particularly with disparities in economic participation. Figure  4.4 shows the distribution of European countries by factoring in scores in the domain of ‘Time’, together with those from ‘Work’. While the Swedish situation could be considered an outlier, with the highest score in both domains, the overall distribution suggests that European countries can be grouped into three principal typologies. Sweden, the Netherlands and Denmark comprise the group with the highest scores in both dimensions of gender equality. A second group of countries displays lower scores, but are similar in both domains, suggesting a convergence between the two dimensions (Ireland, Finland,  Estonia and  Slovenia).

90

Gender equality in Europe

Figure 4.4: Combination of EIGE Time and Work domain scores, distributed by country, 2017 95

SE

Time domain score

85

NL DK EE FI SI IE LU DE FR LV UK MT ESBE AT

75 65 IT

55 45

CZ HU PL CY LT RO HR PT SK BG GR

35 25

55

60

65

70 75 Work domain score

80

85

90

Note: The EIGE Time and Work scores go from 0, indicating a situation of high inequality, to 100, indicating the highest gender equality possible. For country abbreviations, see Figure 4.1 Source: Based on data from EIGE (2017a)

This convergence could indicate gender cultures in which men and women share duties and roles in both public and private spheres. In other cases, equality in the use of time is sharply lower than equality in the labour market. This is the case in Bulgaria, Portugal, Lithuania, Cyprus, Greece and Slovakia, where the gap in equality differs by about 20 points. This gap could suggest that these societies are still based on a strong separation of gender roles. From the brief overview of the indices developed by UNDP, WEF and EIGE, a couple of points should be noted. First, they assume different perspectives and are computed by adopting different methodologies. Because of the dimensions investigated, the indices display different country rankings (Figures 4.1–​4.3). For example, Denmark, based on the UNDP index, was at the top of the rankings, but according to the Global Gender Gap Report (WEF, 2017), it is in the seventh position, meaning that

91

Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Equality in Europe

the gender gap is lower in six other countries: Finland, Sweden, Slovenia, Ireland, France and Germany. Using the index drafted by EIGE, Denmark ranks in second place. Ireland, among the top five countries according to the Global Gender Gap Index (GGGI) and in the top ten according to the EIGE index, was in the second half of the rankings under the UNDP index. The poorest performing countries in the rankings also indicated variation. For example, Cyprus and Italy, which landed in the middle of the UNDP rankings, are among the five countries with the biggest gender gaps in Europe. However, the EIGE Gender Equality Index ranks both in a better position. Thus, when dealing with such indices, it is necessary to be aware of what they actually are measuring because results can differ, and these indices are not easily interchangeable. However, regardless of the type of index that one could choose, the indicators paint a very fragmented picture indicating that, first, gender equality remains a goal for most European countries and, second, this goal has not reached the same levels in all European countries. This can be attributed to these European countries’ different historical, cultural, economic and political trajectories, leading to the development of different gender cultures across Europe (Pfau-​Effinger, 2004; Aboim, 2010). Finally, the scores in the various domains confirm that gender equality is a multidimensional concept and that reaching equality in one dimension, such as in labour market participation, does not automatically improve gender equality in all the other domains. Gender equality in population surveys Alongside macro indicators, which grasp information concerning the context of gender (in)equality or discrimination in society retrieved by statistical offices, another perspective on the phenomenon comes from the subjective perspectives of individuals collected, for example, through questionnaires that ask respondents to describe their behaviours, opinions and

92

Gender equality in Europe

beliefs on issues related to gender relations, roles and equality. Nowadays, many cross-​national survey programmes –​such as the International Social Survey Programme (ISSP), Gender Generation Programme (GGP), European Values Study (EVS) and Eurobarometer (EB)  –​include questions in their comprehensive questionnaires related to perceptions about gender equality and its related policies (EB), gender division of household work (ISSP, GGP) or gender-​role attitudes (EVS, ISSP, GGP, EB). The latter often are used as indicators of gender ideology: a personal system of beliefs concerning appropriate roles for men and women in society (Harris and Firestone, 1998; Kroska, 2006; André et al, 2013; Constantin and Voicu, 2015). Built on this survey data, broad-​based, empirical, extant literature has defined the concept of gender equality as fair distribution of paid and unpaid work among couples (for example, South and Spitze, 1994; Baxter and Kane, 1995; Bianchi et al, 2000; Fuwa, 2004; Geist and Cohen, 2011). Information collected through surveys such as the ISSP concerning, for example, partners’ time spent doing caregiving activities and which tasks are shared justify further study on established gender contracts between partners (Pfau-​Effinger, 1994; Olsson, 2012). The term ‘gender contract’ refers to household arrangements concerning contributors to household income, the sharing of housework and childcare activities, and possible externalisation of some caregiving tasks. The ISSP is a continuing programme of cross-​national collaborative research, studying preferences, beliefs and behaviour since 1985 through implementation of repeated thematic modules among representative population samples globally. The Family and Changing Gender Roles survey is a thematic module taken in 1988, 1994, 2002 and 2012 that is entirely dedicated to gender issues and family relations. A section of the questionnaire is devoted to measuring gendered division of household work. A revised version of the housework-​division index adopted in extant research (Batalova and Cohen, 2002; Fuwa, 2004) can be computed to identify

93

Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Equality in Europe

prevalent gender contracts established among couples living in the European countries that the ISSP studies. In the 2012 edition, the ISSP questionnaire (Scholz et al, 2014) asked people in relationships to specify which partner does the laundry, cares for sick family members, shops for groceries, does household cleaning and prepares meals. For each task, the respondent could select one of the following options: always me; usually me; about equal or together; usually my spouse/​partner; always my spouse/​partner; or done by a third person. The gender contract measurement is computed by collapsing the category always/​usually and combining answers with the respondent’s gender to create four typologies of gender contract: couples in which the woman does most of the aforementioned tasks; couples in which the man does most of these tasks; couples in which both partners tend to share these tasks equally; and couples that tend to externalise these tasks. By considering the subsample of individuals who are married or in civil partnerships, Figure  4.5 shows the distribution of these typologies for the European countries included in the most recent version of ISSP (ISSP Research Group, 2016). The prevalent gender contract in these European countries remains the one in which women are responsible for household chores and caregiving. However, the pattern composition by country paints different scenarios. In Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, Great Britain5 and Finland, about one couple in four equally share the housework, especially in Denmark and Sweden, which register a relatively high proportion of men who are doing most of the household chores (19.7 per cent and 15 per cent, respectively). Conversely, a small number of couples share these responsibilities in Czechia, Bulgaria, Slovakia and Lithuania. Together with the fact that few men are doing household chores, in these countries, the gender contract appears quite traditional for about eight out of every ten couples, with only women doing most of the housework. In France, Belgium,

94

Gender equality in Europe

Figure 4.5: Gender contract distribution by country, 2016 Sweden Denmark Netherlands Great Britain Finland Belgium Ireland Portugal Slovenia France Poland Spain Austria Croatia Germany Latvia Hungary Lithuania Slovakia Belgium Czechia

15.0 25.7 19.7 25.3 12.1 24.2 13.6 23.9 11.6 23.8 11.3 22.5 13.1 21.9 6.8 21.6 4.9 21.0 10.2 20.7 4.7 19.7 9.7 19.5 6.3 19.1 5.5 18.9 8.4 18.7 7.0 18.0 7.7 18.0 4.5 16.9 12.4 2.8 11.6 4.5 10.9 6.5 0

10

20

30

1.8 1.0 3.1 2.9 1.3 4.3 2.5 1.2 2.8 3.3 1.4 2.7 1.0 0.8 1.3 1.3 1.4 0.0 1.1 1.0 0.4

57.6 54.0 60.6 59.5 63.3 61.9 62.6 70.3 71.3 65.9 74.2 68.1 73.7 74.7 71.6 73.8 72.8 78.6 83.7 83.0 82.2

40

50 Percent

60

70

80

90

100

Equal share Man does most of the housework and caring activities Woman does most of the housework and caring activties Done by a third person

Note: The distribution indicates the percentage of respondents who opt for one of the gender contracts specified in the legend.

the Netherlands and Great Britain a small share of couples (3 to 4 per cent) externalise these tasks. Investigating the reasons for the distribution of different household arrangements, the empirical extant literature contributes to providing three explanations for the establishment of a specific gender contract. One motivation may derive from the partners’ relative resources, with financial resources appearing to be relevant in shaping power relationships within the couples. Becker (1981) demonstrates that the partner who contributes the most to household income tends to invest less time in housework or even avoid them altogether. According to Bianchi et al (2000), this approach suggests that gendered housework arrangements reflect power relations between men and women at the societal

95

Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Equality in Europe

level. However, this explanation fails to consider cases in which women earn more than their partners, yet still do most of the housework, a phenomenon that is becoming more common in Western societies. Another perspective focuses on time availability, suggesting that the partner who has more free time (in the sense of not being occupied by paid work) can invest it in household chores, regardless of gender. However, in many countries, gender differences in paid work and in work schedules bring women to be more often in this situation and therefore women tend to have a bigger share of the housework (Geist and Cohen, 2011). A  third explanation entails the individual’s gender ideology, which concerns values and attitudes that provide a structure for men and women in recognising their priorities, motivations and interests. On this basis, partners negotiate the overall arrangement of responsibilities and tasks. Davis and Greenstein (2009: 89) more precisely define gender ideology as ‘the underlying concept of an individual’s level of support for a division of paid work and family responsibilities that is based on the notion of separated spheres’. A ‘traditional’ gender ideology would support a clear separation of tasks by gender, with women dedicated to taking care of the house and children, and men dedicated to working outside the domestic sphere:  the male-​breadwinner model. According to this perspective, the household chores are not neutral in their meaning, but express gender relations in the private sphere and reproduce or change gender roles (West and Zimmerman, 1987; Bianchi et al, 2012). Extant literature in this field (Davis and Greenstein, 2009; Geist and Cohen, 2011; Lomazzi et al, 2019) assumes that the two sides of gender roles, which are household arrangements and gender-​role attitudes, are strongly related to each other: the gender contract can be considered to be the tangible manifestation of the gender ideology. Because of this, gender-​role attitudes often are employed as a proxy to measure individual support for gender equality. These attitudes often are defined as the cognitive representation of

96

Gender equality in Europe

what is believed to be appropriate for male and female roles (Alwin, 2005; Schultz Lee et al, 2010 ). Because they refer to normative beliefs about gender roles in society, gender-​role attitudes are considered a proxy measurement of support for gender equality (Bergh, 2006). Following this view, traditional attitudes toward gender roles support the idea of gender contracts based on specialisation of tasks and roles by gender, generally with women mainly (or totally) devoted to the domestic sphere with caregiving responsibilities and men involved in the public sphere with breadwinner duties. Conversely, egalitarian attitudes toward gender roles do not support a gendered division of paid and unpaid work with the following role specialisation. Europeans differ greatly in their attitudes toward gender roles. Table 4.3 shows support for egalitarian gender roles as measured by Eurobarometer in 2014  –​the most recent measurement available.6 The Eurobarometer is the official population survey of the European Commission, which investigates European citizens’ opinions, behaviours, preferences and attitudes on several topics several times a year. The information is collected through surveys among representative samples of national populations. In 2014, an extensive section of the questionnaire was dedicated to issues concerning gender equality. A  scale aimed at measuring gender-​role attitudes asked respondents to express their level of agreement with a set of statements. On the basis of these items,7 Lomazzi et al (2019) computed an index of support for egalitarian gender roles and positively assessed the measurement equivalence of this synthetic measure –​the means can be compared across countries (Davidov et al, 2014). Table 4.3 shows the score for each European country, ordered from the one that displays the most egalitarian attitudes (Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands) to the country where people tend to express more traditional attitudes toward gender roles (Hungary, Bulgaria, Austria). While the bottom of this ranking presents some divergences from the rankings that international indices provided, the first

97

Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Equality in Europe

Table 4.3: Support for egalitarian gender roles Country Sweden Denmark Netherlands Northern Ireland France Finland Great Britain Belgium Estonia Cyprus (Republic) Germany –​ East Slovenia Luxembourg Croatia Spain Portugal Ireland Latvia Czechia Malta Germany –​ West Lithuania Greece Slovakia Romania Poland Italy Austria Bulgaria Hungary

Gender Ideology Index 3.3102 3.1116 2.9968 2.9434 2.9425 2.9309 2.8590 2.8052 2.7906 2.7852 2.7262 2.7239 2.7128 2.6856 2.6425 2.6342 2.6157 2.5987 2.5776 2.5764 2.5687 2.5534 2.5390 2.4577 2.4545 2.4533 2.3895 2.3796 2.3333 2.2985

Note: The index goes from 1 to 4, with 4 indicating the highest support for egalitarian gender roles. Source: Based on data from Lomazzi et al (2019)

98

Gender equality in Europe

half of the table indicates strong ranking-​position similarities with countries ranked in composite indices earlier in the chapter. Chapter Five will explore further the link between individual support for gender equality and the contextual characteristics that contribute to defining each country’s gender culture. Highlights from this chapter This chapter aimed to provide an overview of the complex task of measuring gender equality across European countries. Such complexity not only entails issues of comparability and validity among different instruments that one could adopt, but also the multidimensionality of the concept of gender equality. This chapter focused on two principal perspectives that can be adopted to measure gender equality: the use of macro indicators, built using gender statistics, and the employment of micro level indicators, built on survey population measurements. In the first case, international indices, like those developed by the UN (GII), OECD (SIGI), WEF (GGGI) and EIGE (GII), describe the country’s situation by considering structural and societal aspects of gender inequality. In the second case, indices built on survey data refer to individuals’ perspectives on gender issues concerning both behaviours and attitudes. The overview provided on the international indices speaks to different conceptualisations of gender equality. This requires awareness not only among scholars interested in the study of gender equality, but also among policymakers and audit bodies that evaluate policies. The development of the EIGE Gender Equality Index in the GM perspective’s framework makes this indicator a valuable instrument for evaluating gender equality in the EU and in its member countries, according to the overall EU strategy. The measurement of gender equality issues through surveys needs more work for better conceptualisations. As several

99

Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Equality in Europe

authors have pointed out (Braun, 1998; Davis and Greenstein, 2009; Walter, 2017; Grunow et al, 2018), the issue is still too confined to the dimension of women’s double role as working mothers, thereby neglecting at least two crucial points: gender equality’s multidimensionality and the fact that it encompasses the status of both women and men.

100

FIVE European gender cultures

Does GM really support the shift to a more gender-​egalitarian Europe? What are the effects of institutional factors and policies inspired by the GM perspective on people’s attitudes? How does the interaction between the contextual framework and personal values build up different gender cultures in Europe? This chapter examines such questions. In fact, while the development of the GM strategy and its presence in laws and documentation that the European Commission has drafted is quite clear in its goals and coverage at the European institutional level (Crespi and Lomazzi, 2018), very little is known about the process and efficacy and implementation in member countries (Rubery, 2002; Greed, 2005; Moser, 2005; Martinsen, 2007). European societies exercise varying levels of gender equality. As described in Chapter Four, by adopting a variety of indicators, Europeans across the board do not support gender equality in the same way, nor do they recognise, to the same extent, that promoting equality between men and women in Europe should be a political priority. For example, when asked by the Eurobarometer (European Commission and European Parliament, 2017) about which values the European Parliament

101

Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Equality in Europe

should defend as a matter of priority, gender equality was chosen by about 30% of the entire European sample. However, only 10.4% of citizens living in Croatia, 10.7% in Latvia and 15% in Bulgaria chose that answer. Conversely, 53% of people living in Northern Ireland, 51.8% in Sweden and 49.3% in France believe gender equality should be an EU priority. These figures, as well as those from the other gender equality indices introduced in Chapter Four, clearly indicate a fragmented situation that reflects different gender cultures in each country. The establishment and development of a specific gender culture entail many factors involving societal and individual processes and their interactions. The term gender culture precisely refers to the system of values and models that people use to orient their behaviour concerning gender relations (Pfau-​Effinger, 1998; Aboim, 2010). Such a system is not only about individual preferences and values transmitted through the primary socialisation process, but also concerns the role that institutions and contextual frameworks play in ongoing interactions on micro-​and macro-​ levels. Not only inner preferences, but also cultural values and common practices in the society where individuals live shape people’s behaviours (Uunk, 2015). Primary socialisation and exposure to more (or less) egalitarian contexts contribute to the development of individual gender-​role attitudes (Banaszak and Plutzer, 1993; Bolzendahl and Myers, 2004). In the case of values and attitudes concerning gender equality, people’s beliefs can be shaped by circumstances where individuals live, the community’s laws and norms, policies and practices expressed through welfare regimes, societal orientations and values that are the fruit of cultural heritage (Wharton, 2005). Such cultures are not solid, but shifting toward an egalitarian culture can be a slow process, and implementing policies that support such a shift is part of broader cultural change (Brewster and Padavic, 2000; Lewis, 2002; Kroska and Elman, 2009). For example, the introduction of policies that promote gender equality, as in the case of gender quotas or work–​family balance, can push this

102

European gender cultures

type of change by making new patterns of behaviour possible, increasing the legitimation of working mothers in the public sphere and creating a more recognised role for working fathers in the private sphere. This chapter wonders whether the principles written at the European level are reflected in Europeans’ attitudes toward gender roles. To address this question, the chapter spotlights the importance of the role that societal contexts play and the necessity of considering different societal settings to explain the individual support for egalitarian gender-​role attitudes, assumed to be a proxy for supporting gender equality (Bergh, 2006). The societal context is framed in its two principal components: structural and cultural dimensions. Both components play relevant roles in explaining individual opinions on gender roles, but they operate through different mechanisms. On one hand, societal value orientations enshrine shared opinions and beliefs, such as on egalitarian views, and culturally define legitimised social roles for men and women. On the other hand, the structure provides an organised system of opportunities that allow individuals to reach their goals by introducing policies and practices. Even if these two dimensions are interconnected (family policies also transmit culture), in this chapter, they are discussed in two separate sections for the sake of simplicity. The first section deals with the definition of opportunity structure, as provided by different societal contexts, with a particular emphasis on different models of gender relations supported by welfare regimes (defined as gender regimes). The second section focuses on the cultural dimension and argues that social norms and values shared within a society can influence individual values and attitudes toward gender equality. With specific reference to gender relations, a passage is dedicated to the concept of gender culture, often used in extant literature (Pfau-​Effinger, 1998; Aboim, 2010) to refer to uniform normative assumptions concerning the proper form of gender relations and the division of work between men and women.

103

Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Equality in Europe

The third section tries to combine the aforementioned theoretical perspectives by reporting empirical results from studies that have adopted similar perspectives. In particular, it narrows its reflections on the effects from policies that the GM strategy has inspired in the area of work–​family balance (see Chapter Three)  –​and that European countries have implemented in various ways –​on Europeans’ support for egalitarian gender roles. Structural context of opportunities and supported models of gender relations The concept of opportunity structure refers to ‘the framework of socially structured means and rules available for a social group to achieve its aims and interests, which are culturally defined and oriented toward social success’ (Latorre-​Catalán, 2017: 1–​2). The term was introduced by Cloward and Ohlin (1960), whose theory builds on Robert K.  Merton’s theory of anomie. According to Cloward and Ohlin’s theory (1960), when traditional pathways, such as education and career –​which individuals usually pursue to achieve their goals –​fail, people can follow less-​traditional pathways that alternative opportunity structures allow. A lack of jobs and poor educational systems in some districts provide examples of elements that may block access to opportunities for certain groups within the population. A broader conceptualisation of opportunity structure –​which also comprises welfare systems, workplace arrangements, and family and work policies –​can be adopted to refer to socially structured means and rules available for women and men to achieve equal opportunity in their personal choice of self-​ realisation and social roles. Opportunity structures not only differ across societies, but also are distributed unequally between men and women in most societies (Tesch-​Römer et al, 2008). In addition, opportunities’ structural context is subject to change over time due to social change processes, as changes in the demographic distribution of the population, average education

104

European gender cultures

levels and economic dynamics lead to the development of new social needs and demands. Inglehart’s post-​materialism theory (Inglehart, 1977; Inglehart and Norris, 2003) suggests that the modernisation process, led by economic development, pushes the shift from traditional and materialist values to post-​materialist values that emphasise self-​ realisation. Women’s increased participation in the labour market represents a tipping point for social change in most Western societies because of direct consequences on family structure, challenges to traditional specialisation of roles by gender, and new demands on welfare, particularly concerning family policies (Inglehart and Norris, 2003; Cunningham, 2008; Motiejunaite and Kravchenko, 2008; Kroska and Elman, 2009; Crespi and Miller, 2013). Policies in the field of work–​family balance particularly comprise relevant elements of the opportunity structure that are available to individuals. By providing childcare services, parental leave schemes and support to care for vulnerable family members, family policies enable women and men to negotiate their roles, tasks and responsibilities. In other words, by making opportunities possible, they allow people to realise their potential. For the same reason, the opportunity structure can shape individuals’ opinions (Sjöberg, 2004; Kangas and Rostgaard, 2007; André et al, 2013; Lomazzi et al, 2019). Societies operate under different family policies and vary by models of gender relations that welfare regimes support. Pascall and Lewis (2004) named these models ‘gender regimes’. Gender regimes in European societies

Also among measures supporting gender equality and egalitarian roles between men and women are opportunities that societal structures provide, which differ across nations. For example, the feasibility of women entering the labour market may be supported differently through the provision of childcare services or antidiscrimination policies that national governments, as well

105

Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Equality in Europe

as private or public workplaces, can implement in different ways, with varying intensity. Such policies and practices tend to support a certain model of gender relations; therefore, they can influence individual beliefs on appropriate gender roles. As mentioned in the previous section, the differing configu­ rations of gender relations and roles in societies are defined in extant literature as gender regimes (Lewis, 2002; Pascall and Lewis, 2004; Walby, 2004). This term concerns the dominant relationship model between men and women in a specific context and often reflects arrangements concerning female employment and the welfare system. Gender regimes can be classified according to their support for female employment, as Braun and Glöckner-​Rist (2011) suggest. For example, in Central and Eastern European countries, the dual-​earner model historically is prevalent. In fact, female participation in the labour force was very high during the socialist regime. In Czechia, Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia, 80% of women were employed in paid work (Pascall and Lewis, 2004: 375). However, this was not due to any egalitarian freedom in choosing preferred roles, but was mandated by the regime and guided by economic necessity. However, this did not affect the gendered segregation of roles in the private sphere (Ferge, 1997). When the socialist regime fell, labour market conditions changed, and the dual-​earner model fell out of favour. However, recent economic necessities that emerged in the late-2000s have pushed these societies back toward the dual-​earner model but, as in the past, equality in the public sphere appears to be a goal imposed by necessity rather than through value shifts (Braun and Glöckner-​Rist,  2011). In social-​democratic societies, such as Scandinavian countries, huge childcare systems historically support gender equality, promoting the dual-​caregiver/​earner model. Unlike other societies, where working mothers can be viewed negatively, as a challenge to the status quo, Braun and Glöckner-​Rist (2011: 167) affirm that in social-​democratic countries, ‘the idea that working

