Exploring Gender Mainstreaming in the European Union

International Journal of Public Administration, 35: 122–136, 2012 Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 0190-0692 print / 1532-4265 online DOI: 10.1080/01900692.2011.616991

Exploring Gender Mainstreaming in the European Union Cecilia Lavena and Norma M. Riccucci School of Public Affairs and Administration, Rutgers University, Newark, New Jersey, USA

Through a review of the literature on the conceptualization of gender mainstreaming, this article offers an analytical framework for the development of a gender-based equal employment treatment policy in the European Union. European Commission reports and European Union legal instruments are analyzed through identifying specific configuration of positions (policy framing) and recognizing the regulatory mechanisms present in the implementation of an equal treatment policy, specifically in the area of employment. Finally, descriptive statistics on the, status of women in terms of pay and key positions held are presented as an estimation of the EU’s efforts towards gender mainstreaming strategies. Keywords: gender mainstreaming, gender equality, gender equity, pay equity

INTRODUCTION Gender mainstreaming is a public policy strategy, recognized globally, to promote gender equality in every sphere of life. The United Nations Development Program (UNDP) adopted the strategy, beginning in 1995, to ensure that mainstream public policies and budget priorities would reflect the interests of women with the ultimate goal of improving their quality of life. As a policy strategy, gender mainstreaming is concerned with assessing how policies impact the life and position of women and men, and with taking the necessary steps to redress any inequalities that may exist. In this sense gender mainstreaming comprises a frame of reference for defining gender equality and a policy tool through which gender issues will be systematically incorporated throughout all government institutions and policies. It has been argued that a gender mainstreaming strategy must be concentrated on the regulatory and economic aspects of redressing gender inequality. The purpose of this article is to examine the extent to which the European Union is working toward achieving gender equity in employment through gender mainstreaming principles. Importantly, while it is recognized that gender mainstreaming is associated with a number of gender

Correspondence should be addressed to Norma M. Riccucci, Rutgers University, Newark, 111 Washington Street, Newark, NJ 07102, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

equality policies such as child care, pornography and sex trafficking, this study focuses on employment. The first section provides background information on the inception of gender mainstreaming. Next, a review of the theoretical arguments that help frame gender mainstreaming policy is presented. We then assess the extent to which gender mainstreaming has been implemented. On the normative side, a set of regulatory Directives and European Court of Justice case law are reviewed as policy tools used for integrating the gender perspective into the policy process within and across the European Union. On the labor market initiatives side, descriptive statistics are presented to evaluate the potential impact of gender mainstreaming on equal employment opportunities for women. New theoretical issues are raised in this article about the nature of gender mainstreaming. In particular, as will be indicated by the data, the article raises questions about the potential successes or failures of gender mainstreaming in light of how it is conceptualized by multiple government regimes. The article concludes with an assessment of gender mainstreaming in the European Union and suggests further lines of research. BACKGROUND In 1994, the Council of Europe set up a Steering Committee for Equality between Women and Men which focused on developing the concept of gender mainstreaming and undertaking measures to promote equality. This resulted

GENDER MAINSTREAMING IN THE EU

from the Third United Nations World Conference on Women in Nairobi (1985) which recognized the key role that women play in shaping and defining development goals and policy. Certainly the goals of gender mainstreaming are consistent with the EU’s objectives of ensuring fairness in employment. As Hoskyns (1996, p. 14) points out, an important characteristic of EU policy is “that it is centrally based upon the concept of equality or equal treatment as the EU prefers to call it. Equal treatment is the basic concept to construct the common market.” Indeed, the original treaty of the EU—the Treaty of Rome, 1957—embodied the principle of gender equality, at least in terms of equal pay for women and men in employment (Booth & Cinnamon, 2002). Of course, the goal of ensuring fairness in employment may not be highly prioritized by member states compared to other objectives of the EU, namely economic competitiveness (Walby, 2005a). At the Fourth United Nations World Conference on Women in Beijing in 1995, the concept of gender mainstreaming was introduced as a strategy for implementing an international gender equity or equality policy. At this Conference, gender mainstreaming was conceptualized as follows: “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.”1 Consequently, all the European Union (EU) Member States were required to develop a model for the implementation of gender mainstreaming as part of their national gender equality strategies. This meant undertaking a gender impact assessment of the effects of policies on women and men prior to the adoption of any policies.2 By 1998, the Council of Europe, an international organization aimed at European integration, issued a definition of gender mainstreaming as the “(re)organization, 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” (Hafner-Burton & Pollack, 2002, p. 342). A year later the Treaty of Amsterdam, which amended the original treaty of the EU went into effect (1999). It set the legal basis of gender mainstreaming and formalized the mainstreaming commitment at the European

1 Report of the Fourth World Conference on Women (1996, p. 27). Retrieved February 16, 2011, from United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and Empowerment of Women, http://www.un.org/womenwatch/ daw/beijing/official.htm. 2 Report of the Fourth World Conference on Women (1996, p. 48). Retrieved February 16, 2011, from United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and Empowerment of Women, http://www.un.org/womenwatch/ daw/beijing/official.htm.. Also see “A Guide for Gender Impact Assessment” (2010). Retrieved February 16, 2011 European Commission: Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion: Advanced Search, http:// ec.europa.eu/social/keyDocuments.jsp?type=0&policyArea=418&sub Category=421&country=0&year=0&advSearchKey=&mode=advanced Submit&langId=en.

123

level, as it explicitly mentions the elimination of inequalities and the promotion of equality between women and men. Implementation guidelines established gender mainstreaming in employment to specifically strengthen the policies for equal opportunities in the labor market. In particular, it shifted the emphasis from equality of treatment to equality of impact (Roth, 2008).