106

European gender cultures

mothers are bad mothers does not easily come to mind in such a context’. In countries with liberal regimes, like Great Britain, equality mainly means equality in opportunities, and the greatest efforts are dedicated to anti-​discriminatory policies. Childcare services maintain low prices, so it is easier for working mothers to balance issues. Social norms concerning working mothers are quite progressive, and women who are both mothers and workers are not criticised on moral grounds. In corporative countries, the ideal model is the traditional male-​breadwinner/​female-​homemaker paradigm, which is supported by a rigid childcare system that implies reduced female economic participation. However, in the past twenty years, opinions about working mothers became more positive. In the case of the Netherlands, female economic participation increased, and the predominant model is one breadwinner and a half (women often work part-​time). This change, however, did not take place in the Southern countries, where the childcare system is lacking and grandparents are the principal resource to solve the work–​family conflict (Jappens and Van Bavel, 2012). Also for this reason, these countries have maintained a low rate of female employment, and the idea that home should be the primary (if not unique) societal realm for women has resisted change (Braun and Glöckner-​Rist, 2011; Lomazzi, 2017a). Social policies that communicate specific gender cultures support and reproduce these gender regimes, affecting the individual’s perspective on gender roles (Britton, 2000; Sjöberg, 2004; Aboim, 2010). This happens because, as Sjöberg (2004) argues, policies define the context of opportunities in which individuals can exercise their options: individual attitudes can be understood when considering the costs and possibilities of existing alternatives from an economic, social and moral perspective. Therefore, to explain individual support for gender equality, it is necessary to include contextual opportunities that legitimise

107

Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Equality in Europe

egalitarian gender roles or, on the contrary, continue to transmit a gender system based on specialised roles by gender. Cultural contexts: shared societal value orientations and individual gender-​role attitudes In addition to the relevance of structural opportunities, normative expectations concerning gender roles are also influenced by social norms and values shared within a society. Prevailing cultural values address individual goals, actions and beliefs (Schwartz, 2006). Among the many aspects of the cultural definition of appropriate roles for men and women in society, many scholars who investigated the relation between gender-​role attitudes and predominant cultural values in a society focused on the normative role of religious values (Inglehart, 1997; Moore and Vanneman, 2003; Lussier and Fish, 2016) because religions provide complete value systems that exert a strong influence on gender norms through cultural transmission of values, lifestyles and preferences (Inglehart and Norris, 2003; Klingorová and Havlíček, 2015). Most religions support the gendered separation of roles, and the secularisation process is believed to promote the liberalisation of gender norms, with the erosion of ascriptive principles and an emphasis on self-​realisation (Inglehart and Norris, 2003; Kalmijn, 2003). Moore and Vanneman (2003) were particularly interested in assessing the contextual effects of the proportion of a US state’s Protestant fundamentalists on the general population’s individual gender attitudes. The results of their multilevel analysis of data from the General Social Survey show that people living in states with more fundamentalists tend to hold more conservative gender-​role attitudes. Furthermore, when the proportion of fundamentalists increases in an area, non-​fundamentalist residents in particular show more conservative attitudes toward gender roles in unison with the cultural context’s social expectations. Other extant studies do not consider only religiosity, but direct their attention to the broader value system. For example, Seddig

108

European gender cultures

and Lomazzi (2019) considered the relation between gender-​role attitudes and the prevailing value systems in 36 countries. They operated under Schwartz’s theory of cultural value orientations (2006), which defines seven cultural value orientations: Harmony; Embeddedness; Hierarchy; Mastery; Affective Autonomy; Intellectual Autonomy; and Egalitarianism. In their study on the cross-​national comparability of attitudes toward gender roles, Seddig and Lomazzi (2019) show that gender-​role attitudes are connected to the values of Embeddedness, Hierarchy and Egalitarianism, but correlate strongly only with the cultural value orientation of Embeddedness. This orientation refers to societies in which people are viewed as entities deeply embedded in collectivity (Schwartz, 2006: 140), in which maintaining the status quo is considered important. In these societies, people tend to express traditional gender-​role attitudes as part of a traditional system to be preserved. According to their study, European countries that display the highest levels of embeddedness and favour traditional gender beliefs are Bulgaria and Poland. Conversely, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden and Germany registered the lowest scores on embeddedness and the most progressive gender-​role attitudes. Another way to handle the cultural variety existing across societies is to refer more precisely to the gender culture, established as a result of historical pathways involving economic, political and social developments (Pfau-​Effinger, 2004; Aboim, 2010). The next section examines the conceptualisation of gender culture in extant literature and refers to potential reflections on structural and institutional practices in the development of gender cultures. Gender cultures

Over time, scholars have ascribed different meanings to the term gender culture in their theoretical perspectives. Hofstede (1989; Hofstede and Arrindell, 1998) was one of the first authors to

109

Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Equality in Europe

use this term, having adopted it to indicate different cultures between men and women that emerged from a study on values at IBM. In his formulation, which he uses as an alternative to ‘masculine/​feminine cultures’, the idea of gender culture refers to the different values expressed by gender. Similarly, Collins (1992) describes the differences in styles and motivations between male and female workers, constructing different cultural interpretations of women compared with men. Going further with this perspective, other research in the field of organisation and management studies (Maddock and Parkin, 1993; Jones, 1998; Liebig, 2000; Poggio, 2000) began to broaden the discussion’s scope by viewing companies as gendered cultural contexts. The organisational gender culture then is framed as the symbolic order of gender differences and relations (Liebig, 2000), or as the system of cultural norms that can restrict behaviours and expressions because of gender (Maddock and Parkin, 1993). More precisely, Jones (1998) and Poggio (2000) argue that gender cultures are a distinctive element of each organisation that is established, transmitted, challenged and negotiated by daily interactions, practices and norms. While an organisational structural component exists, which defines the context and the space for these interactions, the cultural dimension is particularly relevant for studying gender dynamics. For example, Poggio (2000) states that the phenomenon of segregation in the labour market can be explained through the existing gender culture. For example, vertical segregation, also known as the ‘glass ceiling’, in reference to difficulties that women face in reaching top-​level positions in their careers, mainly is due to culturally ‘invisible’ barriers that restrict women’s opportunities because of gender stereotypes (Davidson and Cooper, 1992; Cotter et al, 2001). Pfau-​Effinger (1998) brought this conceptualisation beyond the border of work-​organisational contexts and extended it to broader societal culture dynamics. According to her definition (Pfau-​ Effinger, 1998: 150), gender culture is the uniform normative assumptions existing in society on the proper form of gender

110

European gender cultures

relations and of the division of work between men and women. These norms and values guide people in their behaviour on gender relations. Despite the dominant set of cultural values, alternative and competing value systems also can exist both at the individual and institutional levels. These alternative systems, introduced through new laws or policies, as well as through social movements or individual interactions, challenge the status quo and can push for social change (Pfau-​Effinger, 1998; Aboim, 2010). Gender cultures reflect each country’s historical pathways, developed together with each country’s economic, social and political systems (Pfau-​Effinger, 2004). Such patterns defined different scenarios concerning labour market dynamics, policies and welfare regimes that influence the establishment of dominant family models and gender relations. In this chapter, we embrace Pfau-​Effinger’s conceptualisation of gender culture, which succinctly emphasises the system of norms and values that institutions transmit, interpret and reproduce to define the context of opportunities and individuals, who express their own values and preferences. This system is very complex and refers to the intertwined relation between individual, relational and institutional levels of gender relations (Wharton, 2005). Individual values  –​demonstrated, for example, by supporting egalitarian gender roles –​cannot be explained only from an individual perspective because they also result from the socialisation process and daily negotiations (West and Zimmerman, 1987). Furthermore, this ongoing process takes place in a societal context made of laws, social norms and institutional structures that are, of course, part of a society’s gender culture and affect individuals’ values. Structural and cultural aspects are intertwined. Extant studies (Korpi, 2000; Sjöberg, 2004; Crompton and Lyonette, 2006; Braun and Glöckner-​Rist, 2011; Stier et al, 2012) demonstrate the influence of family policies on gender-​role attitudes, particularly toward the dual role of working mother. Such policies become gender-​normative because they transmit a vision of the expected gender relation in that society. The institutional

111

Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Equality in Europe

transmission of a traditional gender culture takes place, for example, when the provision of services assumes that one of the two partners is the principal (or only) earner, and that the other partner manages care and housework tasks, or when policies provide services and measures as if the dual-​earner couple would be the mainstreamed situation (Korpi, 2000). The diverse gender equality picture painted in the previous chapter by various indicators can be considered a reflection of different gender cultures existing in Europe. Even if individual actors’ roles are extremely relevant in the construction of gender culture, as well as in all cultural processes, we focus our attention here on the role of the cultural and structural context that can promote gender equality by supporting more egalitarian roles between men and women and that can impact individual support for gender equality. Societal context and individual attitudes: empirical evidence We opened this chapter with the question:  ‘Does gender mainstreaming really support the shift to a more gender-​ egalitarian Europe?’ Unfortunately, the answer to this question is anything but simple empirically. Observing the direct effect of European legislation concerning gender equality on people’s beliefs is a big challenge. The path from legislative processes to Europeans’ daily life experience is too long, and many other factors intervene along the way. First, it is not about a direct experience: countries’ actions mediate the EU GM strategy’s potential effects. Second, not all member countries’ governments implemented the European directive to the same extent and with the same timing. However, it is possible to consider national policies that reflect countries’ implementation of the European directives. Here, we focus on policies that the GM perspective inspired in the field of family–​work balance, considered to be one of the most relevant issues in promoting gender equality in Europe (Crespi and Miller, 2013; Crespi and Lomazzi, 2018),

112

European gender cultures

and we report empirical results from extant research that analysed the effect of such policies on individual gender-​role attitudes. As defined in Chapter Four, gender-​role attitudes express normative beliefs concerning women and men’s appropriate role in society. They particularly refer to the gendered division of tasks and responsibilities between domestic and public spheres (Alwin, 2005; Davis and Greenstein, 2009; Schultz Lee et al, 2010). Traditional views refer to support for specialised roles, with women devoted to care and housework activities and men to paid work and public responsibilities. Conversely, egalitarian beliefs go beyond the gendered specialisation of social roles (Albrecht et  al, 2000; Cunningham et  al, 2005). The differences in the level of support for egalitarian gender roles can be explained both from individual and contextual perspectives. Extent literature (Baxter and Kane, 1995; Scott et al, 1996; Bolzendahl and Myers, 2004; Kroska and Elman, 2009; André et  al, 2013) agrees on the impact of personal-​ status characteristics to explain gender-​role attitudes:  young, more-​educated people and those living in urban contexts tend to express more egalitarian perspectives. Women participating in the labour market tend to hold more egalitarian views as well. Conversely, women who are not in the labour force, married people, parents with young children and those who are more religious tend to support gendered specialisation of roles. These socio-​demographic factors can help determine differences among individuals without considering the societies where they live. However, structural and cultural factors can explain differences among individuals living in different societies with different gender regimes and a variety of gender cultures (Banaszak and Plutzer, 1993; Kalmijn, 2003; Pascall and Lewis, 2004; Aboim, 2010; Lomazzi, 2016a). The societal context matters in comparatively explaining gender-​role attitudes. In some cases, scholars focused on cultural aspects, such as the religious context’s impact on gender attitudes. For example, Moore and Vanneman (2003) demonstrated that in one US state,

113

Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Equality in Europe

a significant relationship appears to exist between the proportion of religious fundamentalists and the state’s white citizens’ conservative gender attitudes. Other authors instead focused on structural aspects, looking at the macro-​effect of educational levels or considering labour market aspects. For example, female participation in the labour market has been determined to be a powerful contextual determinant of gender-​role attitudes in many extant studies (Brooks and Bolzendahl, 2004; André et al, 2013; Voicu and Constantin, 2014). According to these authors, higher rates of female employment support social legitimation of the dual role of working mothers and have increased pressure for structural change due to the need for better childcare options and because of transforming family relations, eliciting a societal level impact in addition to the individual effect. Another aspect that deserves attention in explaining gender-​ role attitudes from a contextual perspective is the role of public policy. From a GM perspective, policies in any area embed a gendered vision and can affect people differently depending on gender. In their targets and instruments, policies reveal their underlying ideology, which, in the case of our reflection, concerns gender ideology. For example, policies supporting the reconciliation of family and professional duties consider the dual role of women and men as workers and caregivers not only as an existing fact, but also as a fact to be supported. By doing so, such policies help legitimise these roles. Sjöberg (2004) stresses this point: family policy institutions shape actual conditions under which people can act out their values, with the possibility of creating real gender equality by adopting measures that support the dual role of worker and caregiver (both for men and women) and increase support for egalitarian gender roles, even for those who do not experience these measures directly. So far, few studies empirically have tested the effect of work–​family balance policies on individual attitudes to assess whether such measures are, in effect, positively promoting egalitarian values.

114

European gender cultures

Kangas and Rostgaard (2007) did not focus their attention purely on gender-​role attitudes, but rather used data from the ISSP to build an index to investigate women’s lifestyle preferences. This index compr ises two measurement dimensions, one of which entails commitment to work by asking respondents for views on women holding full-​ or part-​time jobs at different stages in a family’s life cycle (after marrying, before having children, when children are below school age, when the youngest child starts school, and after all the children leave home). The second dimension concerns ideal gender roles and picks two items from the gender-​role attitudes scale of ISSP 2002: ‘Both man and woman should contribute to the household income’; ‘A man’s job is to earn money; a woman’s job is to look after the home and family’. Kangas and Rostgaard (2007) analysed the effect of work–​ life balance policies in seven countries (Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands, England and Germany) by employing multinomial logistic regression models. Specifically, they tested to what extent parental leaves and access to childcare services affect individuals’ opinions. Their study confirmed the relevance of personal-​status factors, such as education, income and economic status. Moreover, the study reveals how opportunity structures constrain individuals’ preferences for egalitarian lifestyles due to availability and access to institutional practices, such as childcare services and parental leave schemes. As in the case of Sweden, Finland and Denmark, the availability of affordable and quality childcare services increases the likelihood of women working full time. Similarly, the authors found that in countries where parental leave schemes are generous, such as in Sweden and Finland, female employment is higher. Although this study addresses the relevance of work–​family policies, it considers countries that have gender regimes that tend to be quite supportive of egalitarian relations between men and women. Other studies (Sjöberg, 2004; André et al, 2013; Lomazzi et al, 2019) include

115

Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Equality in Europe

more countries, allowing for comparisons between societies that display a variety of gender regimes. Sjöberg (2004) uses data from the ISSP 1994 to investigate the role of family policy institutions in explaining attitudes toward gender roles in 13 countries. Sjöberg (2004) argues that the modernisation process changed the opportunity structure for women due to demographic and social changes that affected the family structure. Therefore, the author focuses the analysis on industrialised societies studied in the survey, as well as countries outside Europe (Australia, Austria, Canada, Germany, Great Britain, Ireland, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden and the United States). The measurement of gender-​role attitudes comprises the following items:  ‘A preschool child is likely to suffer if his or her mother works’; ‘All in all, family life suffers when the woman has a full-​time job’; ‘Being a housewife is just as fulfilling as working for pay’; ‘A man’s job is to earn money; a woman’s job is to look after the home and family’; and ‘It is not good that a man stays at home and cares for the children and the woman goes out to work’. The respondents were asked whether they agreed or disagreed with each statement. Sjöberg adopts a multilevel model to analyse the effect of family policy institutions on attitudes toward female labour market participation. This approach could be criticised from a methodological perspective because the number of societies included in the analysis is not enough to achieve a good estimation of the model; the extant literature in this field tends to consider 20 as a proper minimum number of groups for this type of modelling (Hox and Kreft, 1994; Stegmueller, 2013; Bryan and Jenkins, 2016). However, the results from Sjöberg’s study (2004) are interesting:  policies that support the dual-​ earner family model increase support for egalitarian gender-​role attitudes, while in countries where policies were suited to fit the traditional single-​earner family model, the effect was negative. André et al (2013) used data from a more recent edition of ISSP (2010) and aim to explain individual attitudes toward

116

European gender cultures

gender roles in 32 countries, adopting a multilevel approach. Like Sjöberg (2004), they tested for the effect from the possibility of combining paid work and family responsibilities. Their model included two country-​level indicators: government expenditures on family benefits and the length of parental leave. Despite their expectations, the authors did not find positive effects from these institutional factors on egalitarian attitudes. The authors wondered about the odd results, especially concerning the leave schemes. On one hand, they considered the little information available on paternal leave and its still-​scarce use in most societies as possible motivations. It was recently introduced into many of the countries analysed, so it might require time for this institutional practice to exert an effect on individuals’ opinions. On the other hand, they used, as an indicator, the length of the leave, assuming that this would support egalitarian models. However, in actuality, longer periods of leave, used mainly by mothers, also could support traditional family models based on the specialisation of roles. Lomazzi et al (2019) argue that including female economic participation in the model may lead to mixed results because women’s participation in the labour market also is strictly related to the availability of efficient family policies that support working mothers. Therefore, this strong association may lead to controversial results when both indicators are included in the model. To better observe the effect of work–​ family balance policies on individuals’ gender beliefs, Lomazzi et al (2019) focus only on such policies, but at the same time provide a more articulated approach to the opportunity structure than extant studies (Sjöberg, 2004; Kangas and Rostgaard, 2007; André et al, 2013). The study by Lomazzi et  al (2019) considers 28 European countries and uses the most recent data available on this topic from the Eurobarometer (European Commission and European Parliament, 2015). As a measurement of attitudes toward gender roles, it adopts an index built on four items, asking

117

Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Equality in Europe

respondents whether they agree or disagree with the following statements: ‘All in all, family life suffers when the mother has a full-​time job’; ‘Women are less willing than men to make a career for themselves’; ‘Overall, men are less competent than women to perform household tasks’; and ‘A father must put his career ahead of looking after his young child’. The authors (Lomazzi et  al, 2019) conceptualise the opportunity structure, going beyond the simple use of a couple of family policies, and suggest a model of the relation among individual gender-​role attitudes, national policies and the societal level. Following their model, the opportunity structure includes factors at the national political level, such as: gender representation in positions of responsibility; policies concerning work–​family balance; parental leave; the gender pay gap and non-​discrimination of job applicants by gender. In addition to these aspects, other elements at the societal level can contribute to defining the opportunity structure, such as social infrastructure, which can provide availability of childcare services, and employers’ offer of flexible time schedules and other resources for combining personal and professional duties. Furthermore, from individual level aspects such as the current household arrangement, personal preferences and resources complete the model. Assuming this articulated framework, Lomazzi et al (2019) employed multilevel modelling to assess the impact of childcare services’ availability. They considered both the effect from services dedicated to children 0–​3 years old and those for children between 3 and 6 years old. While formal childcare for the oldest group shows no effect on gender-​role attitudes, the provision of formal childcare for children ages 0–​3 years old indicates a strong positive effect on egalitarian attitudes, both for women and men. This type of external support’s availability seems to favour egalitarian views. The authors also tested the effect of parental leave schemes, but this practice does not appear to exert a significant impact on gender-​role attitudes.

118

European gender cultures

For the first time in a comparative study, the effect of workplace practices in the field of work–​family balance has been tested. Among the many instruments that private companies can implement in their organisations, flexibility concerning the time schedule is one of the most widespread and is considered particularly effective in supporting employees in their challenge of managing work and family. Flexibility in work-​time arrangements (flexitime) gives workers the option of determining the distribution of their working hours, enabling them to combine work and family responsibilities (Allen et al, 2013; van der Lippe and Lippényi, 2018). Lomazzi et al (2019) collected information concerning the use of flextime in the workplace and tested its effect. About one-​third of Europeans use it, but it is not available to the same extent across European countries. Figure 5.1 shows the share of workers who said they use flexitime, based on results from the European Working Conditions Survey 2015 (Eurofond, 2015). The analysis by Lomazzi et  al (2019) demonstrates that the use of flexitime exerts a positive effect on egalitarian gender-​role attitudes in men and especially in women who experience their personal-​opportunity structures enriched by this practice. This points to the fundamental role that companies play in developing organisational cultures that are gender equality-​oriented. Organisational studies (Burke and Vinnicombe, 2005; Wittenberg-​Cox and Maitland, 2008; Adams and Ferreira, 2009; Reguera-​Alvarado et  al, 2017) report how companies that implement strategies to increase female labour market participation and support women’s careers have benefitted, and how the implementation of practices that support the dual-​earner family model appear potentially to support the development of egalitarian values among workers. This aspect, noted by Lomazzi et al (2019), deserves deeper empirical study to provide consistency on such empirical insights.

119

newgenrtpdf

Figure 5.1: Distribution of European workers’ use of flexitime (%) 57.5 55.6 54.4 52.6 42.1 40.8 39.5 37.8 37.6 37.4 37.1 36.9 36.4 35.6 34.6 33.7 31.1 31 29.4 28.9 28.5 26.4

Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Equality in Europe

120

Sweden Denmark Finland Netherlands Belgium Austria Greece North Ireland France Great Britain Luxembourg Italy Slovenia Estonia Ireland Germany Poland Portugal Czechia Latvia Spain Hungary Romania Croatia Malta Cyprus Lithuania Slovakia Bulgaria

22.9 22.8 22.4 21.2 20.3 18.1 17.9 0

10

20

30 40 50 Percentage of European workers making use of flexitime

60

Note: The distribution indicates the percentage of European workers making use of flexitime. Source: Based on data from Eurofond (2015)

70

European gender cultures

Highlights from this chapter In this chapter, we focused on the relevance of the societal context on individual support for gender equality. To do so, we considered two elements of the societal contexts that, intertwine, result in a variety of contexts that support the development of different egalitarian attitudes and different levels of support for gender equality. Structural aspects, which determine the opportunities available for men and women to achieve their goals and pursue their values and preferences, and cultural features, which establish socially constructed, predominant family models and legitimised gender roles, contribute to explaining individuals’ beliefs in gender equality. Assuming that the European GM strategy is part of the European societal context, we wondered whether the principles enshrined by such a strategy are, in effect, constructive in developing a more egalitarian gender culture in European countries. While such direct assessment is quite difficult to fulfil, it is possible to consider national policies that the European GM perspective has inspired, such as those related to the family–​work balance domain. We reported empirical results from extant research that analysed the effect of such policies on individual gender-​role attitudes and provided evidence that policies that support the dual-​earners/​dual-​ caregiver family model promote egalitarian attitudes toward gender roles. Particularly efficient in this respect, evidently, are tools derived from national policies, such as the availability of childcare services, or from workplace practices, such as the option to structure work schedules using flexitime. These policies and practices allow working parents to combine their professional and personal responsibilities, and directly affect their opportunity structures. Because of such realistic opportunities, people tend to express more egalitarian views, because they are more coherent with their actual possibilities.

121

Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Equality in Europe

At the same time, the implementation of work–​f amily balance policies also transmits a certain idea of a lifestyle model and family pattern, legitimising them through structural elements that contribute to changing current gender regimes. In conclusion, the implementation of work–​family policies and practices that the GM strategy has inspired is particularly relevant for the promotion of an egalitarian gender culture built on interactions between individual values and attitudes, as well as structural institutional factors that can make gender equality practices possible.

122

SIX Current challenges to gender mainstreaming in Europe As discussed earlier in this book, European political bodies so far have put forth a systemic effort to promote gender equality through the establishment of a common legislative framework. Together with other cultural and social processes that led to the establishment of a more egalitarian gender culture in Europe, such as modernisation and secularisation (Inglehart and Norris, 2003; Kalmijn, 2003; Voicu, 2009), the establishment of the GM strategy encouraged countries to reinforce –​or undertake where any previously explicit policies were active –​their actions towards gender equality. Nevertheless, achievements reached so far in promoting gender equality cannot, unfortunately, be taken for granted forever. Economic, social and political transformations can reflect changes in the cultural context and impact gender cultures. Often, such societal transitions’ outputs are neither easily predictable nor automatically positive. Scholars who investigated the change over time in support of egalitarian gender roles demonstrated that it is not true that societies always move toward a higher level of support for gender equality. On the contrary, researchers such as Scott et al (1996), Brewster and Padavic (2000) and Cotter et al

123

Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Equality in Europe

(2011) have reported fluctuations in attitudes toward gender roles, while other authors referred to cases of backlash, including returns to conservative views (Lee et al, 2007; Savelyev, 2014), persistence in traditional orientations (Inglehart, 1983) or even stagnation (Lomazzi, 2017a). Since the start of its implementation, the European strategy on gender equality deals with several old and new challenges. The process of European integration challenged the GM perspective both at the EU and national levels. On one hand, candidate countries needed to comply with European requirements on gender equality policies in addition to other regulations (Bretherton, 2001). On the other hand, considering that the concept of gender equality already is controversial in the European framework (Eveline and Bacchi, 2005; Meier and Celis, 2011; Chapter One in this book), the European enlargement further challenged its conceptualisation because of the nexus of different cultural interpretations. This resulted in the fragmentation of policies and limited the GM strategy’s efficacy (Moser and Moser, 2005; Rees, 2005). Further challenges came with management of the economic crisis. The austerity measures adopted resulted in cuts to support for instruments and practices that were essential to the GM strategy (McRobie, 2012; Briskin, 2014; Jacquot, 2017). The underlying idea that gender equality could be less important than other European and national priorities instead led to a progressive marginalisation of gender equality policies that led to cross-​cutting of other policy interventions. While the financial crisis of 2007–​08 and the subsequent recession period are in the past, the consequences to gender equality from decisions made during that time persist. We will consider these consequences in their interactions with other relevant issues. In particular, this chapter focuses on two emerging challenges to GM strategy and gender equality in Europe. In particular, we refer to the risks connected to current political developments, which have seen the rise of populist and Eurosceptic groups

124

Current challenges to gender mainstreaming in Europe

all over Europe, and to the issue of intersectionality, which considers multiple inequities. Of course, the rise of anti-​EU opinions in all European countries is a challenge for the European project itself. Furthermore, the institutionalisation of such disaffection into political parties’ narratives can, in the long term, affect gender equality policies. A political U-​turn may, in fact, change the normative setting. New political elites could define new European priorities and reduce funding for those measures supporting gender equality, or suppress the instruments aimed at promoting the role of women in the public sphere. Similarly, if more politically conservative views on family models dominate discourse, they would most likely mainstream support for a traditional model of the family, with gendered specialisation of roles. Since such conservative models lean toward the ‘male-​breadwinner model’, a possible coherent consequence could be suppression of incentives and support for work–​family balance policies. At the European level, this risk may be contained by the heterogeneity among members of European political institutions and the variety of interests that countries’ representatives offer. Instead, the threat could be higher in certain nations where, in addition to these nations’ political cultures and the priorities that their ruling governments set, relationships with supranational authorities are not always simple. For example, the rise of Euroscepticism challenges the EU’s legitimacy. Not only are political parties across Europe questioning the EU’s authority, but through their Eurosceptic representatives, some member countries also are looking to regain their independence on several issues. The dramatic case of migration policies and border management is noteworthy, both in delineating the EU’s limits and the individualism of single nations despite their belonging to the common European project. What could happen to gender equality policies? The GM framework originally had been developed with the goal of tackling gender inequities that affect women’s lives

125

Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Equality in Europe

worldwide (Moser and Moser, 2005). The historical development of the strategy, described in Chapter Two, shows that European implementation of this worldwide perspective focused on the crucial issues that European women were facing at that time and that were part of public discourse as well. In the past few decades, social changes that have occurred in Europe have introduced even more complexity that affects gender inequities. For example, the impact of the economic crisis, new migration flows and an ageing population challenge a perspective that risks not factoring in current transformations in European societies, nor the fact that gender inequality is only part of a more complex system of inequities. To deal with multiple inequities properly, it is necessary to incorporate the issue of intersectionality into the GM framework. In the following section of this chapter, we refer to this perspective and consider three societal changes that particularly demand a broader approach to gender equality: the consequences of the economic crisis, the ageing population, the refugee crisis and the integration processes. Policies that neglect the intersections of inequities and discrimination can exacerbate gender disadvantages. Euroscepticism and gender equality policies The development of the European project coexists with the slow, but quite steady, rise of its opponents (Taggart, 1998). The dissent toward European governance represents, by definition, one of the principal challenges to the EU (Archick, 2018). Doubts concerning the efficacy and legitimacy of the EU’s authority started in the 1980s, when the first trace of Euroscepticism could be found in the UK’s opposition to the EU’s powers (Taggart, 1998; Hooghe and Marks, 2007; Brack and Startin, 2015). Since then, scepticism slowly has grown, but the share of populations unconvinced by the European project is not distributed equally across European countries. A possible way to

126

Current challenges to gender mainstreaming in Europe

measure the level of Euroscepticism is to consider how Europeans would vote on their countries’ membership in the EU. A recent Parlemeter, a periodic report on Europeans’ opinions about the EU (European Parliament: DG Communication, 2018 ), asked Europeans this question. Figure 6.1 shows the distribution of respondents who would vote to leave the EU or else remain uncertain about their vote. Euroscepticism seems to have found fertile soil, particularly in countries such as Italy, Czechia, Croatia, the UK, Cyprus and Austria. In addition to the fact that a general distrust in institutions and political disaffection with national politics can drive people toward Euroscepticism, the development of Eurosceptic opinions can be attributed to other principal mechanisms that often are intertwined with it (McLaren, 2007). People’s disaffection with Europe can result from a cost-​ benefit analysis of what the European membership brought to the country where they live, in regards to economic and cultural aspects (Eichenberg and Dalton, 1993; Marks and Steenbergen, 2004; Hooghe and Marks, 2005). According to this view, ‘economic losers’ and those who perceive that the European integration has led to negative consequences on their personal lives tend to express less support for the EU. The effects of austerity measures that the EU imposed, which strongly impacted national economies in Southern countries and the UK (Llamazares and Gramacho, 2007; MacLeavy, 2018), can be viewed as an illustrative aspect of this explanation. Different approaches suggest other possible underlying mechanisms behind Euroscepticism. The first refers to the dynamics between national and supranational identities. When national identities become exclusive, the feeling of being part of a common European project turns out to be very weak (Medrano and Gutiérrez, 2001; Hooghe and Marks, 2005; Bruter, 2008; Bellucci et  al, 2012). Social fears stemming from economic

127

newgenrtpdf

Figure 6.1: Euroscepticism: respondents who would vote to leave the EU or are unsure (%)

22

22

20

32

24

24

25

Don't know yet/Not sure

Source: Adapted from the Parlemeter report (European Parliament: DG Communication, 2018: 28)

a

ly Ita

hi ec

Cz

m

tia oa

Cr

us

ng Ki

d te ni U

Vote for leave

19

do

ria

pr

Cy

st

ov

ak

ia

16

Cl

26

22

Au

ry

ia ar lg

Bu

y an rm

un H

Ge

19

17

ga

ce an

d

24

17

Fr

ia

an nl

Fi

ia

tv

La

ia

an

en

19

17

15

m

ov Sl

a

ia

ni

tv

La

n ai

to

17

12

Ro

14

Es

ta

21

15

18

19

20

29 29

35

11

Sp

m

al

M

l

iu

ga

lg

rtu

17

13

12

10

Be

Po

k

nd

15

15

16

11

la

ar

s

14

14

nm

De

nd

rla he

Ge

rm

an

y

11

9

17

N

Sw

ni

10

ed

nd la

ua th

Ire

Li

10

et

7 a

7

9

en

8

8

Po

128 8

7

18

22

Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Equality in Europe

12 18

Current challenges to gender mainstreaming in Europe

insecurities and migration flows can exacerbate people’s (and countries’) desire to shut themselves off. This happens because phenomena such as immigration are perceived as external cultural threats. In reaction, in-​group relations then take priority to foster the perception of security (Bruter, 2008; Bellucci et al, 2012). This type of dynamics boosts support for national sovereignty instead of belonging to a European community. Such an explanation could dovetail with border countries’ plight, especially those on the Mediterranean Sea  –​Greece, Italy –​and Hungary who, for a very long time, have been left alone in dealing with the humanitarian crisis related to dramatic increases in migration flows of people escaping countries ravaged by poverty and civil wars (Bauböck, 2018). The EU’s inefficacy in managing the migration crisis as a European matter, showed the EU’s limits and fuelled Euroscepticism (Menéndez, 2016; Hatton, 2017; Bauböck, 2018). In addition to its many roots, Euroscepticism can assume different forms, ranging from individual distrust, to the institutionalisation of such scepticism as part of the parties’ narratives, to the withdrawal of a member country. Brack and Startin (2015) describe the process that brought Euroscepticism from being at the margins of the political debate to becoming part of mainstream rhetoric, including in traditionally pro-​EU political parties. Among European countries, the UK is the first where disaffection with Europe found an institutionalised form, becoming part of mainstream parties’ narratives (Evans and Butt, 2007). Later, Eurosceptic positions became prominent in most right-​wing parties’ rhetoric in many of the other European member countries as well. The process of institutionalising anti-​Europe narratives is particularly relevant when considering its possible impact on governments’ priorities and consequential policies and budgeting.

129

Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Equality in Europe

How can the populist Euroscepticism negatively affect gender equality? The erosion of the European authority’s overall legitimacy can easily lead to weakened support for European directives and their implementation in member countries. Gender equality matters also can suffer under such general delegitimisation as well. Even if some left-​wing groups have expressed their own forms of Euroscepticism, most political parties that criticise the EU hold right-​wing positions (Stokes, 2015) that connect their nationalist perspectives with anti-​immigration sentiments and patriarchal views of gender relations (Zaslove, 2009; Meret and Siim, 2013; Akkerman, 2015; Walby, 2018; Askola, 2019). Becoming part of the political debate that the media have fostered (Galpin and Trenz, 2017), political ideologies that often tend to go alongside anti-​EU positions risk proliferation of conservative views on gender equality or gender-​blind political priorities in national parliaments, as well as the European one. Scholars began to investigate these groups’ positions further concerning gender equality. While some peculiar aspects exist, Akkerman (2015) and Askola (2019) identified a common paradox that brings together the gender positions of right-​ wing Eurosceptics regardless of the context in which they developed. On one hand, they tend to promote a conservative view of gender roles, with the definition of women focusing on motherhood being their primary function in society (sometimes referred to as ‘mothers of the nation’). As discussed in Chapter Five, policies transmit underlying values and a normative idea of expected gender relations and roles. Following this line of reasoning, the conservative view on women’s roles held by most of the right wing’s Eurosceptics could be translated in policies that support the male-​breadwinner model of the family, with a strong, a priori, gendered and defined separation of responsibilities, in contrast with progressive views on gender equality. On the other hand, these parties embed the topic of gender equality in their anti-​immigration rhetoric. Slogans

130

Current challenges to gender mainstreaming in Europe

referring to the ideas of ‘saving women from the threat of violent immigrants’ and ‘saving the society from the cultural attack on the achieved gender equality’ have become common populist instruments to justify the restriction of extra-​European immigration (Askola, 2019). Such exploitation of gender equality’s value can elicit further negative consequences. First, this is a mere functional use of the idea of a (presumed) achieved good that fits anti-​immigration rhetoric, which considers immigrants only as external threats that erode local culture. Second, it implies that gender equality is something that has already been achieved in a particular society. However, as all the indicators of gender equality illustrated in Chapter Four show, this is not the case. Regardless of the heterogeneity in gender equality across European countries, parity between men and women remains an unmet goal for most European countries. As argued by Askola (2019), the reiteration of messages referring to an achieved status of equality could lead to viewing gender equality as an old solved issue that does not require any further efforts by policymakers, which could produce problematic results in the long term. Finally, a restricted view on gender equality risks neglecting the connection between gender equality and multiculturalism. The focus on the (presumed) achievement of gender equality and the incapacity to deal with the complexities stemming from cultural diversity easily result in demands for cultural assimilation and reinforcement of stereotypes toward women belonging to ethnic minorities (Lomazzi, 2017b; Askola, 2019). Anti-​EU/​anti-​immigration groups often use rhetoric related to (presumed) achieved gender equality, regardless of the effective current state of gender equality in Europe (Meret and Siim, 2013; Mayer et al, 2014; Akkerman, 2015; Spierings and Zaslove, 2015). Even in countries where gender equality is far from reality, such as in Italy (Fae, 2018; Garbagnoli, 2018), leaders of right-​wing Eurosceptic groups argue that immigrants are a threat to women’s security and to gender equality, but

131

Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Equality in Europe

Figure 6.2: Gender equality and attachment to Europe 85

SE

EIGE Gender Equality Index

80

DK

FR NL

75

FI BE IE SI ES

UK

70 65

IT

60

50

AT MT LV

BG

LT EE PT CZ HR RO

55

LU

SK

DE PL HU

CY

45

GR

40 30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Country's attachment to Europe

Note: The EIGE Gender Equality Index goes from 0, indicating a situation of high inequality, to 100, indicating the highest gender equality possible. One country’s attachment to Europe is given by the percentage of people who feel ‘fairly’ or ‘very much’ attached to Europe. For country abbreviations, see Figure 4.1. Source: Based on data from EIGE Gender Equality Index (EIGE, 2017a) and Eurobarometer 89.1 (European Commission and European Parliament, 2018)

issues related to gender equality are not part of their current political agenda. In a climate in which disaffection with the European project is combined with the current low level of gender equality, the risks of gender equality matters becoming marginalised by politics and that such a shift would not be contested in public discourse are much higher than elsewhere. Figure 6.2 plots the EIGE Gender Equality Index (as described in Chapter Four) and individual attachment to Europe. This measure comes from the Eurobarometer carried out in 2018 that asked Europeans to express to what extent they feel attached to Europe. The respondents selected their answers from among four categories: very attached, fairly attached, not very attached or not at all attached. The first two categories have been collapsed

132

Current challenges to gender mainstreaming in Europe

and reported in the graph. For both dimensions, high values mean respectively high gender equality and high attachment to Europe. Countries differ in how they combine gender equality and support for the European project. Sweden and Denmark register high gender equality and a strong attachment to Europe. Here, the rise of Euroscepticism, even if existent, would elicit only a minor impact on the substantive political agenda on gender equality. France, the Netherlands, Finland, Belgium, Ireland, Slovenia and Spain register healthy levels of gender equality, but only moderate attachment to Europe compared with Sweden and Denmark. In these countries, right-​wing Eurosceptics would be more likely to succeed in fostering the idea that gender equality is no longer an issue and marginalise these policies. Even with varying intensities among them, Germany, Austria, Malta, Latvia, Poland, Luxembourg and Hungary display lower gender equality levels, but express a stronger attachment to Europe. Despite the dissent that nationalist political parties in these countries have expressed, more than 70% of the people living in these societies feel attached to Europe, which could preserve the legitimacy of the EU’s authority, including gender equality standards. Eurosceptic discourses can challenge European GM, particularly in countries where both dimensions are critical, such as in Mediterranean countries, which faced the harsh consequences of EU austerity measures and the humanitarian emergency of the refugees crisis more than other nations (Menéndez, 2016; Bauböck, 2018), as well as the Eastern countries that entered the EU more recently (Bretherton, 2001; Sanders et al, 2012). Italy, Portugal, Croatia, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Estonia, Czechia, Slovakia and Romania have demonstrated similar combinations of low-​moderate gender equality and moderate-​low attachment to the EU, and more so in Greece and Cyprus, where the weakest attachment to Europe is combined with low scores on gender equality.

133

Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Equality in Europe

In this picture, UK cannot be grouped easily with other countries on the map. Moreover, the Euroscepticism expressed there can be considered a special case. Alongside the conservative gender view and the anti-​ immigrant perspective, Euroscepticism’s negative impact on gender equality policies can be due to nationalist views on the economy, which British Euroscepticism embraces in particular, resulting in Brexit and representing the most dramatic evolution of Euroscepticism. This is an outstanding example for further exploring the impact of European GM on a national policy framework inspired by a nationalist economy and how a planned withdrawal from the EU can threaten gender equality. Guerrina and Masselot (2018) looked at Brexit’s gender implications and considered two particular policies derived from the European framework: the Pregnant Worker Directive (Directive 89/​391/​EEC) and the proposed directive for gender balance on corporate boards (European Commission, 2011). The Pregnant Worker Directive aims to protect pregnant workers from employment discrimination and dismissal during the period between disclosure of the pregnancy and the end of maternity leave. During negotiations at the European level, the UK strongly opposed the initial proposal that the European Commission drafted because it would have been ‘too costly for employers’ (Guerrina and Masselot, 2018: 323). To reach a sufficient agreement on the draft, the European Commission revised the proposal, softening it and changing the directive’s legal foundation from being viewed as a measure of equality to an instrument in the field of health and safety. Even though these changes blended the potential effects of the directive, it provided minimum standards on pregnant workers’ protections that are shared throughout the whole Union. Also in the UK, where business interests have delayed and weakened implementation of the directive, the directive has been considered one of the cornerstones in the development

134

Current challenges to gender mainstreaming in Europe

of maternity rights in the country (Guerrina, 2005; Guerrina and Masselot, 2018). The European proposal for gender balance on corporate boards (European Commission, 2011) aimed to weaken the glass ceiling. Similar to the Pregnant Worker Directive, this proposal elicited UK opposition, as the nation pushed for a self-​regulatory approach instead of a generalised standard and for limiting sanctions on defaulting companies to administrative fines. These aspects create grey areas in which many companies, like those in the financial industry (Guerrina and Masselot, 2018), found room to bypass such fulfilment. In both examples, UK government representatives showed more interest in developing the national-​economy argument than guaranteeing a gender equality system. For this reason, scholars (Fagan and Rubery, 2018; Guerrina and Masselot, 2018; MacLeavy, 2018) are concerned about the consequences from the UK’s planned withdrawal from the EU on gender equality policies. The European framework has shaped most of the current British laws on gender equality, but economic issues always have limited full application of European principles. What will happen when any supranational standards to meet will be in place? Many economists believe that Brexit will cause national economic instability. Considering the traditional priority given to the British liberal economy in contrast to equality principles, the risk of gender-​blind policies is quite high (Fagan and Rubery, 2018). Despite its limits, the European GM strategy undoubtedly is fundamental to promoting gender equality in European countries. The European benchmarks question current national governments’ policies and normalise the implementation of gender equality (Martinsen, 2007; Allwood, 2015; Fagan and Rubery, 2018; MacLeavy, 2018). The rise of Euroscepticism, in its various forms, can challenge the supranational discourse on gender equality and harm its pursuit in European societies.