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK OF THE GENDER MAINSTREAMING CONCEPT This section provides a literature review on how scholars conceptualize gender mainstreaming. Researchers tend to look through three theoretical lenses: 1. organizational theory,3 2. social movement theory,4 and 3. feminist theory.5

ORGANIZATIONAL THEORY In terms of organizational theory, gender mainstreaming is defined in operational terms as reorganizing and realigning policy processes and procedures in order to overcome gender inequality across organizations. The success of gender mainstreaming as a tool is measured against its ability to transform organizational forms and cultures. A gender mainstreaming strategy acknowledges organizational culture as a major barrier to changing people’s attitudes and behaviors. The discourse on mainstreaming has been used to describe both a strategy to achieve equality as well as a set of tools for implementing the specific gendering strategy. From an organizational theory perspective, Rees (2005, p. 569) considers gender mainstreaming as “a potentially transformative strategy that can challenge gender relations by promoting gender equality through policy and practice.” She distinguishes among three types of gender equality strategies and tools—tinkering, tailoring, and transforming—which correspond to the different definitions and historical positioning of gender equality policies. During the 1970s the legal approach to gender equality in Europe, similar to that of the United States, was based on individualized rights aimed at equal treatment of women and men in pay and employment. Rees called this approach “tinkering” as it legally defined the equal treatment needs of women. Examples of this approach include the EU Directives to ensure pension rights to women and 3 See

Rees (2005); Booth & Bennett (2002). Hafner-Burton & Pollack (2002, 2009); Pollak & Hafner-Burton (2000); Mazey (1995, 2000, 2002); Jacquot (2010). 5 See, Beveridge & Nott (2000, 2002); Walby (2005b); Kronsell (2005), Beveridge & Shaw (2002), Squires (2005); Lovecy (2002). 4 See,

124

LAVENA AND RICCUCCI

protection against pregnancy discrimination in the workplace. Historically, the legal approach was limited in terms of addressing women’s needs, so the European Commission moved towards a focus on women as a disadvantaged group targeting positive action measures for women. During the 1980s several projects addressed women’s childcare and transport needs as well as increased training in working skills. Rees (2005, p. 557–59) called this strategy the “tailoring” approach which is based upon redressing past indirect discrimination of historically male targeted policies. According to Rees, a final approach to gender equality involves “transforming.” This approach is intended to move beyond legal remedies and positive action strategies to address the ways in which “systems and structures infringe those rights and cause the disadvantage in the first place” Rees (2005, p. 558). This strategy recognizes differences and similarities between women and men, but centers on relational differences moving towards a focus on a range of inequalities rather than simply gender inequality. Rees (2005) further suggests a set of tools for integrating a gender dimension into the policy process and procedures of international organizations and public organizations. Such tools include encouraging participation of women in decision making; analyzing and disseminating gender disaggregated statistics; developing equality indicators; legislating for gender balance; and enforcing the use of equal representation measures. In addition, Rees proposes a managing diversity tool aimed at gender budgeting strategies, gender impact assessments, equality and gender disaggregated indicators, and ensuring the gender dimension is integrated into policy and practice through gender proofing analyses. Rees also points to the importance of commitment from those in power to drive the agenda for the effective development of gender mainstreaming. Similarly, Squires (2005) also offers a three-fold typology on mainstreaming practices, which includes integrative, agenda-setting and transformative approaches. An integrative approach focuses on mainstreaming through a set of techniques or tools deployed by a bureaucracy of experts in policy-making to create evidenced-based knowledge on gender issues. Bureaucratic in nature, this approach mainly addresses gender issues within existing development policy paradigms. An agenda-setting perspective, which Squires considers consultative, is oriented towards increasing participation and empowerment of women as a disadvantaged group through civil society organizations. In this sense it implies a reorientation of the development agenda. Finally, a transformative or deliberative approach represents moving beyond the equality and difference dichotomy towards the process of ownership of a gender perspective. As Jahan (1995, p. 126) has observed, the transformative approach requires a change “in decision-making structures and processes, in articulation of objectives, in prioritization of strategies, in the positioning of gender issues amidst

competing, emerging concerns, and in building a mass base of support among both men and women.” A number of others (see, e.g., Booth & Bennett, 2002; Daly, 2005; Beveridge et al., 2000) have offered various approaches to gender mainstreaming from an organizational theory perspective. Lombardo (2005), for example, explores how gender mainstreaming has been applied in the EU Constitutional Convention arguing this policy making process has followed an integrative rather than an agendasetting approach. The author suggests the EU’s approach to gender mainstreaming has introduced a gender perspective into existing policy paradigms without questioning them, thereby maintaining the patriarchal elements of the political context. An integrative approach ultimately diminishes the ability to transform existing institutional structures. Lombardo goes on to argue that an agenda-setting approach implies a transformation of the existing policy paradigms by changing the decision making structures and processes, prioritizing gender objectives over other issues and reorienting the mainstream political agenda by rethinking policy means and ends from a gender perspective. In sum, organizational theory views gender mainstreaming as a tool to transform institutional structures and organizational cultures. But the translation of mainstreaming gender equality across the EU Member States will depend on each Member State’s strategy and pace of organizational culture change. Thus, as a transformational proposition, gender mainstreaming policy is regarded as the latest management equality tool, an improvement over the previous positive action strategies.

SOCIAL MOVEMENT THEORY Social movement theorists argue that the policy making process is characterized by the conflict over competing “policy frames” which both define the policy problem and prescribe the solution. Policy frames reflect ideas and interests rooted in institutional contexts. So, in order to be successful in bringing about policy change, “social movements must be anchored in effective mobilizing structures or networks, they must be able to access the political institutions, and they must enjoy the support of powerful actors within the formal decision-making structures” (Mazey, 2000, p. 340). Pollack and Hafner-Burton and (2000) emphasize the combination of political opportunities, mobilizing structures, and strategic framing as key elements in the conceptualization of gender mainstreaming policies. Political opportunities refer to the incentives for collective action provided by the political environment in terms of society’s openness to social movements seeking change, and the capacity of implementing structures to effect change and compliance. It has voluntary and reciprocal networks engaging in horizontal communications and exchange, which help drive gender mainstreaming policy.


Rein and Schön 1993) argue that gender mainstreaming is a “revolutionary concept” which promises to incorporate a gender dimension into all international governance. In the European context, gender mainstreaming is a demanding idea which requires the involvement of all central actors in the policy process (also see, Hafner-Burton & Pollack, 2002, p. 342). As a new policy frame, gender mainstreaming needs to resonate within the existing frames of reference of the dominant elites for it to be accepted and sustainable. Similarly, Beveridge and Nott (2002, p. 205) suggest mainstreaming strategies could be understood as a social strategy through which gender equality was framed “to take in a wider view of the causes of inequality than equal opportunity or positive discrimination.” In the case of the European Union, the authors contend the political opportunity structure helps explain the creation of the Equal Opportunity Unit, a Women’s Rights Committee, and the European Court of Justice (see Hafner-Burton & Pollack, 2009). Thus, according to Beveridge and Nott (2002), multiple points of access to policy processes and a mobilizing structure with elite allies helped frame gender equality policies in the European Union. Other social movement theorist, such as Lovecy (2002), draw on reports from the Council of Europe and expert working groups to analyze how women’s rights were framed during the 1980s through a “politics of presence approach” and moved to a more recent gender mainstreaming strategy. Gendered policy initiatives were narrowly framed around women’s rights in employment and later broadened to include positive action and equal treatment in the workplace, linking the principle of equality not just to presence but also to parity-democracy. Consequently, the focus was on “equality of participation between men and women in arenas of democratic electoral representation and in the wider policy-process” (Lovecy, 2002, p. 272). Mazey (2002) examines the emergence of the gender mainstreaming policy style within the European Union as the voluntary policy transfer between Member States and “soft” policy instruments including exchange of best practices, targets, and benchmarking (also see Mazey, 1995). But, Mazey contends that an impact of the gender mainstreaming strategy has been uneven in terms of policy making procedures, institutional reforms, and policy effect among Member States. Drawing from a social movement theory perspective, Mazey (2002, p. 233) argues that this impact “correlates closely with the presence of gender advocates within the EU institutions and the extent to which gender mainstreaming policy frame can be made to “resonate” with existing sectoral policy frames within the Commission.” With respect to social movement theory, the European Women’s Lobby (EWL) has played a pivotal role in terms of promoting gender mainstreaming. The EWL was founded in 1990 by the Committee on Women’s Rights of the European Parliament and the European Economic Community, the

125

forerunner to the EU (Roth, 2008). Formed initially to combat sexual harassment in the work place and to promote child care and parental leave, the EWL is now a large umbrella organization of women’s and feminist nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), which works toward gender equality in economic, political, and social contexts. As Jenson and Valiente (2003, p. 87) point out, lobby groups such as the EWL serve as “public forums where activists could express demands as well as act as a source of ideas and material resources supporting development of parity demands” for women. Hickman (2010, p. 294) has argued that the EWL has been an effective advocate for women’s rights and representation in the EU especially through the EU’s legal and political institutions (e.g., the European Parliament and the European Court of Justice). The EU provides the EWL with not only financial resources, but as Roth (2008, p. 8) points out, with access, credibility, and legitimacy as well.

FEMINIST THEORY Feminist theory considers gender mainstreaming as an opportunity to shift from an equality/difference concept of equal treatment of women and men (normative strategy) towards a gendering/diversity approach (transformative strategy). Briefly, feminism focuses on the social construction of sex differences. Gender is viewed as “a main organizing principle of social relations and the power asymmetries associated with gender relations” (Kronsell, 2005, p. 1023). It has a normative focus as it seeks to eliminate gender inequalities through equal rights as well as a transformative focus as it is centered on the potential of challenging the core of male-dominated hierarchies. In its origins, a feminist perspective believed in achieving gender equality through the adoption of laws and policies banning sex discrimination and promoting equal rights and treatment. However, measures to correct gender inequality have been limited to comparing equal treatment of women with that of men (see Beveridge et al. 2000, p. 385; Stratigaki, 2005). Lombardo and Meier (2006) analyze EU documents on family policy and gender inequality in politics to conclude that a feminist reading on gender mainstreaming has been partially adopted by the EU. In terms of family policies, “evidence of a non-feminist reading can be found in the framing of the issue as a problem for women” while men are not included as part of the problem (Lombardo & Meier 2006, p. 160). Moreover, a gender perspective is not incorporated in the agenda as a way of challenging hierarchical power. Gender equality policies, according to Lombardo and Meier, seem to incorporate a feminist definition of gender mainstreaming in the attempts to achieve an equal representation of women in positions of power and decision making; however, it seems to persist as an equal treatment strategy without moving towards gendering policies.

126

LAVENA AND RICCUCCI

In order to explain how gender mainstreaming represents a gender equality strategy, Squires (2005) develops a typology of inclusion, reversal, and displacement. A strategy of “inclusion” is aimed at redressing past discrimination; it strives for objectivity, conceiving people autonomously and seeking gender-neutrality through an equality politics (1970s liberal feminism: equal opportunities). Secondly, a strategy of “reversal” adopts an interpretative methodology and seeks the recognition of a specific female gendered identity through a difference politics (1980s radical feminism: positive action). Finally, a “displacement” strategy adopts a postmodern, genealogical methodology, which seeks to replace “gender” with “gendering;” its aim is to deconstruct discursive regimes through diversity politics (1990s gender mainstreaming: counteract gender bias within existing structures). Drawing on a feminist theory of gender equality, Rees (2005) adopts a normative strategy toward gender mainstreaming. She focuses on the notion of equality as a human need and women accessing universal principles as key to a feminist perspective of gender equality in its origins. The author goes on to identify three models of gender equality: equality based on sameness; equality based on the equal valuing of existing and different contributions of women and men in a gender segregated society; and the new standard through the transformation of gender relations. It is the last model of gender equality as gender mainstreaming which has the potential for Rees (2005) to transform institutions through delivering gender justice. Eveline and Bacchi (2005) argue that it is important to focus on the processes by which gender equity is constructed. The authors contend mainstreaming gender as a tool cannot be thought of in isolation of the social construction of gender process and argue that to increase its effectiveness, “gender mainstreaming models [must] incorporate a view of gender as a verb rather than as a noun, so that the focus is on the processes of gendering rather than on the static category of “gender.” We make the argument that such a shift could: a. incorporate a feminist ontology of the body; and b. align an understanding of gender as an unfinished process with the ways in which those who make and implement policy experience gender mainstreaming as always partial and incomplete” (Eveline & Bacchi 2005, p. 496). In normative terms, a feminist theory suggests “importing gender within the law, the legal institutions and processes, especially in the ways in which individuals relate to or interact with these laws, institutions and processes” (Shaw, 2000, p. 413). According to Beveridge and Shaw (2002, p. 210), gender mainstreaming in the European Union has been translated into a norm through the amendment of the European Community Treaty which incorporates a legally

binding commitment to mainstreaming in its Article 3(2). In addition, gender mainstreaming has been interpreted to require organizational change in the way in which policy is made and the actors participate in the process. As such, gender mainstreaming is considered a potential policy making tool for changing the European Union public policy context. In short, under feminist theory, gender mainstreaming incorporates a focus on gender and not simply women. It also calls for the inclusion of a gender perspective into the mainstream political agenda, the achievement of equal political representation of women, and the diffusion of gender expertise in the decision making process. An interesting observation, however, is that while gender is the focus, there is a general failure to place any responsibility on men to change their behaviours. As Lombardo and Meier (2008, p. 115) argue: Gender inequality in politics contains a dominant framing of women as the main problem-holders with men implicitly or explicitly as the norm. Women are the ones who must achieve men’s numbers in politics in order to be equal. A strong frame about men causing or even holding the problem of “gender inequality in politics” does not exist, nor are men ever treated as the target group of measures to solve the problem, e.g., through the sharing of power (positions). Women are problematized in “family policies” too, but with less of a framing of men as the norm. They are simply left out of the picture. As with the diagnosis, prognosis focuses mainly on women. Measures in “family policies” are targeted at women, enabling them to reconcile work and care. Men are addressed only to a limited extent and vaguely: they are encouraged to take up care tasks.