135

Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Equality in Europe

Dealing with multiple inequities The GM framework originally had been developed to tackle gender inequities that affect women’s lives worldwide (Moser and Moser, 2005). The historical development of the strategy described in Chapter Two shows that European implementation of this global perspective focused on the crucial issues that European women were facing during those years and that were part of the public debate. In the past few decades, social changes in Europe introduced even more complexity in the consequences from gender inequities. The effect of the economic crisis, new migration flows and ageing populations challenge a perspective that risks not adequately considering current transformations in European societies and the fact that gender inequality is only part of a more complex system of inequities. Scholars once referred to such systems using the term intersectionality to draw ‘attention to the simultaneous and interacting effect of gender, race, class, sexual orientation and national categories of differences’ (Hancock, 2007:  63) that can result in inequities. This approach’s peculiarity lies in the relevance given to the interactions among different elements of the individual’s identity that, in interactions with the social and institutional environment, can be a reason for unequal treatment or discrimination. Such issues’ relevance can be illustrated easily with examples from the workplace. Let’s consider an imaginary situation invented for this purpose. A  customer service department in a South European country needs to fill a front-​office position. With similar profiles and skills, three people reach the final step of the selection process: a 48-​year-​ old man, a 28-​year-​old woman and a 28-​year-​old woman that, differently from the first two candidates, belongs to an ethnic minority. All three candidates face possible risks of multiple discrimination. The man is applying for a job that, especially in countries where the labour market is more strongly segregated, is generally considered a ‘female job’. In addition, he is not that

136

Current challenges to gender mainstreaming in Europe

young anymore. Both women easily can be in the stage of their lives when they are building up their families or already have young children. In Southern European countries that –​as seen in Chapter Four –​maintain traditional views on gender roles, being a young potential working mother can be a disadvantage. In addition, one of the two female candidates belongs to a minority ethnic group. Being a front-​office position, ethnic discrimination could take place. European antidiscrimination policies so far have adopted an approach that scholars such as Verloo (2006:  211) have defined as ‘one size fits all’. In other words, the EU legislation addressed inequities and discrimination by adopting a similar perspective, focusing more on similarities between different grounds for discrimination than on specific characteristics. While this allowed for formulation of a mainstreaming process against discrimination, it also overlooked the fact that, built on different power dynamics, the differences that can lead to discriminations require ad hoc structural approaches. Furthermore, political analysts (Verloo, 2006; Lombardo and Del Giorgio, 2013) warn that this approach easily leads to ordering inequities according to a hierarchy that can change over time and that risks, in the long term, minimising concerns for specific inequities, such as those concerning gender. Finally, by assuming a hierarchical approach, inequities’ interactions risk being overlooked. To overcome such risks, scholars such as Lombardo et  al (2017) propose adopting a ‘Gender+’ perspective, which aims to factor in biases derived from class,  ethnicity, sexual orientation and age in their interactions  with gender. According to this approach, the focus on gender is relevant because it intersects with all other axes of inequality. The ‘Gender+’ perspective could be considered a suitable complement of the GM strategy that, despite the provision of a legal basis for promoting gender equality in Europe, did not incorporate its intersection with other discrimination or

137

Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Equality in Europe

inequities that can be exacerbated because of gender differences, or that can increase gender inequities. Considering Europe’s current societal challenges (Archick, 2018), three situations fit as examples. The lack of consideration of gendered consequences from the economic crises led to women dealing with increased disadvantages. Furthermore, the demographic transition toward the ageing population has engendered consequences on health that have yet to be considered sufficiently. The difficulties in managing migrations left gender dimensions out of the debate, leading to the risk of embracing ethnocentric views on gender equality policies and neglecting inter-​ethnic dynamics concerning gender equality when managing projects related to the refugee crisis. The 2007–​08 financial crisis elicited strong consequences on Europe, and each European country managed the dramatic situation differently. The crisis –​reflected in job losses, fiscal deficits and increased public debt –​affected gender equality as well. On one hand, the changed economic conditions impacted households: for example, if one partner in a couple lost their job, it may have pushed for a renewed negotiation of gender roles in favour of the most economically convenient arrangement. On the other hand, the economic crisis in the Eurozone negatively impacted gender policies, which suffered cuts at each level of intervention, and the gendered consequences of austerity measures have not been considered sufficiently (McRobie, 2012; European Commission, 2013; Rubery, 2015; Jacquot, 2017), thereby betraying GM principles. Family and child benefits were cut radically across Europe (De Agostini et al, 2014), and budget reductions led to cuts in care services as well. For example, in Spain, elder-​care programmes and paternity leave schemes were suspended, and the same thing happened to childcare programmes in Italy and the UK. Generally, the issue of work–​family balance has been marginalised (Karamessini and Rubery, 2013; Briskin, 2014; Rubery, 2015), thereby affecting

138

Current challenges to gender mainstreaming in Europe

the opportunity structure available for women and men, as well as possible options for their arrangements in the economic context that the crisis affected. The historically gendered labour market dynamics reflected in horizontal and vertical segregation processes that concentrate female economic participation in the service sectors and lower positions in career pathways can play a relevant role in defining which could be the most convenient arrangement for the household, with the consequence that women leave their jobs or reduce their work schedules to care for children based on economic considerations, not a deliberate willingness. This would force people to return to old lifestyles and retreat from the principles of self-​determination while reiterating traditional gender roles that could impact the next generation (Moen et al, 1997; Farré and Vella, 2013). Furthermore, women in the long term will possess fewer economic resources because of lower pensions. This could affect women at the intersection of gender and age disadvantages. In addition, policies aimed at addressing societal issues concerning ageing populations would benefit from the incorporation of a ‘Gender+’ perspective. Modernisation processes are reflected in many aspects of social life that, ranging from technological developments to economic and political transformations, generally have improved quality of life and changed Europeans’ lifestyles. Four factors have combined to characterise the processes that have resulted in an ageing society: high life expectancy; low fertility; a gender gap in life expectancy, with women living longer than men, but with fewer healthy life years; the increasing proportion of the oldest share of population (Sørensen, 1991). The shift toward an ageing society carries gendered consequences in several aspects, often as a consequence of cumulative gender inequities. For example, access to economic resources could be strongly affected by the fact that in most European societies, retirement schemes allow women to retire earlier than men. This would mean a shorter work life with fewer contributions for women, eliciting lower

139

Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Equality in Europe

pensions and less access to financial resources (Sørensen, 1991; Austen, 2016). Women tend to live longer than men, but suffer more chronic diseases (Austen, 2016). The gender norms that historically have defined the separation of roles between men and women also are reflected in well-​known economic phenomena such as the gender pay gap1 and lower pensions2 for women. Fewer economic resources can put women at risk of poverty and limit their access to health services. Moreover, gender-​role conflicts and the workload burden of being in the labour market and caring for children and other vulnerable family members can affect women’s health. Especially for women belonging to the ‘sandwich generation’ –​women with jobs outside the home who care for children and ageing parents –​finding a balance between family and work can be very demanding (Burke and Calvano, 2017; Evans et al, 2018; Tur-​Sinai et al, 2018). Moreover, the higher gendered burden of care may elicit different consequences on women and men’s wellbeing and health (Austen, 2016). This challenge’s outcome also depends on the opportunity structures available, particularly on family policies in place. Thus, the gendered consequences of such policies on individual health still need to be evaluated. However, policies that could be derived from the European GM framework represent only one side of the European policy’s cultural framework, which also comprises the Adult Worker Model (AWM) and the general approach of defamilisation policies. However, these perspectives could have controversial traits. On one hand, the AWM that the Lisbon Agenda introduced argues for paid employment for all adults to secure their economic independence and questions traditional family patterns with gendered separation of roles (Annesley, 2007). On the other hand, defamilisation policies, a social policy tool aimed at supporting households with higher financial risks and at lowering the cost of childcare and elderly care (Leitner, 2003; Lohmann and Zagel, 2016), can relieve care responsibilities by providing services and support (Michoń, 2008; Kröger, 2011).

140

Current challenges to gender mainstreaming in Europe

However, how the combination of these frameworks is carried out in practice and the consequences for gender equality remain an open issue (Lewis and Giullari, 2005; Lewis, 2006). A third challenge to GM policies relates to the management of migration processes and the multiple intersections that can be derived from these phenomena. Regardless of whether migration is a chosen or forced decision, one of its consequences is the nexus of different cultures. Gender equality, together with religious freedom, is one of the most debated topics concerning the interaction of cultures. Conflicting demands challenge ‘host countries’, such as the fear of losing one’s identity and the propensity for acceptance. The moral feeling of ensuring the protection of the right to ‘be’ as a human being grounded with mutual cultural respect faces several difficulties in practice because of the many dynamics in place. The implementation of gender equality principles in an effort to help rescue, protect and integrate refugees challenges policymakers, as well as the international organisations involved. They need to combine standards defined by transnational agencies, such as UNICEF (UNICEF, 2011) or the Inter-​Agency Standing Committee (IASC, 2006), with personal values and with the value system of the person in need, which may involve a very different cultural background. The principal challenge is avoiding the risk of simple solutions driven by ethnocentric perspectives (Freedman, 2010; Lomazzi, 2016b). Ethnocentric views also can lead to developing policies that, even if they aim to promote gender equality, overlook cultural diversity and can result in ethnic discrimination. Nationalist views on gender equality, especially those that anti-​ immigration political parties embrace, tend to support gender equality as something necessary only for ‘other women’ who belong to different cultural groups often viewed as oppressive. This limited perspective on cultural differences and the positioning of gender equality issues in the realm of migration politics can lead to situations like those in which simplistic

141

Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Equality in Europe

solutions seem to be offered, such as veil bans or forced labour market participation (Gustavsson et  al, 2016; Askola, 2019), thereby supporting a model of integration based on assimilation instead of multiculturalism, which subordinates gender equality while eroding other aspects of the individual’s identity, such as religion and ethnic cohesion (Roggeband and Verloo, 2007). Conversely, focusing only on integration policies neglects gender differences, further threatening gender equality. Highlights from this chapter The European GM strategy represents one of the few experiences in the attempt to promote gender equality through a transnational legislative framework aimed at defining gender equality standards across countries. However, achievements reached so far cannot be taken for granted. Empirical studies refer to the possibilities of fluctuation and backlash in gender cultures due to the effects of dramatic events and phenomena that can cause substantial transformations in people’s lives. Political changes may address new political agendas in which gender equality is marginalised. Because of the changes due to the economic crisis, people may need to adapt their family patterns and gender arrangements, with policy budgets affected as well. In this chapter, we tried to present some of the current and future challenges to gender equality in Europe. First, we addressed current political circumstances. The rise of right-​wing Eurosceptic parties in many national parliaments feeds concerns about the future of GM. Euroscepticism erodes the legitimacy of the EU’s authority and its cultural political framework. Furthermore, these political forces tend to embrace paradoxical views on gender equality. On one hand, they consider it an achievement in their anti-​immigration rhetoric, with the consequential risk of marginalising ad hoc policies; on the other hand, they support the traditional family model based

142

Current challenges to gender mainstreaming in Europe

on the gendered separation of roles. The rise of institutionalised Euroscepticism, especially when combined with nationalist and anti-​immigration sentiments, can therefore endanger the future of gender equality in Europe. In addition to political changes, the chapter pointed out another relevant warning for the future of gender equality policies. Most European laws have adopted a technocratic approach to gender equality and often have neglected the cumulative and simultaneous effect of multiple inequities. However, gender often intersects with other differences that can exacerbate inequities. We discussed the gendered consequences of the economic crisis, which impacted household arrangements, as well as gender policies, gendered consequences of defamilisation policies implemented to deal with the ageing population and the risks connected with the adoption of ethnocentric, gender-​blind policies in the realm of managing the refugees crisis and integration. The ‘Gender+’ approach (Lombardo et  al, 2017), which recognises that gender intersects with all other axes of inequities, appears to be a suitable frame to incorporate into the current GM perspective.

143

Conclusions

In this book, we aimed to provide a systematic overview of the status of the GM strategy in Europe by considering both strength and weak elements of this strategy. We combined this reflection with the analysis of the current status of gender equality in Europe, observing structural factors that can support its development as well the increasing challenges to it. To deal with this topic’s complexity, we looked at the GM strategy and its relation to gender equality by embracing different perspectives. In the first part of the book, we focused on the conceptualisation of gender equality through the development of European legislation and on related policies. In the second part, we adopted an empirical perspective and discussed how gender equality can be measured and to what extent policies inspired by GM can favour the establishment of more egalitarian gender cultures. Finally, we proposed some of the emerging challenges for gender equality in Europe. We concluded with a critical review of the GM strategy and the risks of marginalising it. While the UN Conference on Women held in Beijing in 1995 generally is considered as the starting point of the global commitment to gender equality because it introduced the concept of GM, we considered other previous important steps that historically built the foundations for the development of a transnational gender equality strategy. Our examinations went therefore back to 1975, when the First World Conference on Women in Mexico City started pointing out the need to consider

145

Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Equality in Europe

gender experiences in life, considered essential to reflecting effectively and genuinely on women’s status and to promote their empowerment. Such a call for sensitivity to gender differences boosted the development of gender statistics, which were necessary to evaluate situations, plan specific projects and monitor the development of gender equality; it also brought about the implementation of policies embracing the GM perspective. The EU introduced the GM strategy as a way to attain gender equality in Europe. The strategy involves the integration of a gender perspective into the preparation, design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of policies, regulatory measures and spending programmes, with a view toward promoting equality between women and men, and combating discrimination (Stratigaki, 2005; Crespi, 2007; Lavena and Riccucci, 2012). In this sense, ‘mainstreaming’ refers to a process and a strategy, rather than a goal, and comprises bringing what can be viewed as marginal (gender issues) into the core business and principal decision-​making process of policies, as well as economic and social organisations. To what extent this process is efficiently working is hard to say. Alongside positive aspects, such as the provision of a common framework that supported the acknowledge of gender equality as a shared and wished value, this transnational strategy entails controversial aspects, and it is facing challenges from old and new issues. On one hand, the GM strategy supported development of the gender equality concept and promoted the establishment of tools, guidelines and benchmarks that supported member countries in the achievement of higher levels of gender equality. On the other hand, this development remains a work in progress, whose future is challenged by two principal issues. First, the strategy still faces missteps in the conceptualisation of gender equality, with relevant consequences in the achievement of results. Second, gender equality policies have been marginalised progressively in the past decade as a result of political and institutional choices implemented at the European level (Jacquot, 2017)

146

Conclusions

and nowadays risk being even more overlooked by the political debates at the national level (Akkerman, 2015; Askola, 2019). In such a scenario, the definition of gender equality is a crucial matter. European laws have broadened the notion of gender equality, with significant impacts on the consequential development of national social policies and, generally speaking, on public opinion. From an initial perspective that considered gender equality as a ‘female issue’ mainly limited to female participation in the labour market, the idea of gender equality slowly expanded, amassing greater complexity. However, despite the fact that it should represent the core of the GM perspective, the concept of gender equality still lacks. Consequently, the policies that should translate the principles in local actions may fail with regard to coherence and efficacy. For example, considering gender equality as a mono-​dimensional concept, thereby neglecting its multidimensional nature, would lead to overlooking the fact that, for example, policies aimed at increasing equality in the public sphere do not necessarily improve gender equality in the private sphere. The consequential risks of insufficient clarity lead to adopting policies that address gender inequities with very different objectives and results, sometimes increasing disparities. Furthermore, such eventualities are relevant when the promotion of gender equality deals with the complexity from the European enlargement and integration process. Just as member countries are required to adopt, at the national level, the directives issued at the European level, candidate members need to fulfil specific requirements that concern gender equality regulations and policies to join the EU. While this formally fosters the adoption of the European standards concerning gender equality, the lack of clarity and guidance on how to implement GM at the national level effectively increases fragmentation (Chiva, 2009; Velluti, 2014). As we have described in Chapters Four and Five, gender equality is not reached to the same extent in European countries,

147

Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Equality in Europe

as societies display different gender cultures. These peculiarities are reflected in principal international gender equality indices, which generally rank the Scandinavian countries at the highest levels for gender equality, with Eastern and Southern countries tending to appear at the bottom of these lists. However, it is important to consider that the common framework has been implemented in societies that historically have developed different gender cultures due to the interconnected path dependency of gender culture to the political, economic and social development in each country that leads individuals to support gender-​equality views and define social-​gender roles differently. The implementation of policies based on different assumptions wound up tackling gender inequities with different approaches and fragmented results. This is not the only consequence of the complex definition of gender equality. The multidimensionality of this concept makes it difficult to identify a unique way to measure gender equality as effectively. On the one hand, several measurements that provide information on specific aspects of gender equality are available. On the other hand, such indicators’ wide availability requires awareness of their use. Different theoretical and methodological approaches lead to measuring gender equality differently, and misuse of these tools could lead to misleading assessments and flawed country comparisons. This issue is even more relevant when the evaluation of practices and policies comes into play. Also, because of its fragmentation, evaluating whether GM is working is even more difficult and it is hard to directly assess its efficacy. While evaluation of the whole strategy is rather complex, we considered whether policies that the GM strategy inspired actually are effective in promoting gender equality. To assess this, we brought into our reflection a discussion of empirical studies, which explored the role of such policies played in explaining individual support for gender equality. We focused particularly on policies concerning work–​family balance that, alongside matters of equal treatment and positive actions to increase the

148

Conclusions

participation of women in the decision-​making processes, have been viewed as a crucial area of gender equality policies (Crespi, 2007; Crespi and Lomazzi, 2018). We enlighten the evidence of work–​family balance policies’ relevance, such as the provision of childcare services and parental leave schemes, on gender equality. This is not only because they create conditions for people’s opportunities, but also because they transmit a specific idea on the family model and gendered roles through norms and practices that they encourage. Despite the relevance of such policies and practices, marginalisation of gender equality policies risks reducing their efficacy. In addition to the limit of the GM strategy just outlined, a combination of monumental events, including institutional and political changes, risk marginalising gender equality policies. In the final chapter of this book, we pointed out that achievements in gender equality displayed across European countries, despite their fragmentation, do not represent granitic results that, once reached, automatically can last forever. On the contrary, such achievements must be preserved vigilantly, not only to improve them, but also to maintain their existence. The urgency that the 2007–​08 economic crisis dictated and new migration flows, together with the rise of anti-​European sentiment, intersect with institutional changes at the European level. The nexus of these different phenomena redirected political priorities, including those given to gender equality issues. Probably one of the most evident failure of the GM strategy has been documented in correspondence of the economic crisis faced by the Eurozone. The theoretical assumptions and principles of the GM strategy, such as considering the gendered consequences of policies and interventions, have been neglected with the general consequence that the economic crisis negatively impacted gender policies. Cuts on each intervention level have been made without considering the gendered consequences of austerity measures. National policies that support female economic participation have been reshaped drastically. For example,

149

Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Equality in Europe

in Spain, both elder-​care programmes and paternity leave have been postponed or suspended. The same thing happened to childcare programmes in Italy and the UK. Generally, budget reductions elicited cuts in care services, and the issue of work–​ family balance has been marginalised (Karamessini and Rubery, 2013; Briskin, 2014; Rubery, 2015). At the same time, the refugee crisis and ongoing migration flows toward and within Europe challenge all policy realms with respect to the GM strategy’s principles, and the risk of betraying these principles during a very complex and urgent humanitarian crisis is even higher. The EU’s political limitation in dealing with such problems has fed the rise of anti-​EU opinions that slowly have realised institutionalisation in political parties’ narratives. As observed, Eurosceptic groups often tend to combine their anti-​EU opinions on traditional views of gender relations and roles with nationalist and anti-​ immigration positions (Meret and Siim, 2013; Akkerman, 2015; Fae, 2018; Askola, 2019). This elicits ideologies that can be particularly perilous for gender equality when such ideas become part of decision making concerning political priorities and budgeting. For example, the assumption that gender equality has been achieved in the ‘host country’ and that represents a goal only for women belonging to different cultures, on one hand, still questions the concept of gender equality itself. But on the other hand, gender disadvantages can increase, especially from the perspective of differences’ intersectionality. The European framework still needs to address fully the system of multiple inequities. Alongside the GM strategy, the EU’s cultural and political framework comprises other perspectives, such as those that antidiscrimination policies have framed, such as the ‘gender neutral’ AWM (Annesley, 2007; Jenson, 2008) and the defamilisation of social policies that support dealing with gender inequities derived from the ageing population. However, not much is known thus far about the combination of these frameworks in practice (Lewis and

150

Conclusions

Giullari, 2005; Lewis, 2006). The lack of integration between these perspectives can lead to assuming a need for hierarchical approaches to social issues dictated by the hot topic of the moment, increasing the risk of marginalising gender equality issues (Verloo, 2006; Lombardo and Del Giorgio, 2013). However, such a marginalisation process at the European policy level started with cuts to gender equality programmes that occurred much earlier than the start of the economic crisis. As Jacquot (2017) reports, the European budget has steadily allocated fewer resources to gender equality since 2000, and the financial plans defined during and soon after the crisis ended reduced the amount of resources allocated to this policy realm even more. Since its birth, the GM strategy’s core has been legislative development, which provided formal references to gender equality, and funding that facilitates implementation of practices and measures for substantive promotion of gender equality. The consequences of budgetary reductions that the economic crisis imposed are that, out of its core dimensions, mainly the legal instruments have remained. This weakens the substantive impact of the GM strategy even more and risks limiting the strategy to a technocratic exercise (Jacquot, 2015, 2017; Meier, 2018). Furthermore, the loss of strength is also due to institutional changes that moved the Equal Opportunities Unit from the Directorate-​General of Employment and Social Affairs to the Directorate-​General of Justice, thereby lessening the links to policies concerning labour market relations and other social issues ( Jacquot, 2017). Moreover, this change moved the focus of the activity to the dimension of rights, providing the opportunity to combine gender equality issues with the broader framework of discrimination. On one hand, this provides a further legal basis for gender equality. On the other hand, the risks, being one discrimination among many, are that multiple inequities will elicit a ‘one size fits all’ approach (Verloo, 2006: 211), which neglects the peculiarities of each individual social inequity and increases the risk of overlooking existing interactions between them.

151

Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Equality in Europe

Despite its controversial aspects, the GM strategy represents a cornerstone in the development of gender equality in Europe. Our analyses reveal the development of GM policies over time, documenting the cultural changes that have occurred –​at least among European institutional actors  –​in re-​framing gender equality from a ‘women’s issue’ mainly related to discrimination, to a broad, multidimensional and dynamic concept of equality between men and women, thereby incorporating a more gender-​sensitive approach. However, economic, social and political transformations challenge its fundamentals, and Europe runs the risk of deteriorating gender equality if this concern is silently pushed to the margins of the political debate. The future of gender equality is intertwined with the awareness that establishing a legal basis for it is only the first step of a broader process that, to be effective, needs to promote a substantial cultural change within political, economic and social institutions, as well as public opinion. The current marginalisation, driven by the rhetoric of ‘hard times’, needs to be questioned. Gender equality somehow has been considered less important among other contemporary issues, such as economic insecurities and the refugee crisis. Not only do gender inequities require focused attention, but assuming a gender-​blind model to deal with other social issues is short-​sighted because it neglects how, by doing so, the inequities risk being multiplied. Furthermore, gender equality, which, in simple terms, concerns equal access to resources and opportunities, cannot be thought of as a privilege that can be postponed for ‘better times’. On the contrary, it is something very urgent, as it is related to equal access to human rights.

152

Notes

Chapter One 1

2 3

4

5

6

The ‘women’s question’ is related to the issues of women’s rights, protection and definition as a potentially underrepresented and discriminated group (see Collins, 1992; Ellina, 2003). For a precise review of European legislation on this subject, see Chapter Two. Thanks to the intervention of the Court of Justice, the directives of equal pay and the prohibition of discrimination have been able to find extensive application at the national level, but this is not so for projects in the area of affirmative action and GM at a broader level (Jacquot, 2010; Kantola and Nousiainen, 2012). Art. 3 of Dir. 54: ‘Member States may maintain or adopt measures under Article 141, paragraph 4, of the Treaty to ensure in practice the full equality between men and women in working life.’ At first, the Community action on equal opportunities developed mainly in the implementation of specific measures expressively dedicated to women, which led to the creation of numerous PA programmes. Then the EU moved on to the so-​called gender mainstreaming strategy –​the integration of the issue of equality between women and men into all policy areas –​which was internationally recognised at the United Nations’ Fourth World Conference on Women, held in Beijing in 1995. With regards the issue of equalities/​inequalities, it is relevant to consider the post-​liberal ‘politics of difference’ approach by Young (2001), in which equal treatment of individuals does not override the redress of group-​based oppression. Young contrasted her approach with contemporary liberal political philosophers like John Rawls, who she claims conflate the moral equivalence of people with procedural rules that treat all people equally even when they are not in the same social conditions.

153

GENDER MAINSTREAMING AND GENDER EQUALITY IN EUROPE 7 8

9

http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=738&langId=en&pubId=70 Answering to this urgent issue regarding women’s condition at a global level, the EU has set GM as one of the main driving forces in promoting change in the role of women in society and their position in the labour market, but it is above all a principle, not prescriptive legislation at the national level (van der Vleuten, 2012). All of these new, emerging aspects are explored in Chapter Six.