The three theoretical perspectives for understanding gender mainstreaming in the European Union cannot be understood as mutually exclusive of one another. On the contrary, the key elements of each perspective are intertwined. A summary of the central questions, principles and tools is presented in Table 1. Certainly, these perspectives raise questions about and have implications for how gender mainstreaming is conceptualized by the various governmental regimes throughout the EU. For example, in post-socialist states there continue to be anti-feminist movements, deeming gender mainstreaming as being incompatible with efforts to promote meritocracy and marketization which undergird the EU policy framework. These issues will be further discussed in the concluding section.

KEY DEVELOPMENTS ON GENDER EQUITY POLICIES The latest report on equality between women and men was issued by the EU in 2010 (European Commission, 2010). It establishes an equality strategy and puts forward a framework for future action in the European Community. As a


127

TABLE 1 Summary of Theoretical Understandings of Gender Mainstreaming SOCIAL MOVEMENT THEORY From policy of presence framing to parity-democracy discourse

FEMINIST THEORY From equal rights to gendering structures and processes

How can gender mainstreaming be implemented within organizational practices across agencies? What is the potential of adopting a gender mainstreaming strategy within an organization? Individual roles (anti-discrimination) Women’s representation in power (targeting or quotas) Justice/fairness/equity

How can gender mainstreaming be a policy strategy for achieving social change?

Integrative through legislation and statistics (bureaucratic) Agenda-setting through empowerment (consultative) Transformative through ownership (deliberation)

Integrative through policy framing as increasing the number of women in employment (awareness) Transformative through mobilizing structures with ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ incentives (revolutionary)

Can gender mainstreaming create a policy of improvement through the reconceptualization of gender? Does gender mainstreaming answer the equality/difference dilemma (women are equal, but not the same as men)? Inclusion (equality of opportunities) Reversal (difference in specific gender identity) Displacement (counteract bias within existing structures) Integrative through equal rights for women in a male-centered society (normative) Transformative through gendering (gender as a verb- gendering)

ORGANIZATIONAL THEORY From equal treatment to gender mainstreaming Question

Challenge

Principles

Tools

Can gender mainstreaming be a sustainable strategy of social change which provides both soft and hard incentives to mobilize structures? Political opportunities Mobilizing structures (elite allies) Policy framing process

general overview, the report describes the current situation of women as follows: participating increasingly in the labor market but harshly affected by economic crises (job losses due to budget cuts as women are more often concentrated in public sector jobs and by the risk of not being re-employed); accounting for nearly 60 percent of all university graduates but facing barriers in the use of their full potential (segregated in feminized and lower-paid sectors); participating increasingly in employment opportunities but experiencing difficulties in balancing work and family life (lack of childcare facilities and care for other dependants); and participating increasingly in decision-making or politically appointed jobs but facing stereotypes in terms of career choices. The main areas of policy intervention outlined in the report refer to closing the gender gaps in female employment in terms of increasing the employment rate of women and also in terms of the quality of the occupational setting and creating the conditions for women to participate in the labor market. Also, the report states women work part-time more often than men and flexible work arrangements need to reflect personal preferences such as the unequal share of domestic and family responsibilities (European Commission, 2010, p. 12). Importantly, part-time workers are often excluded from fringe benefits, such as paid holidays, company pension schemes, and some statutory rights (e.g., sickness and employment benefits, pension rights, maternity leave). Moreover, the report contends the persistence of occupational and sectoral segregation has remained unchanged across Member States. Recent policy developments involve proposals to support a better work-life balance. On average, women spend 25.5 hours per week in domestic and family work and 38 hours per week in paid employment, while men spend only 8 hours a week in domestic and family work and

45.5 in paid employment (European Commission, 2009, p. 33). To improve the work-family balance for women, the EU proposes that Member States increase the minimum maternity leave6 from 14 to 18 weeks without loss of earnings. The European Commission also stresses the importance of directing structural funds to the development of quality care services for children. The Commission also supports the creation of programs aimed at improving time management within the workplace and the development of flexible working and leave arrangements. Other policy developments include the creation of an EU network to promote women in economic and political decision-making positions and training and awareness raising initiatives aimed at reducing gender stereotypes within small and medium-sized enterprises. The European Commission reports that even if Member States have advanced policies towards reducing inequalities, countries still face a series of challenges towards the implementation of a gender mainstreaming strategy in the European Union. THE NORMATIVE SIDE OF EQUAL TREATMENT: THE EU’S LEGAL TOOLS Gender equality in employment within the European Union is based on the equal treatment and equal opportunities 6 The European Commission Report (2010, p. 10) states the European “Council also reached a political agreement with a view to a common position on the proposed revision of the directive on equal treatment of selfemployed and assisting spouses (COM 2008: 636), a joint text still having to be agreed by the European Parliament and the Council, while the proposal for a revision of the directive on maternity leave (COM 2008: 600/4) is under discussion by the EU legislators.”

128

LAVENA AND RICCUCCI

principles addressed through anti-discrimination laws, regulations, and case law. Each is addressed below. It is important to note that this study explores the impact of gender mainstreaming on employment only, and therefore, relies on legislation, regulations, and case law. As many have argued, issues such as pay and job segregation, which we address, are in need of further attention (see, for example, Rubery, 2002). In addition, as Walby (2005, p. 321, emphasis added) points out, as “a practice, gender mainstreaming is a process to promote gender equality,” and certainly law provides good outcome measures here. For studies examining other gender equality policies (e.g., child care,pornography,sex trafficking,child labour, and sexual harassment) from a gender mainstreaming perspective see, for example, Roth (2008), Stevens and van Lamoen (2001), Abiye and Tadesse (2010), Sarikakis and Shade (2008), Murray (2003), and the Joint Committee on Human Rights (2006).