Chapter Two 1

2

3

4

5

As well-​explained in the EIGE website, ‘Gender analysis provides the necessary data and information to integrate a gender perspective into policies, programmes and projects. As a starting point for gender mainstreaming, gender analysis identifies the differences between and among women and men in terms of their relative position in society and the distribution of resources, opportunities, constraints and power in a given context. In this way, conducting a gender analysis allows for the development of interventions that address gender inequalities and meet the different needs of women and men’ (www.eige.europa.eu). Council Directive 75/​117/​EEC of 10 February 1975 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the application of the principle of equal pay for men and women. Directive on Equal Pay (75/​117); Directive on Equal Treatment (76/​207); Directive on Equal Treatment in Matters of Social Security (79/​7); Directive on Equal Treatment in Occupational Security Schemes (86/​378); Directive on Equal Treatment Between Men and Women Engaged in an Activity Including Agriculture, in a Self-​employed Capacity, and on the Protection of Self-​employed Women During Pregnancy and Motherhood (86/​613). The Maastricht Treaty, signed 7 February 1992 and entered into force 1 November 1993, is the founding act of the European Union. Ratified by the 12 countries of the European Communities, it specifies the political and economic criteria needed to join the Union. In particular, the following are important to note: Council Directive 97/​81/​ EEC of 15 December 1997 concerning the agreement framework on part-​time work concluded by UNICE (Union of Industrial and Employers’ Confederations of Europe), CEEP (European Centre of Employers and Enterprises) and the ETUC (European Trade Union Confederation); Council Directive 96/​34/​EC of 3 June 1996 concerning the framework agreement on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and ETUC; Council Recommendation 96/​694/​ EC of 2 December 1996 concerning the participation of women and men in decision making; Resolution of the Council and of the representatives

154

Notes

6

7 8

9

of the governments of the member states meeting in Council on 5 October 1995, concerning the image of men and women in advertising and media communication; the Council Resolution of 27 March 1995 on the balanced participation of women and men in the decision-​making process. Mainstreaming is a strategy in which the pursuit of the principle of non-​ discrimination is no longer seen as an objective to be achieved in itself, as if it were a specific area of intervention, but rather as a principle that integrates with all the possible sectors of public intervention:  from employment to education and external relations. Therefore, the principle of mainstreaming requires that before taking a measure, public authorities must assess the possible discriminatory effects that it may cause, thus aiming at preventing negative consequences and improving the quality and effectiveness of their policies. Art. 119 of the Treaty of Rome 1957. The European Commission Communication number 67 of 21 February 1996 identifies the key sectors in which the legislation and all Community actions must systematically take into account the differences between the conditions and the needs of women and men: employment and the labour market; small business and family business, with flexibility, qualification and access to credit; education, training and youth; people’s rights, like security and protection against violence; development cooperation; research and science; information. Article 141: ‘Each Member State shall ensure the application of the principle of equal pay for men and women for the same job or for work of equal value. For remuneration we mean, according to this article, the basic or minimum basic salary or treatment and all the other benefits paid directly or indirectly, in cash or in kind, from the employer to the worker due to the use of this last. Equal pay without discrimination based on sex implies that: (a) the remuneration paid for the same piece paid work is fixed on the basis of the same unit of measurement; b) the remuneration paid for a paid-​for-​time job is the same for the same job. The Board, acting in accordance with the procedures set forth in art. 251 and after consulting the Economic and Social Committee, adopt measures to ensure the application of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation, including the principle of equal pay for equal work or for a work of equal value. In order to ensure effective and complete equality between men and women in working life, the principle of equal treatment does not prevent a Member State from maintaining or adopting measures which provide for specific advantages aimed at facilitating the exercise of a professional activity by the underrepresented sex or to avoid or compensate for disadvantages in professional careers.’

155

GENDER MAINSTREAMING AND GENDER EQUALITY IN EUROPE 10

11

12

13

14

15

16

In particular, it is worth mentioning the Directive 2006/​54/​EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and use; the Council Directive 2004/​113/​EC of 13 December 2004, which implements the principle of equal treatment between men and women with regard to access to goods and services and their provision; Directive 2002/​73/​EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002, amending Council Directive 76/​207/​ EEC on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women with regard to access to work, training and professional promotion and working conditions; Council Directive 2000/​78/​EC of 27 November 2000 established a general framework for equal treatment of persons with regard to employment and working conditions. Presidency Conclusions: Barcelona European Council, 15 and 16 March 2002, www.consilium.europa.eu/​uedocs/​cms_​data/​docs/​pressdata/​en/​ec/​ 71025.pdf Press release D/​02/​7, European Council Barcelona, http://​europa.eu/​rapid/​ press-​release_​DOC-​02-​7_​en.htm All EU member states had to ratify the treaty before it could enter into law and, therefore, the Treaty of Lisbon entered into force on 1 December 2009. The EIGE is an EU agency working to make gender equality a reality in the EU and beyond. For this, it provides research, data and good practices by: producing studies and collecting statistics about gender equality in the EU; monitoring how the EU meets its international commitment for gender equality, referred to as the Beijing Platform for Action, and produces an annual progress report on this; working to stop violence against women; and coordinating the European White Ribbon Campaign to engage men in the cause. Another important aspect is the sharing of knowledge and online resources and supporting the EU institutions, EU member states and  stakeholders from many different fields in their efforts to address gender inequalities in Europe and beyond (EIGE, 2010, 2016; see www. eige.europa.eu). In the same year, on 5 March 2010, the Commission adopted the Women’s Charter with a view to improve the promotion of equality between women and men in Europe and around the world (see http://​eur-​lex.europa.eu/​ legal-​content/​EN/​TXT/​?uri=URISERV:em0033). More specifically, these measures include provisions for: •

attracting more women into the labour market and helping to achieve the goal of an employment rate of 75% overall for men and women, set in the Europe 2020 strategy;

156

Notes •

• •

•

17

putting forward targeted initiatives to get more women into top jobs in the economic sector; promoting female entrepreneurship and self-​employment; setting up a European Day for Equal Pay to raise awareness about the fact that in Europe, women still earn on average about 18% less than men; and working with all member states to fight violence against women and to eradicate female genital mutilation in Europe and worldwide.

This issue of multiple inequalities is explained in Chapter Six.

Chapter Three 1

2

3

4

5

6 7

8

An example could be the growing number of cultures that the EU includes and therefore the challenges GM faces in changing attitudes. Consider the enlargement of Europe from the 15 initial countries to the current 28, as well as their different regional traditions and histories. Gender pension gap is the ratio of female-​to-​male median or average yearly pension income. See European Commission (2016). In particular, the feminist movements question the meaning (and the non-​ neutrality) of the concept of gender equality. See Verloo (2005). For example: Cross-​cutting issues like fertility levels and gender equality are relevant to all aspects of development. Mainstreaming cross-​cutting issues means that all development initiatives should have a positive effect on issues such as gender equality and the fertility rates. See Directive 2010/​18/​EU and the Council of 8 March 2010 implementing the revised framework agreement on parental leave; Directive 2006/​54/​ EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation; Council Directive 92/​85/​EEC of 19 October 1992 on the implementation of measures to promote improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers, workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (tenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16 (1) of Directive 89/​391/​EEC). Council Directive 2010/​18/​EU. For example, higher level of women’s participation in the labour market, higher number of children per women and higher fertility rates. In the ‘gender and work’ area of policies, there are some critical obstacles in the way of women entering the labour market, the integration of immigrant women, the job reintegration of those who lost their jobs or who had to stop working in order to devote themselves to family, female entrepreneurship, professional empowerment, and so on. Then there are the policies of

157

GENDER MAINSTREAMING AND GENDER EQUALITY IN EUROPE

9

reconciliation between family and work; policies that promote socialisation and education with a gender perspective; policies against various forms of discrimination and more. See http://​www.europarl.europa.eu/s​ ides/g​ etDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode= XML&reference=A5-​2003-​0214&language=EN

Chapter Four 1 2 3 4

5

6

7

www.genderindex.org/​ See WEF (2017). https://​eige.europa.eu Further details concerning the measures adopted and their computation can be found in the EIGE Methodological Report (EIGE, 2017b). In this book the use of both Great Britain and United Kingdom is intentional. We use Great Britain when the study we refer to is based on data collected in England, Scotland and Wales (as here in the case of ISSP). Alternatively, we use United Kingdom when the area studied also includes Northern Ireland. Freshly collected data from the European Values Study for all the European countries are expected in early 2020. The items included in the computation are: • • • •

All in all family life suffers when the mother has a full time job. Women are less willing than men to make a career for themselves. Overall men are less competent than women to perform household tasks. A father must put his career ahead of looking after his young child.

Chapter Six 1

2

In Europe women earn on average around 16.2% less than men employed in the same position and performing the same tasks (Eurostat, 2019). Women receive average pensions which are 39% lower compared to those of men (Eurostat, 2019).

158

References

Abels, G. (2013) ‘Gendering the European Union’, Institutions, 7: 5–1​ 2. Abels, G. and Mushaben, J.M. (eds) (2012) Gendering the European Union: New Approaches to Old Democratic Deficits, London: Palgrave Macmillan. Aboim, S. (2010) ‘Gender cultures and the division of labour in contemporary Europe: A cross-​national perspective’, The Sociological Review, 58(2): 171–​96. Ackers, P. (2003) ‘The work–​life balance from the perspective of economic policy actors’, Social Policy and Society, 2(3): 221–​29. Adams, R.B. and Ferreira, D. (2009) ‘Women in the boardroom and their impact on governance and performance’, Journal of Financial Economics, 94(2): 291–​309. Agerberg, M., Gustavson, M., Sundström, A. and Wängnerud, L. (2018) ‘Gender aspects of government auditing’, in Stensöta, H. and Wängnerud, L.  (eds) Gender and Corruption, London:  Palgrave Macmillan, pp 213–​33. Akkerman, T. (2015) ‘Gender and the radical right in Western Europe:  A comparative analysis of policy agendas’, Patterns of Prejudice, 49(1–​2): 37–​60. Albrecht, J.W., Edin, P.A. and Vroman, S.B. (2000) ‘A cross-​country comparison of attitudes towards mothers working and their actual labor market experience’, LABOUR, 14(4): 591–​607. Allen, T.D., Johnson, R.C., Kiburz, K.M. and Shockley, K.M. (2013) ‘Work–​family conflict and flexible work arrangements:  deconstructing flexibility’, Personnel Psychology, 66(2): 345–​76. 159

GENDER MAINSTREAMING AND GENDER EQUALITY IN EUROPE

Allwood, G. (2013) ‘Gender mainstreaming and policy coherence for development: Unintended gender consequences and EU policy’, Women’s Studies International Forum, 39 (July–​August): 42–​52. Allwood, G. (2015) ‘Horizontal policy coordination and gender mainstreaming: The case of the European Union’s global approach to migration and mobility’, Women’s Studies International Forum, 48: 9–​17. Alwin, D.F. (2005) ‘Attitudes, beliefs, and childbearing’, in Booth, A. and Crouter, A.C. (eds) The New Population Problem: Why Families in Developed Countries Are Shrinking and What it Means, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp 115–​26. André, S., Gesthuizen, M. and Scheepers, P. (2013) ‘Support for traditional female roles across 32 countries: Female labour market participation, policy models and gender differences’, Comparative Sociology, 12(4): 447–​76. Annesley, C. (2007) ‘Lisbon and social Europe: Towards a European ‘adult worker model’ welfare system’, Journal of European Social Policy, 17(3): 195–​205. Archick, K. (2018) ‘The European Union: Current challenges and future prospects. Congressional Research Service Report R44249’, https://​fas.org/​sgp/​crs/​row/​R44249.pdf Askola, H. (2019) ‘Wind from the North, don’t go forth? Gender equality and the rise of populist nationalism in Finland’, European Journal of Women’s Studies, 26(1): 54–​69. Austen, S. (2016) ‘Gender issues in an ageing society’, Australian Economic Review, 49(4): 494–​502. Bacchi, C.L. and Eveline, J. (2010) Mainstreaming Politics: Gendering Practices and Feminist Theory, Adelaide: University of Adelaide Press. Banaszak, L.A. and Plutzer, E. (1993) ‘Contextual determinants of feminist attitudes: National and subnational influences in Western Europe’, The American Political Science Review, 87(1): 145–​57. Barbier, J.C. (2013) The Road to Social Europe. A Contemporary Approach to Political Cultures and Diversity in Europe, London: Routledge.

160

References

Batalova, J.A. and Cohen, P.N. (2002) ‘Premarital cohabitation and housework:  Couples in cross-​national perspective’, Journal of Marriage and Family, 64(3): 743–​55. Bauböck, R. (2018) ‘Europe’s commitments and failures in the refugee crisis’, European Political Science, 17(1): 140–​50. Baxter, J. and Kane, E.W. (1995) ‘Dependence and independence: A cross-​national analysis of gender inequality and gender attitudes’, Gender & Society, 9(2): 193–​215. Becker, G.S. (1981) A Treatise on the Family, Enlarged Edition, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bellucci, P., Sanders, D. and Serricchio, F. (2012) ‘Explaining European identity’, in Sanders, D., Bellucci, P., Tóka, G. and Torcal, M. (eds) The Europeanization of National Politics, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp 61–​90. Bendl, R. and Schmidt, A. (2013) ‘Gender mainstreaming:  An assessment of its conceptual value for gender equality’, Gender, Work & Organization, 20(4): 364–​81. Bergh, J. (2006) ‘Gender attitudes and modernization processes’, International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 19(1): 5–​23. Bergqvist, C., Bjarnegård, E. and Zetterberg, P. (2013) ‘Analysing failure, understanding success: A research strategy for explaining gender equality policy adoption’, NORA –​Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research, 21(4): 280–​95. Bettio, F., Rosselli, A. and Vingelli, G. (2002) Gender Auditing dei bilanci pubblici, Bergamo: Mimeo, Fondazione A.J. Zaninoni. Bettio, F., Tinios, P. and Betti, G. (2013) The Gender Gap in Pensions in the EU, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Bianchi, S.M., Milkie, M.A., Sayer, L.C. and Robinson, J.P. (2000) ‘Is anyone doing the housework? Trends in the gender division of household labor’, Social Forces, 79(1): 191–​228. Bianchi, S.M., Sayer, L.C., Milkie, M.A. and Robinson, J.P. (2012) ‘Housework: Who did, does or will do it, and how much does it matter?’, Social Forces, 91(1): 55–​63.

161

GENDER MAINSTREAMING AND GENDER EQUALITY IN EUROPE

Bolzendahl, C.I. and Myers, D.J. (2004) ‘Feminist attitudes and support for gender equality: Opinion change in women and men, 1974–​ 1998’, Social Forces, 83(2): 759–​89. Booth C. and Bennett C. (2002) ‘Gender mainstreaming in the European Union: Towards a new conception and practice of equal opportunities?’, European Journal of Women’s Studies, 9(4): 430–​46. Brack, N. and Startin, N. (2015) ‘Introduction: Euroscepticism, from the margins to the mainstream’, International Political Science Review, 36(3): 239–​49. Brandth, B., Halrynjo, S. and Kvande, E. (eds) (2017) Work–​Family Dynamics:  Competing Logics of Regulation, Economy and Morals, London: Routledge. Branisa, B., Klasen, S., Ziegler, M., Drechsler, D. and Jütting, J. (2014) ‘The institutional basis of gender inequality: The Social Institutions and Gender Index (SIGI)’, Feminist Economics, 20(2): 29–​64. Braun, M. (1998) ‘Gender roles’, in Van Deth, J.W. (ed) Comparative Politics: The Problem of Equivalence, London: Routledge, pp 111–​34. Braun, M. and Glöckner-​Rist, A. (2011) ‘Perceived consequences of female labor-​force participation:  A multilevel latent-​class analysis across 22 countries’, OBETS. Revista de Ciencias Sociales, 6(2): 163–​84. Bretherton, C. (2001) ‘Gender mainstreaming and EU enlargement: Swimming against the tide?’, Journal of European Public Policy, 8(1): 60–​81. Brewster, K.L. and Padavic, I. (2000) ‘Change in gender-​ideology, 1977–​1 996:  The contributions of intracohort change and population turnover’, Journal of Marriage and Family, 62(2): 477–​87. Briskin, L. (2014) ‘Austerity, union policy and gender equality bargaining’, Transfer:  European Review of Labour and Research, 20(1):115–​33. Britton, D.M. (2000) ‘The epistemology of the gendered organization’, Gender & Society, 14(3): 418–​34. Brooks, C. and Bolzendahl, C. (2004) ‘The transformation of US gender role attitudes: Cohort replacement, social-​structural change, and ideological learning’, Social Science Research, 33(1): 106–​33.

162

References

Bruno, I., Jacquot, S. and Mandin, L. (2006) ‘Europeanization through its instrumentation: Benchmarking, mainstreaming and the open method of coordination… Toolbox or Pandora’s Box?’, Journal of European Public Policy, 13(4): 519–​36. Bruter, M. (2008) ‘Legitimacy, Euroscepticism & identity in the European Union  –​ Problems of measurement, modelling & paradoxical patterns of influence’, Journal of Contemporary European Research, 4(4): 273–​85. Bryan, M.L. and Jenkins, S.P. (2016) ‘Multilevel modelling of country effects: A cautionary tale’, European Sociological Review, 32(1): 3–​22. Budlender, D., Sharp, R. and Allen, K. (1998) How to do a Gender-​ sensitive Budget Analysis: Contemporary Research and Practice, London and Canberra: Commonwealth Secretariat and AusAid. Burke, R. and Vinnicombe, S. (2005) ‘Advancing women’s careers’, Career Development International, 10(3): 165–​7. Burke, R.J. and Calvano, L.M. (2017) The Sandwich Generation: Caring for Oneself and Others at Home and at Work, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Bustelo, M. (2003) ‘Evaluation of gender mainstreaming: Ideas from a meta-​evaluation study’, Evaluation, 9(4): 383–​403. Çağlar, G. (2010) ‘Multiple meanings of gender budgeting’, in Young, B. and Scherrer C. (eds) Gender Knowledge and Knowledge Networks in International Political Economy, Baden-​Baden: Nomos, pp 55–​74. Çağlar, G. (2013) ‘Gender mainstreaming’, Politics & Gender, 9(3): 336–​44. Caracciolo di Torella, E. (2018) ‘The pr inciple of gender mainstreaming:  Possibilities and challenges’, in Ippolito, F., Bartoloni, M.E.  and Condinanzi, M.  (eds) The EU and the Proliferation of Integration Principles under the Lisbon Treaty, London: Routledge: pp 45–​54. Caracciolo di Torella, E. and Masselot, A. (2010) Reconciling Work and Family Life in EU Law and Policy, London: Palgrave. Castro-​García, C. and Pazos-​Moran, M. (2016) ‘Parental leave policy and gender equality in Europe’, Feminist Economics, 22(3): 51–​73.

163

GENDER MAINSTREAMING AND GENDER EQUALITY IN EUROPE

Cavaghan, R. (2017a) Making Gender Equality Happen:  Knowledge, Change  and Resistance in EU Gender Mainstreaming, London: Routledge. Cavaghan, R. (2017b) ‘The gender politics of EU economic policy: Policy shifts and contestations before and after the crisis’, in Kantola, J. and Lombardo, E. (eds) Gender and the Economic Crisis in Europe: Politics, Institutions and Intersectionality, Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp 49–​71. Chiva, C. (2009) ‘The limits of Europeanisation: EU accession and gender equality in Bulgaria and Romania’, Perspectives on European Politics and Society, 10(2): 195–​209. Clavero, S. and Galligan, Y. (2009) ‘Constituting and reconstituting the gender order in Europe’, Perspectives on European Politics and Society, 10(1): 101–​17. Cloward, R.A. and Ohlin, L.E. (1960) Delinquency and Opportunity: A Study of Delinquent Gangs, New York: Free Press. Collins, R. (1992) ‘Women and the production of status cultures’, in Lamont, M. and Fournier, M. (eds) Cultivating Differences: Symbolic Boundaries and the Making of Inequality, Chicago:  University of Chicago Press, pp 213–​31. Constantin, A. and Voicu, M. (2015) ‘Attitudes towards gender roles in cross-​cultural surveys: Content validity and cross-​cultural measurement invariance’, Social Indicators Research, 123(3): 733–​51. Corner, L. (2003) ‘From margins to mainstream. From gender statistics to engendering statistical systems’, Bangkok, Fondo de Desarrollo de las Naciones Unidas para la Mujer (UNIFEM), en Asia y el Pacífico y los Estados Árabes, http://​www1.aucegypt.edu/​src/​engendering/​ Documents/​engendering%20corporate%20governance/​Margins2 Mainstreamgengerstatistics.pdf Corner, L. (2005) Gender-​sensitive and Pro-​poor Indicators of Good Governance, Oslo:  Oslo Governance Centre, UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). Cotter, D., Hermsen, J.M. and Vanneman, R. (2011) ‘The end of the gender revolution? Gender role attitudes from 1977 to 2008’, American Journal of Sociology, 117(1): 259–​89.

164

References

Cotter, D.A., Hermsen, J.M., Ovadia, S. and Vanneman, R. (2001) ‘The glass ceiling effect’, Social Forces, 80(2): 655–​81. Council of Europe (1998) Gender Mainstreaming. Conceptual Framework, Methodology and Presentation of Good Practices. Final Report of Activities of the Group of Specialists on Mainstreaming, Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Council of Europe (2005) Final Report of the Group of Specialists on Gender Budgeting (EG-​S-​GB), EG-​S-​GB (2004) RAP FIN; Equality Division, Directorate General of Human Rights. Strasbourg: Council of Europe, www.mpsv.cz/​files/​clanky/​12462/​GenderBudgeting-​ report2005_​En.pdf Crespi, I. (2007) Gender Mainstreaming and Family Policy in Europe:  Perspectives, Researches and Debates, Macerata:  Edizioni Università di Macerata. Crespi, I. (2009) ‘Gender differences and equality issue in Europe: Critical aspects of gender mainstreaming policies’, Revue Internationale de Sociologie, 19: 171–​88. Crespi, I. and Strohmeier, P. (2008) ‘Family, gender and work in Europe:  Social policies facing structural and cultural changes’, Special issue of Journal of Societal and Social Policy, 7(3). Crespi, I. and Rossi, G. (eds) (2012) ‘Balancing work and family care: European experiences’, Special issue of Sociologia e Politiche sociali, 3/​2012. Crespi, I. and Miller, T. (2013) Family, Care and Work in Europe: An Issue of Gender? Macerata: Edizioni Università di Macerata. Crespi, I. and Minguez, M.A. (2017) ‘Work and family cultures: Dynamics of family change in Southern Europe’, in Brandth, B., Halrynjo, S. and Kvande, E. (eds) Work–​Family Dynamics: Competing Logics of Regulation, Economy and Morals, Oxford: Routledge, pp 79–​102. Crespi, I. and Lomazzi, V. (2018) ‘Gender mainstreaming and gender equality in Europe: Policies, legislation and Eurobarometer surveys’, Studi di Sociologia, 56(1): 23–​40. Crompton, R. (2006) Employment and the Family. The Reconfiguration of Work and Family Life in Contemporary Societies, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

165

GENDER MAINSTREAMING AND GENDER EQUALITY IN EUROPE

Crompton, R. and Lyonette, C. (2006) ‘Work-​life “balance” in Europe’, Acta Sociologica, 49(4): 379–​93. Cunningham, M. (2008) ‘Influences of gender ideology and housework allocation on women’s employment over the life course’, Social Science Research, 37(1): 254–​67. Cunningham, M., Beutel, A.M., Barber, J.S. and Thornton, A. (2005) ‘Reciprocal relationships between attitudes about gender and social contexts during young adulthood’, Social Science Research, 34(4): 862–​92. Daly, M. (2000) The Gender Division of Welfare. The Impact of the British and German Welfare States, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Daly, M. (2005) ‘Gender mainstreaming in theory and practice’, Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 12(3): 433–​50. Daly, M. (2013) ‘Parenting support policies in Europe’, Families, Relationships and Societies, 2(2): 159–​74. Daly, M. and Lewis, J. (2000) ‘The concept of social care and the analysis of contemporary welfare states’, British Journal of Sociology, 51(2): 281–​98. Davidov, E., Meuleman, B., Cieciuch, J., Schmidt, P. and Billiet, J. (2014) ‘Measurement equivalence in cross-​national research’, Annual Review of Sociology, 40: 50–​75. Davidson, M.J. and Cooper, C.L. (1992) Shattering the Glass Ceiling: The Woman Manager, London: Paul Chapman Publishing. Davis, S.N. and Greenstein, T.N. (2009) ‘Gender ideology: Components, predictors, and consequences’, Annual Review of Sociology, 35(1): 87–​105. De Agostini, P., Paulus, A., Sutherland, H. and Tasseva, I.V. (2014) The Effect of Tax-​benefit Changes on the Income Distribution in EU Countries Since the Beginning of the Economic Crisis. EM9/​14. EUROMOD at the Institute for Social and Economic Research, https://​ideas. repec.org/​p/​ese/​emodwp/​em9-​14.html Decataldo, A. and Ruspini, E. (2016) ‘Gender-​sensitive data: The state of the art in Europe’, International Review of Sociology, 26(3): 407–​23.