EU LEGISLATION Legislation through EU Treaties and Directives seeks to close the gap of limited opportunities for women and also to compensate them for concrete inequalities. This strategy is called “positive discrimination”7 and it is implemented within the European Community through legal as well as budgetary mechanisms such as increasing funds and financing for positive action programs attempting to correct inequalities between male and female workers at work and in the labor market (Jacquot, 2010, p. 121). The European Commission is responsible for the enforcement of EU gender equality law. The Commission monitors and analyzes whether the Member States in general fulfill their obligations regarding the implementation of Treaty provisions and Directives. According to Article 226 of European Commission Treaty, the Commission can start an infringement procedure if it considers that a Member State has failed to fulfill a certain obligation. The Commission first sends a reasoned opinion on the matter after giving the Member State the opportunity to submit its observations. If the Member State does not comply with the opinion within the period laid down by the Commission, the Commission might bring the matter before the European Court of Justice. The Member State might be subjected to penalties if it does not take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of the European Court of Justice in a timely manner. Member States are obliged to ensure that judicial procedures are available to all persons who consider themselves wronged by failure to apply the principle of equal treatment to them, even after occurred discrimination has ended.

Directives on equal treatment between men and women require sanctions which might comprise the payment of compensation to the victim, oblige the Member States to designate equality bodies and promote social dialogue between social partners, and require non-governmental organizations and stakeholders to foster equal treatment policies. National courts must develop national rules in order to provide sex equality claims with full and effective legal protection.

THE REGULATORY FRAMEWORK The regulatory framework for equal treatment of women includes the enforcement of both Treaties and European Commission Directives. In the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (EEC) adopted in 1957, Article 119 was included to combat gender discrimination through the principle of equal pay for equal work. There is an economic background provision to this article as the Member States wanted to eliminate competition between undertakings established by different Member States. Such was the case of France, which had adopted provisions on equal pay for men and women much earlier as it feared that cheap female labor in other Member States would put French undertakings and the economy at a disadvantage (Burri & Prechal, 2008). This article was not adopted by Member States until 1974. But beginning in 1975, individual case law on equal pay for equal work illustrated the difficulty of isolating pay discrimination from other aspects of working conditions, pension agreements, and so forth. The next major development was the ratification of the Treaty of Amsterdam in 1999, which promotes equality between men and women throughout the European Community. Specifically, it is aimed at eliminating inequalities through the enforcement of gender mainstreaming policies adopted by the Community and the Member States. These fundamental treaties serve as a basis for the adoption of future legislation and other EU gender equality measures by setting values, tasks, and general obligations for the Union (see Table 2). Directives constitute another regulatory instrument of the EU to ensure equal treatment of women. Their purpose is to oblige Member States to establish national laws aimed at promoting equal treatment. Table 3 presents a summary of the main Directives concerning equal treatment of women and men in terms of overall employment, equal pay, maternity and parental leave, statutory and occupational social security schemes, and occupational security in the EU. Case Law

7 Some

view the U.S. equivalent of this as affirmative action. Others argue against this connotation as it conflates affirmative action with the controversial concept of “reverse discrimination.”

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) case law has contributed to the progress made towards gender equality in

GENDER MAINSTREAMING IN THE EU TABLE 2 Summary of Treaties on “Equal Treatment” Provisions Treaty

Year

Summary of prescriptions

European Economic Community Treaty

1957

Lisbon Treaty

1992

Article 119 (now Article 141): promotes equal treatment at work through the right to equal pay for equal work for men and women. Confirms the position taken earlier by the EU in the EC Treaties to eliminate inequalities in all the Union’s activities and affirms the importance of gender equality in the Union. The Treaty reiterates the obligation of gender mainstreaming for both the Union and the Member States. Expansion of the power of the European Parliament for a more forceful EU policy on women’s issues. Article 3(2): promotes equality between men and women throughout the European Community aiming at eliminating inequalities, and promoting equality between men and women. Article 13(1): provides a legal basis for equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin as well as equal access to and the supply of goods and services for men and women. Overall the Treaty defines positive action as making equality between men and women a central EU goal. Non-binding instrument. Prohibits discrimination on any ground, including sex (Article 21) and recognizes the right to gender equality in all areas and the necessity of positive action for its promotion (Article 23). It also defines rights related to family protection and gender equality recognizing in Article 33 “the right to paid maternity leave and to parental leave.”

Maastricht

Amsterdam

Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

1993

1999

2007

Source: Adopted from Burri & Prechal (2008).

the European Union. The case law of the ECJ has been the driving force for EC gender equality standards, concepts, and directions in the enforcement of the law. Shaw (2000, p. 408) contends the case law of the ECJ “has followed a winding path between applying models of formal and substantive equality to the resolution of concrete disputes about the scope of the equal treatment rules.” A summary of landmark cases is presented in Table 4, and descriptive statistics on the types of cases decided are provided in Table 5. Since the 1970s there has been an increase in the number of cases presented to the European Court of Justice

129

TABLE 3 Summary of EC Directives Year(Number) 1975(117/EEC) 1979(7/EEC) amended by 1996/97/EC 1976(207/EEC) amended by 2002(73/EC) 1986(378/EEC) amended by 1996(97/EC) 1986(613/EEC) 1996(34/EC) 1997(80/EC) 2004(113/EC) 2006(54/EC)

Criteria Equal pay for equal work Equal treatment in statutory schemes

Equal Treatment in working conditions

Equal treatment in occupational schemes

Equal treatment in different economic activities Parental Leave “Burden of Proof” for demonstrating discrimination Equal treatment in access to goods and services Recast Directive Prohibits direct and indirect discrimination, harassment, and sexual harassment Defines positive action

Source: Adopted from Burri & Prechal (2008).

related to matters of equal treatment of men and women. As seen in Table 5, most of the cases presented before the Court addressed the application of the principle of equal treatment between women and men in statutory schemes at the workplace (29.3 percent of the cases), followed by those related to equal treatment in access to employment and working conditions (26.3 percent of the cases) and those related to equal pay (21.5 percent of the cases). The European Court of Justice case law mainly clarifies on specific national court interpretations or sanctions specific member states for failing to transpose the Directives. In terms of outcome, 64.9 percent of the Court’s decisions (133 out of 205) presented in Table 5 were decided in favor of women. Prechal and Burri (2009a, p. 31) call for “the law in the books [to be] also the law in everyday practice.” The authors evaluate gender rules on equality to conclude that while these have been transposed into national law in a satisfactory manner this is not enough. What seems to matter most is how the transposed rules are applied in everyday life and effectively enforced ultimately by the national courts. Most of the reviewed case law reflects deferrals of cases to national courts (95.1 percent, or 195 out of 205).

APPLICATION OF THE LEGAL TOOLS The application of the gender equality laws and regulations to the 27 Member States of the European Union has been uneven across countries. In a country-by-country overview of how each Member State has implemented EU gender equality law, Prechal and Burri (2009b, p. 2) assess the relevant Directives on gender equality at the national level.

130

LAVENA AND RICCUCCI TABLE 4 Landmark Gender Employment Case Law of the European Court of Justice, 1976–2004

Year 1976

1981

Case Defrenne vs. Societe Anonyme Belge de Navigation Aerienne Sabena (EUR-Lex 61977J0149, Judgment of the Court of June 15, 1978) Worringham vs. Lloyds Bank (EUR-Lex 61980J0069 Judgment of the Court of March 11, 1981)

Directive

ECJ ruled that “it is not for the Court to enforce the observance of that rule of non-discrimination . . . (but) for the National Law.”

75/117

ECJ ruled that the Article 119 of the EEC Treaty applies directly to “all forms of discrimination which may be identified solely with the aid of the criteria of equal work and pay . . . ” Ruling establishes access to occupational pension scheme according to which part-time employees may obtain pensions under the scheme if they have worked for at least 15 years full time over a total period of 20 years. The ECJ found that if a much lower proportion of women work full-time as compared to men, the exclusion of part-time workers would be contrary to Article 119. In the terms of lower wage for work of higher value, the ECJ ruled that “when interpreting and applying domestic law” Member States when possible should give an interpretation which accords with the requirements of the applicable community law. In terms of a Northern Ireland policy to equip male police officers with fire arms but not women, the ECJ ruled that the policy may be in direct conflict with Article 6 of Directive 76/207, which calls for equal treatment in working conditions and access to employment. ECJ ruled that the qualifying age for state pensions under national law cannot be different for women and men.

1984

Bilka vs. Weber von Hartz (EUR-Lex 61994J0170 Judgment of the Court of May 13, 1986)

86/838

1986

Murphy vs. Bord Telecom (EUR-Lex 61986J0157 Judgment of the Court of February 4, 1988)

75/117

1986

Johnston vs. Chief Constable (EUR-Lex 61984J0222 Judgment of the Court of May 15, 1986)

76/207

1986

Marshall vs. Southhampton and S-W Hampshire Area Health Authority (EUR-Lex 61984J0226 Judgment of the Court of February 26, 1986) Teuling vs voor de Chemische Industrie (EUR-Lex 61985J0030 Judgment of the Court of June 11,1987)

2006/54

Barber vs. Guardian Royal Exchange Assurance Group (EUR-Lex 61988J0262 Judgment of the Court of May 17, 1990) Kalanke vs. Bremen (EUR-Lex 61993J0450 Judgment of the Court of October 17, 1995 Gillespie vs. Northern Health and Social Services Board (EUR-Lex 61993J0342 Judgment of the Court of February 13, 1996)

75/117

1987

1990

1995

1996

Key Ruling

75/117

79/7

2006/54

92/85

Criteria Equal pay: pay discrimination between men and women workers Equal pay: pay discrimination between men and women workers Equal treatment in occupational schemes

Equal pay: pay discrimination between men and women workers Equal treatment in working conditions and access to employment Positive Action (targets or quotas)

ECJ ruled that Article 4∗ (1) of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 is to be interpreted as meaning that a system of benefits in respect of incapacity for work under which the amount of the benefit is determined in part by marital status and by the income earned from or in connection with work of a spouse is consistent with that provision if the system seeks to ensure an adequate minimum subsistence income for beneficiaries who have a dependent spouse or children, by means of a supplement to the social security benefit which compensates for the greater burdens they bear in comparison with single persons Reiterating its 1976 Defrenne decision, the ECJ ruled Article 119 of the Treaty applies directly “to all forms of discrimination which may be identified solely with the aid of the criteria of equal work and.” ECJ ruled that a measure that would give automatic and unconditional preference to one sex is not justified.

Equal treatment in statutory schemes

This case refers to equal pay rights during maternity leave. The ECJ ruled that in order to assess the adequacy of the pay, the national court must take into account, not only the length of the maternity leave but also the other forms of social protection afforded by national law. This calculation must include pay rises awarded at the beginning of the maternity period, “to deny such an increase to a woman on maternity leave would discriminate against her purely in her capacity as a worker since, had she not been pregnant, she would have received the pay rise.”

Pregnant workers

Equal pay: pay discrimination between men and women workers Positive Action (targets or quotas)

(Continued)


131

TABLE 4 (Continued) Year

Directive

Key Ruling

1998

Caisse d’Assurance vs. Thibault (EUR-Lex 61995J0136 Judgment of the Court of April 30, 1998)

Case

92/85

1999

Seymour vs. Secretary of State for Employment (EUR-Lex 61997J0167 Judgment of the Court of February 9, 1999)

86/838

1999

Lewen vs. Denda (EUR-Lex 61997J0333 Judgment of the Court of October 21, 1999)

96/34

1999

Sirdar vs. Army Board (EUR-Lex 61997J0273 Judgment of the Court of October 26, 1999)

76/207

2000

Kreil vs. Bundersrepublik Deutschland (EUR-Lex 61998J0285 Judgment of the Court of January 11, 2000)

76/207

2002

Lommers vs. Minister van Landbouw (EUR-Lex 61999J0476 Judgment of the Court of March 19, 2002)

2006/54

2004

Jorgensen vs. Foreningen af Speciallaeger (EUR-Lex 61998J0226 Judgment of the Court of April 6, 2000)

2004/113

ECJ ruled that national law should not deprive a woman of the right to an assessment of her performance, and consequently, to the possibility of qualifying for promotion because she was absent from the undertaking on account of maternity leave. ECJ ruled that the defendant has to provide an objective justification for the indirect discriminatory criterion or practice. Indirect discrimination can be justified if the aim is legitimate and the measures to attain that aim are appropriate and necessary. ECJ ruled that the minimum three-month period of parental leave may not be reduced when it is interrupted by another period of leave such as maternity leave (child rearing purposes) which has a different purpose than that of parental leave. The ECJ ruled that the exclusion of women from some of the military units of the Royal Marines and in such special combat units “may be justified . . . by reason of the nature of the activities in question and in the context in which they are carried out.” The ECJ ruled that the Directive prohibits the application of provisions of national law, such as those of German law, which impose a general exclusion of women from military posts involving the use of arms. ECJ ruled that measures that gave preference to female employees in the allocation of nursery places but did not amount to a total exclusion of male candidates were justified. ECJ ruled that indirect discrimination exists if it can be proved with valid existing statistics that a situation of discrimination exists for the case of self-employed medical practices.