166

References

Dijkstra, A.G. (2006) ‘Towards a fresh start in measuring gender equality: A Contribution to the debate’, Journal of Human Development, 7(2): 275–​83. Donati, P. (2007) ‘Old and new family policies: The perspective of relational sociology’, Sociologia, 28(54): 127–​59. Dotti Sani, G.M. (2018) ‘The economic crisis and changes in work–​ family arrangements in six European countries’, Journal of European Social Policy, 28(2): 177–​93. Duvander, A.Z. and Johansson, M. (2012) ‘What are the effects of reforms promoting fathers’ parental leave use?’, Journal of European Social Policy, 22(3): 319–​30. Eichenberg, R.C. and Dalton, R.J. (1993) ‘Europeans and the European Community:  the dynamics of public support for European integration’, International Organization, 47(4): 507–​34. EIGE (European Institute for Gender Equality) (2016) What is Gender Mainstreaming? Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, doi:10.2839/​76981. EIGE (2017a) Gender Equality Index 2017 –​Measuring gender equality in the European Union 2005–​2015, Luxembourg: European Institute for Gender Equality, doi:10.2839/​707843. EIGE (2017b) Gender Equality Index 2017. Methodological Report, Luxembourg:  Publications Office of the European Union, doi:10.2839/​3514. Ellina, C.A. (2003) Promoting Women’s Rights: The Politics of Gender in the European Union, New York: Routledge. Elson, D. (1998) ‘Integrating gender issues into national budgetary policies and procedures: Some policy options’, Journal of International Development, 10(7): 929–​41. Elson, D. (2016) ‘Gender budgeting and macroeconomic policy’ in Campbell, J. and Gillespie, M. (eds) Feminist Economics and Public Policy:  Reflections on the Work and Impact of Ailsa McKay (IAFFE Advances in Feminist Economics), Abingdon: Routledge Taylor & Francis, pp 27–​37. England, P. (2010) ‘The gender revolution:  Uneven and stalled’, Gender & Society, 24(2): 149–​66.

167

GENDER MAINSTREAMING AND GENDER EQUALITY IN EUROPE

Escobedo, A. and Wall, K. (2015) ‘Leave policies in Southern Europe:  Continuities and changes’, Community, Work & Family, 18(2): 218–​37. Esping-​Andersen, G. (1990) The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, Cambridge: Polity Press. Eurofond (2015) Sixth Wave of the European Working Conditions Survey (EWCS), https://​www.eurofound.europa.eu/​it/​data/​european-​ working-​conditions-​survey European Commission (1996) Incorporating Equal Opportunities for Women and Men into all Community Policies and Activities. Communication from the Commission, COM(96) 67 (final), Luxembourg:  Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. European Commission (2005) Report from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on Equality between Women and Men, 2006–​2010, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. European Commission (2006) A Roadmap for Equality between Women and Men 2006–​2010. COM (2006) 92 (final), Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. European Commission (2008) Non-​d iscrimination and Equal Opportunities: A Renewed Commitment. COM (2008) 420 (final), Luxembourg:  Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. European Commission (2010) A Strengthened Commitment to Equality between Women and Men:  A Women’s Charter. COM (2010) 78, Luxembourg:  Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. European Commission (2011) ‘MEMO/​1 1/​1 24:  EU Justice Commissioner Reading challenges business leaders to increase women’s presence on corporate boards with “Women on the Board Pledge for Europe” ’, http://​europa.eu/​rapid/​press-​release_​ MEMO-​11-​124_​en.htm?locale=en

168

References

European Commission (2013) The Gender Gap in Pensions in the EU, Luxembourg:  Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. European Commission (2014) Tackling the Gender Pay Gap in the European Union, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. European Commission (2015) Strategic Engagement for Gender Quality 2016–​2019, https://​ec.europa.eu/​anti-​trafficking/​eu-​policy/​ strategic-​engagement-​gender-​equality-​2016-​2019_​en European Commission (2016) Strategic Engagement for Gender Equality 2016–​2019, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. European Commission (2017) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. An Initiative to Support Work-​Life Balance for Working Parents and Carers. COM (2017) 252 final. Brussels. European Commission and European Parliament (2015) Eurobarometer 82.4 (2014). TNS Opinion [producer]. GESIS Data Archive, Cologne. ZA5933 Data file Version 5.0.0, doi:10.4232/​1.12265. Brussels. European Commission and European Parliament (2017) Eurobarometer 86.1 (2016). TNS Opinion, Brussels [producer]. GESIS Data Archive, Cologne. ZA6697 Data file Version 1.1.0, doi:10.4232/​ 1.12877. Brussels. European Commission and European Parliament (2018) Eurobarometer 89.1 (2018). Kantar Public, Brussels [producer]. GESIS Data Archive, Cologne. ZA6963 Data file Version 1.0.0, doi:10.4232/​ 1.13154. Brussels. European Parliament: DG Communication (2018) Parlemeter 2018: Taking up the Challenge. From (Silent) Support to Actual Vote, www. europeansources.info/​record/​parlemeter-​2018-​eurobarometer-​ survey-​90-​of-​the-​european-​parliament

169

GENDER MAINSTREAMING AND GENDER EQUALITY IN EUROPE

European Union (2013) The Impact of the Economic Crisis on the Situation of Women and Men and on Gender Equality Policies, www.eubusiness. com/​topics/​living-​in-​eu/​gender-​equality-​12 Eurostat (2019) Population and Social Conditions Database, https://​ ec.europa.eu/​eurostat/​data/​database Evans, G. and Butt, S. (2007) ‘Explaining change in British public opinion on the European Union: Top down or bottom up?’, Acta Politica 42(2–​3): 173–​90. Evans, K.L., Millsteed, J., Richmond, J., Falkmer, M., Falkmer, T. and Girdler, S. (2018) ‘The impact of within and between role experiences on role balance outcomes for working Sandwich Generation Women’, Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 26(3): 184–​93. Eveline, J. and Bacchi, C. (2005) ‘What are we mainstreaming when we mainstream gender?’, International Feminist Journal of Politics, 7(4): 496–​512. Eydal, G.B., Rostgaard, T. and Hiilamo, H. (2018) ‘Family policies in the Nordic countries: Aiming at equality’ in Eydal, G.B. and Rostgaard, T. (eds) Handbook of Family Policy, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp 195–​208. Fae, J. (2018) ‘As Italy indulges a nationalist agenda, women’s rights are being steadily eroded’, Independent, 22 December, www. independent.co.uk/ ​ n ews/ ​ l ong_ ​ reads/ ​ i taly- ​ womens-​ r ights-​ abortion-​gender-​equality-​feminism-​lega-​politics-​a8690541.html Fagan, C. and Rubery, J. (2018) ‘Advancing gender equality through European employment policy:  The impact of the UK’s EU membership and the risks of Brexit’, Social Policy and Society, 17(2): 297–​317. Fahlén, S. (2014) ‘Does gender matter? Policies, norms and the gender gap in work-​to-​home and home-​to-​work conflict across Europe’, Community, Work and Family, 17(4): 371–​91. Farré, L. (2016) ‘Parental leave policies and gender equality:  A survey  of the literature’, Estudios de Economía Aplicada, 34(1): 45–​60.

170

References

Farré, L. and Vella, F. (2013) ‘The intergenerational transmission of gender role attitudes and its implications for female labour force participation’, Economica, 80(318): 219–​47. Ferge, Z. (1997) ‘Women and social transformation in Central-​Eastern Europe: The “Old Left” and the “New Right”’, Czech Sociological Review, 159–​78. Forest, M. and Lombardo, E. (2012) ‘The Europeanization of gender equality policies: A discursive-​sociological approach’, in Lombardo, E.  and Forest, M.  (eds) The Europeanization of Gender Equality Policies, London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp 1–​27. Freedman, J. (2010) ‘Mainstreaming gender in refugee protection’, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 23(4): 589–​607. Fuwa, M. (2004) ‘Macro-​level gender inequality and the division of household labor in 22 countries’, American Sociological Review, 69(6): 751–​67. Galpin, C. and Trenz, H.-​J. (2017) ‘The spiral of Euroscepticism: Media negativity, framing and opposition to the EU’, in Caiani, M.  and Guerra, S.  (eds) Euroscepticism, Democracy and the Media: Communicating Europe, Contesting Europe (Palgrave Studies in European Political Sociology), London:  Palgrave Macmillan, pp 49–​72. Garbagnoli, S. (2018) ‘Matteo Salvini, renaturalizing the racial and sexual boundaries of democracy’, OpenDemocracy, 30 September, www.opendemocracy.net/​can-​europe-​make-​it/​sara-​garbagnoli/​ matteo-s​ alvini-r​ enaturalizing-r​ acial-a​ nd-s​ exual-b​ oundaries-​of-​dem Gaye, A., Klugman, J., Kovacevic, M., Twigg, S. and Zambrano, E.  (2010) Measuring Key Disparities in Human Development:  The Gender Inequality Index. HDRP-​2010-​46. Human Development Report Office (HDRO), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), https://​ i deas.repec.org/​ p /​h dr/​ p apers/​h drp-​ 2 010-​ 46.html Geist, C. and Cohen, P.N. (2011) ‘Headed toward equality? Housework change in comparative perspective’, Journal of Marriage and Family, 73(4): 832–​44.

171

GENDER MAINSTREAMING AND GENDER EQUALITY IN EUROPE

Greed, C. (2005) ‘An investigation of the effectiveness of gender mainstreaming as a means of integrating the needs of women and men into spatial planning in the United Kingdom’, Progress in Planning, 64(4): 241–​42. Grunow, D., Begall, K. and Buchler, S. (2018) ‘Gender ideologies in Europe: A multidimensional framework’, Journal of Marriage and Family, 80(1): 42–​60. Guerrina, R. (2005) Mothering the Union: Gender Politics in the EU, Manchester: Manchester University Press. Guerrina, R. and Masselot, A. (2018) ‘Walking into the footprint of EU law: Unpacking the gendered consequences of Brexit’, Social Policy and Society, 17(2): 319–​30. Gustavsson, G., Noll, J. van der and Sundberg, R. (2016) ‘Opposing the veil in the name of liberalism: Popular attitudes to liberalism and Muslim veiling in the Netherlands’, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 39(10): 1719–​37. Hadas, M. (2011) ‘Rethinking the paradox: Tradeoffs in work-​family policy and patterns of gender inequality’, Community, Work & Family, 14(2): 159–​76. Hafner-Burton, E. and Pollack, M.A. (2001) Mainstreaming Gender in Global Governance, Firenze: European University Institute, http://​ cadmus.eui.eu/b​ itstream/h ​ andle/1​ 814/1​ 755/0​ 1_4​ 6.pdf;jsessionid =67CBDDC81E7BDF7803CAD6BCC4EFD88B?sequence=1 Hafner-​Burton, E. and Pollack, M.A. (2002) ‘Mainstreaming gender in global governance’, European Journal of International Relations, 8(3): 339–​73. Hafner-​Burton, E. and Pollack, M.A. (2009) ‘Mainstreaming gender in the European Union: Getting the incentives right’, Comparative European Politics, 7(1): 114–​38. Hagqvist, E., Gådin, K.G. and Nordenmark, M. (2017) ‘Work–​family conflict and well-​being across Europe: The role of gender context’, Social Indicators Research, 132(2): 785–​97. Hancock, A.-​M. (2007) ‘When multiplication doesn’t equal quick addition:  Examining intersectionality as a research paradigm’, Perspectives on Politics, 5(1): 63–​79.

172

References

Hantrais, L. (2002) Gendered Policies in Europe: Reconciling Employment and Family Life, London: Macmillan Press. Harris, R.J. and Firestone, J.M. (1998) ‘Changes in predictors of gender role ideologies among women:  A multivariate analysis’, Sex Roles, 38(3–​4): 239–​52. Hatton, T.J. (2017) ‘Refugees and asylum seekers, the crisis in Europe and the future of policy’, Economic Policy, 32(91): 447–​96. Hebson, G. and Rubery, J. (2018) ‘Employment relations and gender equality’, in Wilkinson, A., Dundon, T., Donaghey, J. and Colvin, A.J.S. (eds) The Routledge Companion to Employment Relations, Oxford: Routledge. Himmelweit, S. (2002) ‘Making visible the hidden economy: The case for gender-​impact analysis of economic policy’, Feminist Economics 8(1): 49–​70. Hofstede, G. (1989) ‘Cultural predictors of national negotiation styles’, in Mautner-​Markhof, F. (ed) Processes of International Negotiations, Laxenburg, Austria: Westview Press, pp 193–​201. Hofstede, G.H. and Arrindell, W.A. (1998) Masculinity and Femininity:  The Taboo Dimension of National Cultures, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Hooghe, L. and Marks, G. (2005) ‘Calculation, community and cues:  Public opinion on European integration’, European Union Politics, 6(4): 419–​43. Hooghe, L. and Marks, G. (2007) ‘Sources of Euroscepticism’, Acta Politica, 42(2): 119–​27. Hox, J.J. and Kreft, I.G.G. (1994) ‘Multilevel analysis methods’, Sociological Methods & Research, 22(3): 283–​99. Inglehart, R. (1977) The Silent Revolution: Changing Values and Political Styles Among Western Publics, Princeton: Princeton University Press. Inglehart, R. (1983) ‘The persistence of materialist and post-​materialist value orientations: Comments on Van Deth’s analysis’, European Journal of Political Research, 11(1): 81–​91. Inglehart, R. (1997) Modernization and Postmodernization:  Cultural, Economic, and Political Change in 43 Societies, Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.

173

GENDER MAINSTREAMING AND GENDER EQUALITY IN EUROPE

Inglehart, R. and Norris, P. (2003) Rising Tide:  Gender Equality and Cultural Change Around the World, Cambr idge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Inter-​Agency Standing Committee (2006) Gender Handbook in Humanitarian Action. Geneva, Switzerland:  IASC, https://​ interagencystandingcommittee.org/​gender-​and-​humanitarian-​ action-​0/​news/​iasc-​gender-​handbook ISSP Research Group (2016) ‘International Social Survey Programme: Family and changing gender roles IV –​ISSP 2012’. GESIS Data Archive, Cologne. ZA5900 Data file Version 4.0.0. Jacquot, S. (2010) ‘The paradox of gender mainstreaming: Unanticipated effects of new modes of governance in the gender equality domain’, West European Politics, 33(1): 118–​35. Jacquot, S. (2015) ‘Conclusion:  The end of a policy?’, in Jacquot, S.  (ed) Transformations in EU Gender Equality:  From Emergence to Dismantling, London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp 175–​82. Jacquot, S. (2017) ‘A policy in crisis. The dismantling of the EU gender equality policy’, in Kantola, J. and Lombardo, E. (eds) Gender and the Economic Crisis in Europe: Politics, Institutions and Intersectionality, Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp 27–​48. Janta, B. and Stewart, K. (2018) Paternity and Parental Leave Policies Across the European Union. Assessment of Current Provision, Luxembourg: European Commission. Jappens, M. and Van Bavel, J. (2012) ‘Regional family norms and child care by grandparents in Europe’, Demographic Research, 27(4): 85–​120. Jenson, J. (2008) ‘Writing women out, folding gender in: The European Union “modernises” social policy’, Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 15(2): 131–​53. Jewson, N. and Mason, D. (1986) ‘The theory and practice of equal opportunities policies: Liberal and radical approaches’, Sociological Review, 34(2): 307–​34.

174

References

Jo, N.K. (2011) ‘Between the cultural foundations of welfare and welfare attitudes: The possibility of an in-​between level conception of culture for the cultural analysis of welfare’, Journal of European Social Policy, 21(1): 5–​19. Jones, A. (1998) ‘(Re)producing gender cultures: Theorizing gender in investment banking recruitment’, Geoforum, 29(4): 451–​74. Kalmijn, M. (2003) ‘Country differences in sex-​role attitudes: Cultural and economic explanations’, in Arts, W.  and Halman, L.  (eds) The Cultural Diversity of European Unity: Findings, Explanations and Reflections from the European Values Study, Leiden: Brill, pp 311–​36. Kangas, O. and Rostgaard, T. (2007) ‘Preferences or institutions? Work–​family life opportunities in seven European countries’, Journal of European Social Policy, 17(3): 240–​56. Kantola, J. (2010) Gender and the European Union, London: Palgrave Macmillan International Higher Education. Kantola, J. and Nousiainen, K. (2012) ‘The European Union: Initiator of a new European anti-​discrimination regime?’, in Krizsan, A., Skjeie, H.  and Squires, J.  (eds) Institutionalizing Intersectionality, London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp 33–​58. Karamessini, M. and Rubery, J. (2013) Women and Austerity: The Economic Crisis and the Future for Gender Equality, Oxford: Routledge. Kirton, G. and Greene, A.M. (2005) ‘Gender, equality and industrial relations in the “New Europe”: An introduction’, European Journal of Industrial Relations, 11(2): 141–​9. Klasen, S. (2006) ‘UNDP’s gender-​related measures: Some conceptual problems and possible solutions’, Journal of Human Development, 7(2): 243–​74. Klasen, S. and Schüler, D. (2011) ‘Reforming the gender-​ related development index and the gender empowerment measure: Implementing some specific proposals’, Feminist Economics, 17(1): 1–​30. Klingorová, K. and Havlíček, T. (2015) ‘Religion and gender inequality: The status of women in the societies of world religions’, Moravian Geographical Reports, 23(2): 2–​11.

175

GENDER MAINSTREAMING AND GENDER EQUALITY IN EUROPE

Korpi, W. (2000) ‘Faces of inequality:  Gender, class, and patterns of inequalities in different types of welfare states’, Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 7(2): 127–​91. Korpi, W., Ferrarini, T. and Englund, S. (2013) ‘Women’s opportunities under different family policy constellations: Gender, class, and inequality tradeoffs in western countries re-​examined’, Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 20(1): 1–​40. Kremer. M. (2007) How welfare states care. Culture, gender and parenting in Europe, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Kröger, T. (2011) ‘Defamilisation, dedomestication and care policy: Comparing childcare service provisions of welfare states’, International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 31(7/​8): 424–​40. Kroska, A. (2006) ‘Gender ideology and gender role ideology’, in Ritzer, G.  (ed) Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology, Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, pp 1867–​9. Kroska, A. and Elman, C. (2009) ‘Change in attitudes about employed mothers: Exposure, interests, and gender ideology discrepancies’, Social Science Research, 38(2): 366–​82. Latorre-​Catalán, M. (2017) ‘Opportunity structure’, in The Wiley-​ Blackwell Encyclopedia of Social Theory, https://​onlinelibrary.wiley. com/​doi/​book/​10.1002/​9781118430873 Lavena, C. and Riccucci, N.M. (2012) ‘Explor ing gender mainstreaming in the European Union’, International Journal of Public Administration, 35(2): 122–​36. Lee, S.K., Alwin, D.F. and Tufiş, P.A. (2007) ‘Beliefs about women’s labour in the reunified Germany, 1991–​2004’, European Sociological Review, 23(4): 487–​503. Leira, A. (2018) ‘Combining work and family: Working mothers in Scandinavia and the European Community’, in Brown, P.J. and Crompton, R.  (eds) Economic Restructuring and Social Exclusion, London: Routledge, pp 86–​104. Leitner, S. (2003) ‘Varieties of familialism: The caring function of the family in comparative perspective’, European Societies, 5(4): 353–7​ 5, doi: 10.1080/​1461669032000127642

176

References

Lewis, J. (2002) ‘Gender and welfare state change’, European Societies, 4(4): 331–​57. Lewis, J. (2006) ‘The adult worker model family, care and the problem of gender equality’, Journal of Poverty and Social Justice, 14(1): 33–​8. Lewis, J. (2009) Work-​Family Balance, Gender and Policy, Cheltenham, UK, and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar. Lewis, J. (ed) (2018) Gender, Social Care and Welfare State Restructuring in Europe, London: Routledge. Lewis, J. and Giullari, S. (2005) ‘The adult worker model family, gender equality and care: The search for new policy principles and the possibilities and problems of a capabilities approach’, Economy and Society, 34(1): 76–​104. Lewis, J., Campbell, M. and Huerta, C. (2008) ‘Patterns of paid and unpaid work in Western Europe: Gender, commodification, preferences and the implications for policy’, Journal of European Social Policy, 18(1): 21–​37. Liebert, U. (2002) ‘Europeanising gender mainstreaming: Constraints and opportunities in the multilevel euro-​polity’, Feminist Legal Studies, 10(3): 241–​56. Liebert, U. (2003) ‘Between diversity and equality:  Analysing Europeanisation’ in U.  Liebert (ed) Gendering Europeanisation, Brussels: Presses Interuniversitaires Européennes, pp 11–​46. Liebig, B. (2000) ‘Perspectives on gender cultures in élites’, in Vianello, M.  and Moore, G.  (eds) Gendering Elites:  Economic and Political Leadership in 27 Industrialised Societies, London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp 220–​32. Llamazares, I. and Gramacho, W. (2007) ‘Eurosceptics among Euroenthusiasts: An analysis of Southern European public opinions’, Acta Politica, 42(2–​3): 211–​32. Lohmann, H. and Zagel, H. (2016) ‘Family policy in comparative perspective: The concepts and measurement of familization and defamilization’, Journal of European Social Policy, 26(1): 48–​65. Lomazzi, V. (2016a) Donne e sfera pubblica. I valori degli europei a confronto. Milano: Franco Angeli.

177

GENDER MAINSTREAMING AND GENDER EQUALITY IN EUROPE

Lomazzi, V. (2016b) ‘Middle East refugee response and gender equality challenges’, Journal of Global Faultlines, 3(1): 56–​64. Lomazzi, V. (2017a) ‘Gender role attitudes in Italy:  1988–​2008. A  path-​dependency story of traditionalism’, European Societies, 19(4): 370–​95. Lomazzi, V. (2017b) ‘Intercultural approach’, in Resilience Onlus (ed) Psychosocial Approach Handbook, Beirut: AVSI, pp 87–​102. Lomazzi, V. (2018) ‘Using alignment optimization to test the measurement invariance of gender role attitudes in 59 countries’, methods, data, analyses, 12(1): 77–104. Lomazzi, V., Israel, S. and Crespi, I. (2019) ‘Gender equality in Europe and the effect of work-​family balance policies on gender role attitudes’, Social Sciences, 8(1): 5. Lombardo, E. (2005) ‘Integrating or setting the agenda? Gender mainstreaming in the European constitution-​making process’, Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 12(3): 412–3​ 2. Lombardo, E. and Meier, P. (2006) ‘Gender mainstreaming in the EU: Incorporating a feminist reading?’, European Journal of Women’s Studies, 13(2): 151–​66. Lombardo, E. and Rolandsen Agustin, L. (2012) ‘Framing gender intersections in the European Union: What implications for the quality of intersectionality in policies?’, Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 19(4): 482–​512. Lombardo, E. and Del Giorgio, E. (2013) ‘EU antidiscrimination policy and its unintended domestic consequences: The institutionalization of multiple equalities in Italy’, Women’s Studies International Forum, 39: 12–​21. Lombardo, E., Meier, P. and Verloo, M. (2017) ‘Policymaking from a Gender+ equality perspective’, Journal of Women, Politics & Policy, 38(1): 1–​19. Lussier, D.N. and Fish, M.S. (2016) ‘Men, Muslims, and attitudes toward gender inequality’, Politics and Religion, 9(1): 29–​60. MacLeavy, J. (2018) ‘Women, equality and the UK’s EU referendum: Locating the gender politics of Brexit in relation to the neoliberalising state’, Space and Polity, 22(2): 205–​23.

178

References

MacRae, H. (2010) ‘The EU as a gender equal polity: Myths and realities’, JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 48(1): 155–​74. MacRae, H. (2013) ‘(Re-​)Gendering integration:  Unintentional and unanticipated gender outcomes of European Union policy’, Women’s Studies International Forum, 39(July–​August): 3–​11. Maddock, S. and Parkin, D. (1993) ‘Gender cultures: Women’s choices and strategies at work’, Women in Management Review, 8(2). March, C., Smyth, I. and Mukhopadhyay, M. (1999) A Guide to Gender-​Analysis Frameworks, Oxford: Oxfam. Marks, G. and Steenbergen, M.R. (2004) European Integration and Political Conflict, Cambr idge:  Cambr idge University Press. Martinsen, D.S. (2007) ‘The Europeanization of gender equality –​who controls the scope of non-​discrimination?’, Journal of European Public Policy, 14(4): 544–​62. Masselot, A. (2007) ‘The state of gender equality law in the European Union’, European Law Journal, 13(2): 152–​68. Mayer, S., Ajanovic, E. and Sauer, B. (2014) ‘Intersections and inconsistencies. Framing gender in right-​wing populist discourses in Austria’, NORA –​Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research, 22(4): 250–​66. Mazey, S. (2002) ‘Gender mainstreaming strategies in the EU: Delivering on an agenda?’, Feminist Legal Studies, 10(3): 227–​40. McLaren, L. (2007) ‘Explaining mass-​level Euroscepticism: Identity, interests, and institutional distrust’, Acta Politica, 42(2–​ 3): 233–​51. McRobie, H. (2012) ‘When “Austerity” sounds like “backlash”: Gender and the economic crisis’, OpenDemocracy, 18 September, www.opendemocracy.net/​en/​5050/​when-​austerity-​sounds-​like-​ backlash-​gender-​and-​economic-​crisis/​ Mecatti, F., Crippa, F. and Farina, P. (2012) ‘A special gen(d)re of statistics: Roots, development and methodological prospects of gender statistics’, International Statistical Review, 80(3): 452–​67. Medrano, J.D. and Gutiérrez, P. (2001) ‘Nested identities: National and European identity in Spain’, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 24(5): 753–7​ 8.

179

GENDER MAINSTREAMING AND GENDER EQUALITY IN EUROPE

Meier, P. (2018) ‘The dilution of the ultimate goal? Lessons from gender mainstreaming’, in Scholten, P.W.A.  and van Breugel, I.  (eds) Mainstreaming Integration Governance:  New Trends in Migrant Integration Policies in Europe, Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp 171–​89. Meier, P. and Celis, K. (2011) ‘Sowing the seeds of its own failure:  Implementing the concept of gender mainstreaming’, Social Politics:  International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 18(4): 469–​89. Menéndez, A.J. (2016) ‘The refugee crisis: Between human tragedy and symptom of the structural crisis of European Integration’, European Law Journal, 22(4): 388–​416. Meret, S. and Siim, B. (2013) ‘Gender, populism and politics of belonging: Discourses of right-​wing populist parties in Denmark, Norway and Austria’, in Siim, B. and Mokre, M. (eds) Negotiating Gender and Diversity in an Emergent European Public Sphere, London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp 78–​96. Meyer, M. K. and Prügl, E. (eds) (1999) Gender Politics in Global Governance, Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Michoń, P. (2008) ‘Familisation and defamilisation policy in 22 European countries’, Poznan University of Economics Review, 8(1): 34–​54. Millar, J. (2006) ‘Family and work:  New family policy for the UK?’, in Rossi, G.  (ed) Reconciling Family and Work:  New Challenges for Social Policies in Europe, Milano:  Franco Angeli, pp 183–​98. Miller, C. and Razavi, S. (1998) Gender Analysis: Alternative Paradigms, Geneva, UNRISD, http://​agris.fao.org/​agris-​search/​search. do?recordID=GB2013200718 Minguez, M.A. and Crespi, I. (2017) ‘Gender equality and family changes in the work–​family culture in Southern Europe’, Revue Internationale De Sociologie, 27(3): pp 394–​420. Moen, P. (2015) ‘An institutional/​organizational turn:  Getting to work–​life quality and gender equality’, Work and Occupations, 42(2): 174–​82.

180

References

Moen, P., Erickson, M.A. and Dempster-​McClain, D. (1997) ‘Their mother’s daughters? The intergenerational transmission of gender attitudes in a world of changing roles’, Journal of Marriage and Family, 59(2): 281–​93. Moore, L.M. and Vanneman, R. (2003) ‘Context matters:  Effects of the proportion of fundamentalists on gender attitudes’, Social Forces, 82(1): 115–​39. Moser, C. (1993) Gender Planning and Development: Theory, Practice and Training, London: Routledge. Moser, C. (2005) ‘Has gender mainstreaming failed?’, International Feminist Journal of Politics, 7(4): 576–​90. Moser, C. and Moser, A. (2005) ‘Gender mainstreaming since Beijing:  A review of success and limitations in international institutions’, Gender & Development, 13(2): 11–​22. Motiejunaite, A. and Kravchenko, Z. (2008) ‘Family policy, employment and gender-​role attitudes: A comparative analysis of Russia and Sweden’, Journal of European Social Policy, 18(1): 38–​49. O’Connor, J. S. (2005) ‘Policy coordination, social indicators and the social-​policy agenda in the European Union’, Journal of European Social Policy, 15(4): 345–​61. O’Dwyer, M. (2018) ‘Making sense of austerity: The gendered ideas of European economic policy’, Comparative European Politics, 16(5): 745–​61. OECD Development Centre (2014) Social Institutions & Gender Index. 2014 Synthesis Report, www.genderindex.org/​wp-​content/​ uploads/​files/​docs/​BrochureSIGI2015.pdf Olsson, Y. (2012) ‘Is living the gender contract really a free choice? A  cross-​national comparison of preferences or constraints in mothers’ and fathers’ participation in paid and unpaid work’, Qualitative Studies, 3(1): 1–​21. Pascall, G. and Lewis, J. (2004) ‘Emerging gender regimes and policies for gender equality in a wider Europe’, Journal of Social Policy, 33(3): 373–​94. Permanyer, I. (2013) ‘A critical assessment of the UNDP’s Gender Inequality Index’, Feminist Economics, 19(2): 1–​32.

181

GENDER MAINSTREAMING AND GENDER EQUALITY IN EUROPE

Pfau-​Effinger, B. (1994) ‘The gender contract and part-​time paid work by women –​Finland and Germany compared’, Environment and Planning A, 26(9): 1355–​76. Pfau-​Effinger, B. (1998) ‘Gender cultures and the gender arrangement –​ a theoretical framework for cross-​national gender research’, Innovation:  The European Journal of Social Science Research, 11(2): 147–​66. Pfau-​E ffinger, B. (2004) ‘Socio-​h istorical paths of the male breadwinner model –​an explanation of cross-​national differences’, The British Journal of Sociology, 55(3): 377–​99. Pfau-​Effinger, B. (2005) ‘Welfare state policies and development of care arrangements’, European Societies, 7(3): 321–​47. Pierson, C. and Castles, F.G. (eds) (2006) The Welfare State Reader, Cambridge: Polity Press. Poggio, B. (2000) ‘Between bytes and bricks: Gender cultures in work contexts’, Economic and Industrial Democracy, 21(3): 381–​402. Reanda, L. (1999) ‘Engendering the United Nations. The changing international agenda’, European Journal of Women’s Studies, 6(1): 49–​68. Rees, T. (1998) Mainstreaming Equality in the European Union, London: Routledge. Rees, T. (2005) ‘Reflections on the uneven development of gender mainstreaming in Europe’, International Feminist Journal of Politics, 7(4): 555–​74. Reguera-​Alvarado, N., de Fuentes, P. and Laffarga, J. (2017) ‘Does board gender diversity influence financial performance? Evidence from Spain’, Journal of Business Ethics, 141(2): 337–50. Roggeband, C. and Verloo, M. (2007) ‘Dutch women are liberated, migrant women are a problem: The evolution of policy frames on gender and migration in the Netherlands, 1995–​2005’, Social Policy & Administration, 41(3): 271–​88. Rossilli, M. (ed) (2000) Gender Policies in the European Union, London: Peter Lang Publishing. Rubery, J. (2002) ‘Gender mainstreaming and gender equality in the EU: The impact of the EU employment strategy’, Industrial Relations Journal, 33(5): 500–​22.

182

References

Rubery, J. (2015) ‘Austerity and the future for gender equality in Europe’, ILR Review, 68(4): 715–41. Rubery, J. (2017) ‘The triumph of instrumental over equality policy  in European employment policy’, Canadian Journal of Development Studies/​Revue canadienne d’études du développement, 38(4): 576–​81. Ruprecht, L. (ed) (2003) ‘UNESCO’S gender mainstreaming implementation framework (GMIF) for 2002-​2007’, UNESCO, Bureau of Strategic planning-​Section for women and gender equality, September, http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ ID=15780&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201. html Russell, H., O’Connell, P.J. and McGinnity, F. (2009) ‘The impact of flexible working arrangements on work–​life conflict and work pressure in Ireland’, Gender, Work & Organization, 16(1): 73–​97. Sainsbur y D. (1996) Gender, Equality and Welfare States, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sanders, D., Bellucci, P. Tóka, G. and Torcal, M. (eds) (2012) The Europeanization of National Politics, Oxford:  Oxford University Press. Saraceno, C. and Keck, W. (2011) ‘Towards an integrated approach for the analysis of gender equity in policies supporting paid work and care responsibilities’, Demographic Research, 25(11): 371–​406. Savelyev, Y. (2014) ‘Modernization and Variations in Emancipative Values in European Societies in 1995–​2008:  Test of Inglehart’s Socialization Hypothesis’, Higher School of Economics Research Paper No. WP BRP 48/​SOC/​2014, http://​papers.ssrn.com/​ abstract=2479869 Scholz, E., Jutz, R., Edlund, J., Öun, I. and Braun, M. (2014) ‘ISSP 2012 Family and Changing Gender Roles IV:  Questionnaire Development’, GESIS Technical Reports (19), www.gesis.org/​ angebot/​publikationen/​gesis-​papers/​ Schultz Lee, K.S., Tufiş, P.A. and Alwin, D.F. (2010) ‘Separate spheres or increasing equality? Changing gender beliefs in postwar Japan’, Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(1): 184–​201.

183

GENDER MAINSTREAMING AND GENDER EQUALITY IN EUROPE

Schwartz, S.H. (2006) ‘A theory of cultural value orientations: Explication and applications’, Comparative Sociology, 5(2): 137–​82. Scott, J., Alwin, D.F. and Braun, M. (1996) ‘Generational changes in gender-​role attitudes: Britain in a cross-​national perspective’, Sociology, 30(3): 471–​92. Seddig, D. and Lomazzi, V. (2019) ‘Using cultural and structural indicators to explain measurement noninvariance in gender role attitudes with multilevel structural equation modeling’, Social Science Research, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2019.102328 Selim, J. (2016) Human Development Report 2016: Human Development for Everyone. New York: United Nations, http://​hdr.undp.org/s​ ites/​ default/​files/​2016_​human_​development_​report.pdf Sharp, R. (2000) ‘The economics and politics of auditing government budgets for their gender impacts’, Hawke Institute Working Paper Series 3, Magill, South Australia: University of South Australia. Sharp, R. and Broomhill, R. (2002) ‘Budgeting for equality:  The Australian experience’, Feminist Economics, 8(1): 25–​47. Siboni, B., Sangiorgi, D., Farneti, F. and De Villiers, C. (2016) ‘Gender (in) accounting: Insights, gaps and an agenda for future research’, Meditari Accountancy Research, 24(2): 158–​68. Sjöberg, O. (2004) ‘The role of family policy institutions in explaining gender-​role attitudes:  A comparative multilevel analysis of thirteen industrialized countries’, Journal of European Social Policy, 14(2): 107–​23. Sørensen, A. (1991) ‘The restructuring of gender relations in an aging society’, Acta Sociologica, 34(1): 45–​55. South, S.J. and Spitze, G. (1994) ‘Housework in marital and nonmarital households’, American Sociological Review, 59(3): 327–​47. Spierings, N. and Zaslove, A. (2015) ‘Conclusion: dividing the populist radical right between “liberal nativism” and traditional conceptions of gender’, Patterns of Prejudice, 49(1–​2): 163–​73. Squires, J. (2005) ‘Is mainstreaming transformative? Theorizing mainstreaming in the context of diversity and deliberation’, Social Politics:  International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 12(3): 366–​88.

184

References

Stegmueller, D. (2013) ‘How many countries for multilevel modeling? A comparison of frequentist and Bayesian approaches’, American Journal of Political Science, 57(3): 748–​61. Stier, H., Lewin-​Epstein, N. and Braun, M. (2012) ‘Work-​family conflict in comparative perspective:  The role of social policies’, Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 30(3): 265–​79. Stokes, B. (2015) ‘Chapter 4. The rise of non-​traditional, Eurosceptic parties’, Faith in European Project Reviving, Pew Research Center, www.pewglobal.org/​ 2 015/​ 0 6/​ 0 2/​ c hapter-​ 4 -​ t he-​ r ise-​ o f-​ nontraditional-​eurosceptic-​parties/​ Stotsky, J. (2016) ‘Gender budgeting:  Fiscal context and current outcomes’, International Monetary Fund Working Paper, WP/​16/​ 149, Washington, DC: IMF. Stratigaki, M. (2000) ‘The European Union and the equal opportunities process’, in L.  Hantrais (ed) Gendered Policies in Europe: Reconciling Employment and Family Life, London: Macmillan, pp 26–​48. Stratigaki, M. (2005) ‘Gender mainstreaming vs positive action: an ongoing conflict in EU gender equality policy’, European Journal of Women’s Studies, 12(2): 165–​86. Subrahmanian, R. (2004) ‘Making sense of gender in shifting institutional contexts: Some reflections on gender mainstreaming’, IDS Bulletin, 35(4): 89–​94. Sümer, S. (2016) European gender regimes and policies:  comparative perspectives, London: Routledge. Taggart, P. (1998) ‘A touchstone of dissent:  Euroscepticism in contemporary Western European party systems’, European Journal of Political Research, 33(3): 363–​88. Tesch-​Römer, C., Motel-​Klingebiel, A. and Tomasik, M.J. (2008) ‘Gender differences in subjective well-​b eing:  Comparing societies with respect to gender equality’, Social Indicators Research, 85(2): 329–​49. Tur-​Sinai, A., Silverstein, M. and Lewin-​Epstein, N. (2018) ‘Economic and social responsibilities of the “Sandwich Generation” as a function of welfare regimes’, Innovation in Aging, 2(Suppl 1): 7.

185

GENDER MAINSTREAMING AND GENDER EQUALITY IN EUROPE

UNDP (2003) Transforming the mainstream gender in UNDP, http://​ iknowpolitics.org/​en/​2007/​02/​transforming-​mainstream-​gender-​ undp UNICEF (2011) Promoting gender equality: An equity-​focused approach to programming:  Operational guidance overview, New  York:  United Nations, www.unwomen.org/​ e n/​ d ocs/​ 2 011/​ 6 /​ p romoting-​ gender-​equality-​an-​equity-​focused-​approach United Nations (UN) (1996) Report of the 4th World Conference on Women. Beijing, 4–​15 September 1995, New York: United Nations. UN (2002) Gender mainstreaming: An overview. Office of the Special Adviser on Gender Issues and Advancement of Women, New York: United Nations. Uunk, W. (2015) ‘Does the cultural context matter? The effect of a country’s gender-role attitudes on female labor supply’, European Societies, 17(2): 176–98. van der Lippe, T. and Lippényi, Z. (2018) ‘Beyond formal access: Organizational context, working from home, and work –​ family conflict of men and women in European workplaces’, Social Indicators Research, https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​s11205-​018-​1993-​1 van der Vleuten, A. (2012) ‘Gendering the institutions and actors of the EU’, in Abels, G. and Mushaben, J.M. (eds) Gendering the European Union: New Approaches to Old Democratic Deficits, London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp 41–​62. van der Vleuten, A. (2016) The Price of Gender Equality: Member States and Governance in the European Union, London: Routledge. Van Oorschot, W. (2007) ‘Culture and social policy: A developing field of study’, International Journal of Social Welfare, 16(2): 129–​39. Velluti, S. (2014) ‘Gender regimes and gender equality measures in Central Eastern European Countries post-​accession: The case of Hungary and Poland’, Journal of International and Comparative Social Policy, 30(1): 79–​91. Verloo, M. (2001) ‘Another Velvet Revolution? Gender mainstreaming and the politics of implementation’, IWM Working Paper No. 5/​ 2001, Vienna: IWM.

186

References

Verloo, M. (2005) ‘Displacement and empowerment: Reflections on the concept and practice of the Council of Europe approach to gender mainstreaming and gender equality’, Social Politics:  International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 12(3): 344–​65. Verloo, M. (2006) ‘Multiple inequalities, intersectionality and the European Union’, European Journal of Women’s Studies, 13(3): 211–​28. Verloo, M. (2007) Multiple Meanings of Gender Equality: A Critical Frame Analysis of Gender Policies in Europe, Budapest: Central European University Press. Vincenti, A. (2005) Relazioni responsabili. Un’analisi critica delle pari opportunità, Roma: Carocci. Voicu, M. (2009) ‘Religion and gender across Europe’, Social Compass, 56(2): 144–​62. Voicu, M. and Constantin, A. (2014) ‘Attitudes towards gender roles in Europe: Modernization and social institutions’, in Arts, W. and Halman, L. (eds) Value Contrasts and Consensus in Present-​day Europe: Painting Europe’s Moral Landscapes, Leiden: Brill (European Values Studies, 15), pp 311–​28. Walby, S. (2004) ‘The European Union and gender equality: Emergent varieties of gender regime’, Social Politics:  International Studies in Gender, State and Society, 11(1): 4–​29. Walby, S. (2005) ‘Gender mainstreaming: Productive tensions in theory and practice’, Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 12(3): 321–​43. Walby, S. (2007) ‘Review of the literature on gender equality policies in the EU and its member states’, QUING Deliverable No. 12, Vienna: IWM. Walby, S. (2018) ‘Is Europe cascading into fascism? Addressing key concepts including gender and violence’, Politics and Governance, 6(3): 67–​77. Walter, J.G. (2017) ‘The adequacy of measures of gender roles attitudes:  A review of current measures in omnibus surveys’, Quality & Quantity, 52(2): 284–​48.

187

GENDER MAINSTREAMING AND GENDER EQUALITY IN EUROPE

WEF (World Economic Forum) (2017) The Global Gender Gap Report: 2017. Geneva: World Economic Forum, www.weforum. org/​reports/​the-​global-​gender-​gap-​report-​2017 West, C. and Zimmerman, D.H. (1987) ‘Doing gender’, Gender and Society, 1(2): 125–​51. Wharton, A.S. (2005) The Sociology of Gender: An Introduction to Theory and Research, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Wittenberg-​Cox, A. and Maitland, A. (2008) Why Women Mean Business: Understanding the Emergence of our next Economic Revolution, Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Woodward, A.E. (2003) ‘European gender mainstreaming: Promises and pitfalls of transformative policy 1’, Review of Policy Research, 20(1): 65–​88. Woodward, A.E. (2008) ‘Too late for gender mainstreaming? Taking stock in Brussels’, Journal of European Social Policy, 18(3): 289–​302. Woodward, A.E. (2012) ‘From equal treatment to gender mainstreaming and diversity management’, in Abels, G.  and Mushaben, J.M. (eds) Gendering the European Union, London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp 85–​103. Young, I.M. (2001) ‘Equality of whom? Social groups and judgements of injustice’, The Journal of Political Philosophy, 9(1): 1–​18. Zanier, M.L. and Crespi, I. (2015) ‘Facing the gender gap in aging: Italian women’s pension in the European context’, Social Sciences, 4(4): 1185–​206. Zaslove, A. (2009) ‘The populist radical right: Ideology, party families and core principles’, Political Studies Review, 7(3): 309–​18.

188

Index

Note: Page numbers for figures and tables appear in italics.