Criteria Pregnant workers

Equal treatment in occupational schemes

Parental Leave

Equal treatment in employment

Equal treatment in employment

Positive Action (targets or quotas)

Equal treatment in access to goods and services

Source: EUR-Lex Access to European Union Law, Retrieved March 8, 2011, from http://eur-lex.europa.eu//en/tools/about.htm.

TABLE 5 Descriptive Statistics on Gender Employment Cases by the European Court of Justice, 1971–2008 Criteria Equal pay Equal treatment in employment Equal treatment in statutory schemes Equal treatment in occupational schemes Equal treatment in different economic activities Pregnant workers Parental Leave Positive Action Total

Number of cases (%)

Favoring women (%)

National Court (%)

44 (21.46) 54 (26.34)

33 (24.81) 34 (25.56)

44 (22.56) 50 (25.64)

60 (29.27)

33 (24.81)

58 (29.74)

21 (10.24)

15 (11.27)

20 (10.25)

1 (0.48)

–

–

15 (7.31) 8 (3.90) 1 (0.48) 205 (100)

11 (8.27) 5 (3.75) 1 (0.75) 133 (100)

13 (6.67) 8 (4.10) 1 (0.51) 195 (100)

Source: European Court of Justice. Case Law (2009).

Each Member State has implemented at different stages a different amount of equal treatment legislation in relation to women’s equal access to work and working conditions; pregnancy and maternity protection; parental leave; equal pay; equal treatment in occupational pension schemes; equal treatment in statutory schemes of social security; equal treatment of self-employed and helping spouses; equal treatment in access to and the supply of goods and services, and aspects of the enforcement of and compliance with EU gender equality law. The implementation of an equal opportunity policy across individual Member States is crucial for the success of the gender mainstreaming strategy across the EU. Each member state has the responsibility of undertaking a gender mainstreaming strategy at the national level through National Action Programs following the legal framework agreed upon in the EU. Hafner-Burton and Pollack (2009) argue that the implementation of gender mainstreaming through National Action Programs committed to the principle of equal opportunities has varied in the pervasiveness of a gender perspective as well as in the type of concrete policy

132

LAVENA AND RICCUCCI

proposals and indicators for monitoring gender mainstreaming implementation. In terms of the transformational aspects of gender mainstreaming strategies at the national level, Booth and Bennett (2002) contend each state will implement a gender mainstreaming strategy at its own rate. Consequently, each state will face different obstacles to the implementation of equality between women and men and “the translation of mainstreaming gender equality across the EU will obviously depend on each member state’s gender contract” (Booth & Bennett, 2002, p. 443). In their analysis, Prechal and Burri (2009b) examine the weaknesses across Member States in terms of the full transposition of the requirements of the EU Directives. These weaknesses translate into an uneven implementation of gender mainstreaming policies within and across Member States which in the end might result in a weak institutionalization of the gender mainstreaming strategy. Consequently, gender mainstreaming initiatives have a different national impact in terms of the policy sectors incorporating an equal treatment strategy and the mechanisms through which this strategy is put into practice and enforced. Some feminist theorists argue the heavy reliance on “soft” policy instruments and voluntary cooperation entail the risk of gender mainstreaming becoming everybody’s and nobody’s responsibility at the same time (see Lovecy, 2002; Mazey, 2002). In terms of the establishment of gender equality bodies across Member States to “promote, analyze, monitor and support equal treatment of all persons without discrimination on the grounds of sex” the following countries still lack gender equality bodies: Bulgaria, Denmark, Latvia, and Poland.8 Legal experts have argued the need to move from a traditional complaints-based model to a proactive model. The main reason for claiming a shift in strategy has to do with the fact that few victims of discrimination pursue their claims through court; there is a low level of awareness of discrimination law; the complaints-led model has been used with limited effects due to the inability of courts to cope with the large number of individual cases and the fact that a complaints -based approach addresses discrimination where there is an identifiable perpetrator (burden of proof criteria) (Fredman, 2010). A proactive model would shift the responsibility from the individual to a body authorized to take action on behalf of the victim; involve stakeholders in claims initiation; raise awareness of the problem through monitoring cases, and put several enforcement mechanisms in place such as a requisite to report directly to Parliament the discrimination cases.

8 See

Article 20 of the Recast Directive 2006/54/EC.

THE LABOR MARKET SIDE TO EQUAL TREATMENT This section reviews the data on the status of women in terms of both pay and level of employment or position within organizations. The Advisory Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men has found that despite the Equal Pay Directive of 1975, a gender pay gap persists in Europe. Across Europe, according to Eurostat (2009), women earned on average 17.1 percent less than men and in some countries the gender pay gap is widening (also see Casali & Alvarez, 2010, p. 3) Across Member States the unadjusted gender pay gap ranged from 6.9 percent for Malta (2009) to over 30 percent for Estonia (2007). The difference across Member States is considerable as in some cases this gap may be due to the different kinds of jobs held by women, the effect of career breaks or part-time working due to childbearing, and women’s decisions in terms of family life. Many have pointed out that women’s work tends to be undervalued. Women earn less than men in jobs of equal value as the trend has been that jobs requiring similar skills, qualifications, or experience tend to be poorly paid and undervalued when dominated by women rather than men. This is evidenced by the fact that women are overrepresented as low-wage earners. In 2006, 23.1 percent of all female full-time workers were low wage earners, compared to only 13.5 percent of all male full-time employees (Casali & Alvarez, 2010, p. 5). The proportion of women low-wage earners was higher than the proportion of male low-wage earners in all Member States except Hungary. The countries with the highest proportion of women low-wage earners were Cyprus (33.4 percent), Latvia (32.3 percent), the United Kingdom (30.6 percent), and Lithuania (30.1 percent). Bettio and Veraschchagina (2009) present a set of case studies on the undervaluation of women’s jobs across Europe. They found that overt biases in the job evaluations of office cleaners in Germany to police employees in Slovenia result in lower pay for women. Another reason for pay inequalities throughout the EU is that the labor market appears to be horizontally (floors) and vertically segregated (ceilings). Similar to the United States, women are underrepresented in specific professions, sectors, industries (horizontal), and in managerial and in senior positions (vertical segregation). Generally, women dominated jobs in lower valued and lower paid activities in health, education, and public administration positions. Horizontal segregation of the market is reflected by the fact that 80 percent of those working in health and social work alone and 70 percent of those employed in education are women. Evidence from the EU Labor Force Survey shows an increasing trend towards women being more concentrated in a few sectors of activity than men (Franco, 2007, p. 1). A much larger proportion of women are employed