A Ackers, P. 56 action programmes on equal opportunities 16 Adult Worker Model (AWM) 140, 150 affirmative action 15–​18 ageing parents 140 ageing population 59, 126, 136, 138, 139, 143, 150 Akkerman, T. 130 Amsterdam, treaty 16–​17, 37–​8 André, S. et al 116–​17 antidiscrimination policies 16, 17, 28, 51, 105–​6, 107, 137, 150 anti-​immigration groups  143 anti-​immigration positions 131–​2, 150 Askola, H. 130, 131 assertiveness training 35 auditing, gender 68, 71–​3 austerity 59, 124, 127, 133, 138, 149 Australia 69 Austria 35, 133

B Bacchi, C. 23 Barcelona European Council 39–​40, 42 Barcelona objectives 42 Becker, G.S. 95 Beijing Platform for Action 22, 69 Belgium 94, 133 Bianchi, S.M. et al 95–​6 birth rates, adolescent 79 border management 125 Brack, N. 129 Branisa et al 83 Braun, M. 106–​7 breadwinner duties 97 see also male-​breadwinner model Brewster, K.L. 123–​4 Brexit 134, 135 Britain/​British Isles 65, 94, 95, 107 Bruno, I. et al 52 budgeting, gender 55, 68, 69–​71, 72–​3 Bulgaria 82, 91, 94, 102, 109, 133

189

Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Equality in Europe

business, women’s representation in 50 Bustelo, M. 19

Council of Europe 19, 38, 58, 70 Gender Equality Strategy 2018–​2023  45, 46 Court of Justice 34 Crespi, I. 21, 22, 52 crisis, 2008 59 see also economic crisis; financial crisis, 2007–​08 Croatia 87, 102, 133 cross-​cutting interventions  55 cultural value orientations theory 109 cultural values 108–​9, 111 culture 53, 55, 66, 67, 141, 148, 152 Cyprus 84, 91, 92, 133 Czechia 84, 94, 106, 133 Czech Republic see Czechia

C care 58, 61, 64, 97, 113, 140 care services 41 cash 61 Castles, F.G. 53 Central and Eastern European countries 106 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU 38, 43 child benefits 138 childcare 47, 50, 58, 59, 65, 105–​6, 107 and Barcelona objectives 39, 42 and egalitarian attitudes 118, 121 and female employment 114, 115 and gender contract 93 inadequate 64 lack of affordable 61–​2 and PA 35 suspended 138, 150 children’s rights 65 civil liberties 83 Cloward, R.A. 104 Collins, R. 110 Communication on Incorporating Equal Opportunities for Women and Men into all Community Policies and Activities 36 conservative corporatist approach 64–​5 conservative corporatist-​family-​ oriented approach 64 conservative-​liberal approach  65 continental countries 64–​5 see also Austria; Belgium; France; Germany; Luxembourg; Netherlands Corner, L. 76 corporate boards, gender balance 135 corporative countries 107 Cotter, D.A. et al 123–​4

D Daly, M. 54 Davis, S.N. 96 decision making, equality in 27, 35, 41, 43, 45, 55, 79, 149 defamilisation policies 140, 143, 150 Denmark 82, 87, 90, 91, 92, 109 and housework 94 strong attachment to Europe 133 developmental studies 83 difference, politics of 21 Directive 2002/​73  39 Directive 2006/​54  39 discrimination 39, 42, 43, 82, 141, 151 discriminatory family code 82 discriminatory policies 37 displacement strategy 51 domestic sphere 97, 113 domestic violence 10, 50 domestic work 59, 61 dual-​caregiver/​earner model  106 dual-​earner family 55, 106, 116, 119 dual-​earners/​dual-​caregiver family 121

190

Index

and European guidelines 19 and GM 11, 28, 29 legislation 32, 34 and PA 16, 17, 18 and Treaty of Amsterdam 37 Equal Opportunities Unit 151 equal opportunity action programmes 46 equal pay 10, 14, 27, 33–​4, 37, 43, 44 equal rights 29 equal treatment 10, 13, 14–​5, 23, 28, 34, 48, 148–​9 Esping-​Andersen,  G.  53 Estonia 106, 133 ethnic discrimination 141 ethnic minorities 131 ethnocentric perspectives 141, 143 EU 10–​24, 26–​30 antidiscrimination policies 137 budget 151 and Euroscepticism 126–​35 and gender budgeting 69–​70 and gender equality 32, 147 and Gender Equality Index 99 and GM 146 legislation 32–​40 Pregnant Worker Directive 134–​5 and refugee crisis 150 A Roadmap for Equality between Women and Men for 2006–​2010 40–​41 Eurobarometer (EB) 93, 97–​9, 101–​2, 117, 132 European Commission 21, 22, 27, 29, 36–​7, 42–​3, 50 action programmes on equal opportunities 16 definition of GM 19 and Eurobarometer 97 report on equality between men and women 59 European Council 41 European Court of Justice 17, 18 European Economic Community (EEC) Treaty, 1957 10 European enlargement 124

E earnings 45 see also pay Eastern European countries 106, 148 economic crisis 126, 136, 138, 142, 143, 149, 151 economic independence 27, 40–​1, 43, 50 economic life 79 economic participation 80, 83, 85 education 79, 80, 83, 85 efficiency 71, 74 egalitarian attitudes 118, 121 egalitarian gender culture 102–​3, 121, 122 egalitarian gender roles 97–​9, 113, 114, 116, 123–​4 Egalitarianism 109 egalitarian values 119 EIGE (European Institute for Gender Equality) 43, 78, 87–​91, 92, 99, 132 elder-​care programmes 138, 150 elderly women 59 elites 125 Embeddedness 109 employment, female 40–​1, 57, 65, 114, 115 employment rate, female 18, 38, 47, 58–​9, 60, 61–​2 empowerment 75, 79, 83 equal economic independence 27, 40–​1, 43, 50 equality brought into the mainstream of activities 25 evolution 12–​23 limited meaning 33 in opportunities 107 and Treaty of Lisbon 43 see also gender equality equality, gender see gender equality equality policies 32–​3 equal opportunities 10, 12, 13, 21, 47, 52, 60 and European Commission 27, 42

191

Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Equality in Europe

European integration process 10 European Pact for Gender Equality 2011–​2020  44 European Parliament 14, 101–​2 European Values Study (EVS) 93 European Working Conditions Survey 2015 119 Eurosceptic groups 124–​5 Euroscepticism 125, 126–​35, 142, 143, 149, 150 Eveline, J. 23

and gender gap 84, 92 First European Pact for Gender Equality 41–​2 First World Conference on Women, Mexico City 75, 145–​6 ‘Five-​year strategy for the promotion of equality between men and women (2010–​2015)’ 44 flexible leave 63 flexitime 41, 118, 119, 120, 121, 137–​8, 139, 143 formal rights 36 Fourth World Conference on Women, Beijing 13, 36, 69, 75, 145 France 84, 87, 92, 94, 102, 133 full employment 58 full-​time jobs  115 fundamentalists 108, 114

F Fahlén, S. 57 fairness 71, 74 Family and Changing Gender Roles survey 93–​4 family benefits 117, 138 family code 82 family life 41 family policies 54–​5, 65, 105, 111–​12, 140 family policy institutions 114, 116 family work, unpaid 64 family–​work balance 56–​67, 73, 102–​3, 104, 105, 115, 150 and economic crisis 138–​9 and effect of conservative views 125 and egalitarian gender culture 122 and flexitime 119 and GM 112–​13, 114, 121 and participation of women in decision making 148–​9 fathers 61, 63, 103 female employment 40–​1, 57, 65, 114, 115 female employment rate 18, 38, 47, 58–​9, 60, 61–​2 female-​homemaker  107 female infanticide 82 fertility 59 financial crisis, 2007–​08 41, 124, 138, 149 financial resources 82 Finland 35, 82, 87, 94, 115, 133

G Gaye, A. et al 80 gender, and women 23–​4 ‘Gender+’ perspective 137–​8, 139, 143 gender auditing 68, 71–​3 gender-​based violence 41, 44, 45 gender-​blind policies 135, 143, 152 gender budgeting 55, 68, 69–​71, 72–​3 Gender Budgeting –​The Construction of Public Budgets from a Gender Perspective 69 gender contracts 93, 94–​5, 96, 97 gender cultures 102–​3, 107, 109–​12, 148 gender difference 24 gendered segregation of roles 106, 108 Gender Empowerment Measure (GEM) 79 gender equality 9–​10, 12–​23, 75–​ 100, 145–​8, 150, 152 brought into the mainstream of activities 25 and crises 138

192

Index

see also family–​work balance gender pay gap 45, 84, 140 gender pension gap 50–​1 gender quotas 102–​3 gender regimes 103, 105, 106–​108 Gender-​related Development Index (GDI) 79 gender relations 24, 103, 105, 106 gender-​role attitudes 96–​7, 108–​9, 111–​12, 113–​19 gender roles 123–​4, 130, 137, 139, 150 gender-​selective abortion  82 gender statistics 75–​6, 77–​100, 146 gender stereotypes 41, 110 gender violence 41, 44, 45, 47, 50 Germany 92, 109, 133 glass ceiling 110, 135 Global Gender Gap Index (GGGI) 83–​6, 92 Global Gender Gap Report 84, 91 Glöckner-​Rist, A.  106–​7 grandparents 107 Great Britain 94, 95, 107 Greece 87, 91, 129, 133 Greene, A.M. 12 Greenstein, T.N. 96 Guerrina, R. 134–​5

and equal pay 33 EU early acceptance of 36–​7 and Euroscepticism 130–​5 fluctuations in 123–​4 and fundamental EU value 32 key factor of GM policies 11, 47 legislation 45–​6 and Lisbon strategy 38 and nationalist view 141–​2 as a political priority 101–​2 promote outside the EU 41 reduced resources for 151 and social policies 48–​55 and Treaty of Amsterdam 37 and Treaty of Lisbon 43–​4 Gender Equality Index 87, 99, 132 gender equality policy goals 32–​3 Gender Equality Strategy 2018–​2023  45, 46 gender gap 22, 26, 37, 41, 64, 83–​6, 92 Gender Generation Programme (GGP) 93 gender ideology 96, 114 gender inequality 54, 136 see also gender equality Gender Inequality Index (GII) 79–​82 gender mainstreaming (GM) 18–​23, 24, 47, 124, 135, 145, 152 aim 11 and application of policies 73–​4 definition 146 and economic crisis 149 and EU legislation 32–​40 and Euroscepticism 133, 142 exposes need to change 28–​9 and ‘Gender+’ approach 143 and gender inequities 136 and gender policy evaluation 67–​8 and intersectionality 125–​6 launched 37, 46, 75 and public policies 114 and reconciliation policies 57 in social policies 48–​55 and welfare state regimes 66

H H2020 Programme Guidance on Gender Equality in Horizon 2020 44 Hafner-​Burton,  E.  28 Hancock, A.-​M.  136 health 50, 83, 85, 87, 89, 138, 140 healthcare 41 Hebson, G. 14 Hierarchy 109 Himmelweit, S. 68 Hofstede, G. 109–​10 horizontal segregation 57, 84, 139 household income 93, 95 housework 93–​6, 113 human development 80

193

Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Equality in Europe

Human Development Index (HDI) 78–​9 Human Development Report 80 human rights 152 Hungary 82, 84, 87, 129, 133

Klasen, S. 79 knowledge 87, 88 Korpi, W. 54 Korpi, W. et al 54 L labour, paid and unpaid 54 see also work labour market 14, 16, 44, 60, 67, 84 and Equal Opportunities Unit 151 and family policy institutions 116 and horizontal and vertical segregation 57, 77, 110, 139 and women 23, 27, 105–​6 land assets 82 Latorre-​Catalán,  M.  104 Latvia 82, 102, 106, 133 Lewis, J. 54, 61, 105 liberal equality 12 liberal regimes 107 life expectancy 79, 139, 140 lifestyle preferences 115 Lisbon, treaty 43 Lisbon Agenda 140 Lisbon agreements, March 2000 57 Lisbon European Council 40 Lisbon strategy, March 2000 38–​9 Lithuania 91, 94, 106, 133 Lomazzi, V. 108–​9 Lomazzi, V. et al 97, 117–​19 Lombardo, E. 19 Lombardo, E. et al 137 Luxembourg 133

I identities 127, 129 immigrants 131–​2 immigration 129, 131 inclusion 51, 52 income 60, 79, 93, 95 individual values 111 inequalities and politics 54 between women and men 11 see also gender equality inequality of opportunity 67 Inglehart, R. 105 institutions, norms and values 111 integrationist approach to work and family 65 integration policies, EU 126, 142, 143 Inter-​Agency Standing Committee 141 International Women’s Year 9, 45 intersectionality 45, 125, 126, 136–​7, 143, 150 interventionist model 65 Ireland 84, 92, 133 Northern 102 ISSP (International Social Survey Programme) 93–​4, 115, 116–​17 Italy 84, 92, 129, 131, 133, 138, 150 J Jacquot, S. 151 Jewson, N. 12 Jones, A. 110

M Maastricht, treaty 35 macro indicators 99 mainstreaming see gender mainstreaming (GM) male-​breadwinner/​female-​ homemaker paradigm 107 male-​breadwinner model 96, 125, 130

K Kangas, O. 115 Kirton, G. 12

194

Index

males in family life 41 Malta 82, 84, 133 managerial functions 41 Manual for Gender Mainstreaming: Employment, Social Inclusion and Social Protection Policies 21–​2 March, C. et al 19–​20 marginalisation 151, 152 Mason, D. 12 Masselot, A. 134–​5 maternal mortality ratio 79 maternity leave 60, 134 maternity rights 134–​5 Merton, Robert K. 104 Meyer, M.K. 32 micro level indicators 99 migration 125, 126, 129, 136, 138, 141–​2, 149, 150 Millar, J. 61 minority socio-​political groups 16 ‘missing women’ 82 modernisation process 105, 116 money 87, 88 Moore, L.M. 108, 113–​14 mortality ratio, maternal 79 Moser, C. 20 motherhood 130 mothers, working 103, 106–​7, 111, 114 multiculturalism 131

O occupational segregation 59 O’Connor, J.S. 22 OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) 78, 82–​3 Ohlin, L.E. 104 Olsson, Y. 67 one breadwinner and a half 107 opportunities, equal see equal opportunities opportunity, inequality of 67 opportunity structure 103, 104–​5, 117, 118, 121, 139, 140, 148–​9 and egalitarian lifestyles 115 and modernisation process 116 organisational gender culture 110 P Padavic, I. 123–​4 paid work 54, 64, 96, 97, 106 see also work parental leave 10, 34, 35, 60, 61, 64, 105, 117 and female employment 62–​3, 115 and gender-​role attitudes 118 parents, ageing 140 Parlemeter 127 part-​time work 35, 115 Pascall, G. 61, 105 paternity leave 117, 138, 150 pay 10, 14, 27, 33–​4, 37, 43, 44 pay gap 84, 140 pensions 45, 50–​1, 59, 139–​40 Permanyer, I. 80 Pfau-​Effinger, B.  110–​11 Pierson, C. 53 Poggio, B. 110 Poland 77, 109, 133 policymakers 71 political elites 125 political empowerment 79, 83, 85 political life 79 politics, women’s representation in 10, 47, 48–​9, 50, 54, 55

N National Action Plan 52 national identities 127, 129 nationalist views 141–​2, 143, 150 Netherlands 82, 87, 90, 94, 95, 107, 109, 133 Non-​discrimination and Equal Opportunities: A Renewed Commitment 42 non-​discrimination principle  43 Nordic-​Scandinavian model  64 norms 111 Northern Ireland 102 nuclear family 54–​5

195

Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Equality in Europe

politics of difference 21 Pollack, M.A. 28 population surveys 92–​9 populist groups 124–​5 Portugal 91, 133 positive action (PA) 13, 15–​18, 21, 23, 24, 28, 48, 52, 148–​9 to force change 55 and Maastricht Treaty 35 positive discrimination 12, 17–​18, 35 post-​materialism theory  105 poverty 45, 51, 59, 140 power 87, 89 power relations 95–​6 Pregnant Worker Directive 134–​5 private life and work 41 see also work–​family balance private sphere 77, 87, 91, 96, 103, 106, 147 professional segregation between men and women 41 Prügl, E. 32 public policy 114 public spending cuts 59 public sphere 77, 83, 91, 97, 103, 113, 147

research, and science 44 Resolution on GM, EU 40 responsibility, equality in positions of 44 retirement 63, 139 rights 36, 45, 65, 134–​5, 151, 152 right-​wing parties 129, 130, 142 Romania 80, 82, 87, 133 Rome, treaty 14, 33–​4 Rossilli, M. 34 Rostgaard, T. 115 Rubery, J. 14 Ruprecht, L. 25–​6 S salary gap 41 see also pay gap sandwich generation 140 Scandinavian countries 65, 106, 148 schooling 62 Schwartz, S.H. 109 science and research 44 Scott, J. et al 123–​4 secondary education 80 Second World Conference on Women, Nairobi 75–​6 security 129 Seddig, D. 108–​9 segregation labour market 59, 110 paid/​unpaid  64 self-​realisation 105, 108 sex discrimination 9, 60 sexual harassment 10, 34 Siboni, B. et al 72 sick leave 61 single-​earner family model 116 Sjöberg, O. 107, 114, 116 Slovakia 87, 91, 94, 133 Slovenia 82, 84, 92, 133 social-​democratic societies  106–​7 social inclusion 52 social infrastructure 118 social institutions 82, 83 Social Institutions and Gender Index (SIGI) 82–​3

Q questionnaires 92–​3 quotas 16, 17, 48 R radical equality 12 reconciliation policies 57–​8, 62, 64, 65, 66–​7 recruitment programmes, targeted 16 Rees, T. 13, 14, 16, 35 refugee crisis 126, 133, 138, 143, 150 refugees 141 religion 113–​14 religious values 108 Report of the Fourth World Conference on Women 18 reproductive health 79, 80

196

Index

social life 82 social norms 108 social policies 48–​55, 73 social responsibility 48–​9 social security protection 41 social services 53 societal value orientations 103 son bias 82 Southern European countries 64, 107, 137, 148 sovereignty 129 Spain 133, 138, 150 spending cuts 59 Startin, N. 129 the state, and work–​family balance 64, 65 statistics, gender 75–​6, 77–​100, 146 stereotypes, gender 41, 110 Stier, H. et al 63 Stotsky, J. 69 Strategic Engagement for Gender Equality 2016–​2019  44, 46 Strategy for Equality between Women and Men for 2010–​2015  43 Stratigaki, M. 16, 22 Strohmeier, P. 52 subsidies 62 supply and demand for services 64 surveys 92–​9 Sweden 35, 65, 82, 87, 90, 102, 109 and gender gap 84, 92 and housework 94 and parental leave 115 strong attachment to Europe 133

Treaty of Maastricht 35 Treaty of Rome 14, 33–​4 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) 42 U UK 129, 134–​5, 138, 150 unemployment 50 UNICEF 141 UN (United Nations) First World Conference on Women, Mexico City 75, 145–​6 Second World Conference on Women, Nairobi 75–​6 Fourth World Conference on Women, Beijing 13, 36, 69, 75, 145 International Women’s Year 9–​10, 45–​6 Report of the Fourth World Conference on Women 18 and SIGI 82 UNDP (United Nations Development Programme) 78–​82, 91, 92 universalism 18 V values 108–​9, 111, 141 Vanneman, R. 108, 113–​14 Verloo, M. 12, 137 vertical segregation 57, 84, 110, 139 Vincenti, A. 20 violence 41, 44, 45, 47, 50, 51, 82

T tax relief 62 time 61, 87, 88, 90, 91, 96 traditional family model 142–​3 trafficking 41 training 35, 41 transnational agencies 78–​92, 141 transparency 74 Treaty of Amsterdam 16–​17, 37–​8 Treaty of Lisbon 43

W wages 27, 63 Walby, S. 14–​15 WEF (World Economic Forum) 78, 83–​6 welfare 56, 80 welfare regimes 52–​3, 73, 103, 105 welfare state 53, 54, 59, 73 welfare state regimes 63–​7

197

Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Equality in Europe

women in business 50 and decision-​making processes 35, 55, 149 disadvantaged groups 45 and discrimination in social institutions 82 and employment 18, 38, 40–​1, 57, 58–​9, 60, 61–​2, 65, 114, 115, 147 and empowerment 79–​80 and ethnic minorities 131 and gender 23–​4 and gender roles 113 and health 50 and immigrants 131–​2 and labour market participation 27, 105–​6, 116 lifestyle preferences 115 and motherhood 130 and opportunity structure 139 and PA 16 and representation in politics 47, 48–​9, 50, 55 and UNDP statistics 78–​80 and violence 82 ‘women friendly’ states 35 women’s discrimination 9 women’s rights 36, 45

Woodward, A.E. 34 work 35, 58, 87, 88, 90, 106, 115 paid and unpaid 54, 64, 96, 97 and private life 41 work–​family balance 47, 48, 56–​67, 73, 104, 112–​13, 114, 115 and affect of conservative views 125 and economic crisis 138–​9 and egalitarian gender culture 102–​3, 122 and flexitime 119 and GM 121 marginalised 150 and opportunity structure 105, 148–​9 working fathers 61, 63, 103 working hours 119 working mothers 103, 106–​7, 111, 114 work–​lifebalance  41 see also work–​family balance workplace and positive discrimination 12 and sexual harassment 10, 34 World Conference on Women, Beijing 13, 36, 69, 75, 145 World Conference on Women, Mexico City 75, 145–​6

198

“This book’s originality lies in the fact that Lomazzi and Crespi combine a critical perspective on EU-wide legislations and policies on gender equality with an empirical investigation on these policies’ impact on regional gender cultures: an important contribution to the multidimensionality of gender equality.” Eva-Maria Schmidt, University of Vienna

With gender equality so prominent in public debate, this timely book reviews the impacts of gender mainstreaming on political, social and cultural issues around Europe. It explores the origins and evolution of mainstreaming, the theory’s contribution to gender equality legislation so far and its potential to drive change in the future. Drawing on extensive data, the book compares and contrasts progress in various European countries, taking into account the multidimensionality of gender equality. Finally, the book considers the limits of gender mainstreaming amid economic, migration and political challenges. This important book is a welcome contribution to discussions about gender equality in European societies looking at the interplay of policies, culture and public opinion.

Isabella Crespi is Associate Professor in Sociology at the University of Macerata, Italy, and member of European Sociological Association RN13 Sociology of Families and Intimate Lives Advisory Board.

www.policypress.co.uk RESEARCH

GENDER MAINSTREAMING FAKE GOODS, EQUALITY IN AND GENDER REAL MONEY EUROPE Policies, Culture and Public Opinion

ISBN 978-1-4473-1769-2

@policypress PolicyPress

9 781447 317692

RESEARCH

POLICY PRESS

VERA LOMAZZI ISABELLA CRESPI

VERA LOMAZZI AND ISABELLA CRESPIP O L IRCEYS EPARRECSHS

Vera Lomazzi is Senior Researcher at the Data Archive for Social Sciences at GESIS – Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences in Cologne, Germany, and Secretary of the Executive Committee of the European Values Study.

GENDER MAINSTREAMING AND GENDER EQUALITY IN EUROPE

“Bridging empirical research and social policy issues, this book will enrich academics with new knowledge on legislative aspects of gender equality and make policymakers more familiar with individual attitudes to gender equality and country specifics.” Natalia Soboleva, Higher School of Economics, Moscow

POLICY PRESS

RESEARCH