133


(60 percent) in services (e.g., health care and social services, retailing, education, public administration, business activities, and hotels and restaurants) than men (31 percent), while comparatively few work in industry. Only 8 percent of the workforce in construction and 14 percent in land transport are comprised by women (see, e.g., Franco, 2007). Moreover, the concentration of women in these sectors has increased since 2000 due to the growth of jobs and sector expansion in health, social work, and education sectors. Across Member States there is a similar degree of concentration of employment activities. Women make up over 80 percent of the workforce in health and social work in all Nordic countries, the Netherlands, Ireland, and Portugal as well as in all the new Member States. Rubery and colleagues (2005) argue that certain occupations—nursing, secretarial work, sewing, waitressing, hairdressing, caring, and cleaning—are widely regarded as “women’s work”. Weak trade union organization and the absence of men in these occupations has made these jobs become devalued. In studying the interactions between gender factors and country-specific pay structures, Rubery and colleagues found the persistence of female-dominated occupations across countries. Feminist theorists contend this trend could be traced back to the 1980s when most of the new jobs women moved into were in two occupational areas: professional jobs and clerical jobs. However, by 1990s, clerical work had become a predominantly female occupation and “feminization of particular sectors prompted a reduction in pay levels, reinforcing women’s work, low-pay link” (Mazey 1995, pp. 594–5). Several studies also find that one of the key causes of occupational segregation is differential choices in the level and field of education. Bettio and Veraschchagina (2009, p. 43) found that the educational choices by women underscore inequities in jobs and pay. They point to the case of IT technicians in Greece, for example, where “the share of women is still much smaller than men among IT students” (Bettio & Veraschchagina, 2009, p. 43). In addition, important asymmetries favoring men affect career prospects and access to managerial and supervisory positions. Women do not tend to occupy decision-making and high paying positions (vertical segregation). Even if efforts have been made to achieve gender balance in highlevel decision-making bodies, the integration of gender perspectives in policy formulation processes has been insufficient and ineffective. In the private sector, among the largest companies within the EU, women represent 3 percent of presidents and 11 percent of members of management boards (see Table 6). On the public sector side, the latest EU Report on Equality between women and men (2009) finds some positive developments in EU countries have occurred during the last decade in terms of female workers accessing decisionmaking positions. The report states that the average share

TABLE 6 Private Sector Decision Making Positions by Gender, 2010 (percentages)

President Members of Boards Employee Representatives Leaders of businesses

Women

Men

Difference

3 11 20 32

97 89 80 68

94 78 60 36

Source: European Commission, Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities DG, Database on women and men in decisionmaking, Retrieved February 23, 2010, from http://ec.europa.eu/social/main. jsp?catId=777&langId=en&intPageId=675. TABLE 7 Public Sector Decision-Making Positions by Gender, 2010 (percentages) E.U. Bureaucracy European Financial Institutions European Court of Auditors National Administrations: Lev. 1 (Director General, Deputy Director General) Central Banks EU Political Committees National Administrations: Lev. 2 (Director, Principal Advisor) EU Courts European Social Partner Organizations: President National Governments: Parliament (single/lower house) National Governments: Senior Ministers National Governments: Regional Assemblies National Governments: Regional Executives Supreme Courts EU Commissioners EU Parliament Public Prosecutors Supreme audit organizations Administrative courts Constitutional courts European NGOS: Highest decision making bodies

Women

Men

5 11 17

95 89 83

18 19 20

82 81 80

22 3 24

78 57 76

27 30 31 32 33 35 4 5 2 3 46

73 70 69 68 67 65 33 25 16 16 54

Source: European Commission, Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities DG, Database on women and men in decision-making (WIDM), Retrieved February 23, 2010, from http://ec.europa.eu/social/ main.jsp?catId=774&langId=en&intPageId=660.

of women members of national Parliaments increased from 16 percent to 24 percent between 1997 and 2009 (European Commission, 2009, p. 46). On the other hand, only 26 percent of the senior ministers in national governments were women in 2009. Overall, as seen in Table 7, vertical segregation (ceilings) of women in decision-making positions among EU’s public administrators persists.

CONCLUSION The EU has made some progress in terms of proclaiming the importance of gender mainstreaming, as indicated by its

134

LAVENA AND RICCUCCI

policy directives and regulations aimed at equal treatment of women. However, as seen here, less progress has been made in terms of results. That is, vertical and horizontal segregation persist in women’s access to employment. Moreover, gender deficits in access to resources and the need to emphasize ways of targeting gender inequalities within households have been neglected. And, to the extent progress has been made, it has occurred in the context of organizational policy, as prescribed by the organization theorists. However, deep-seated social changes or a reconceptualization of gender policy as called for the social movement and feminist theorists, respectively, have not been achieved. This may be due, not surprisingly, to the various ways in which gender mainstreaming is conceptualized by the multitude of regimes which comprise the EU. From a theoretical perspective, Walby (2006, 2005a, 2004, 2001, 1997) and Verloo (2006, 2005, 2001), for example, argue that gender mainstreaming is socially constructed. For instance, Walby (2005a, p. 321) points out that there “there are many different definitions of gender mainstreaming as well as considerable variations in practice. As a form of theory, gender mainstreaming is a process of revision of key concepts to grasp more adequately a world that is gendered, rather than the establishment of a separatist gender theory.” In effect, different outcomes are likely to be produced by different regimes, depending upon how gender mainstreaming is defined. (As an example, see Metcalfe [ (2006, 2007]) for how Islam has shaped gender policies and has affected women’s work experiences in the Middle East.) Walby (2005a) also points to the problem associated with the manner in which member states of the EU prioritize gender equality. She notes that in the United Kingdom, for instance, a competitive economy is the chief goal and other goals such as gender equality are relegated to lower positions. In effect, “the prioritization of improving the competitiveness of the U.K. economy is seen to have indirect detrimental consequences for gender equality” (Walby, 2005a, p. 323). As recognized by the United Nations Development Program in their Report on Women’s Political Participation (UNDP, 2010, p. 1), gender mainstreaming requires “more than just an additional number of women in visible and responsible positions . . . it requires strengthened capacities of both male and female policymakers to implement policies that promote gender equality.” The UNDP Report goes beyond an analysis of unequal representation of women in decision-making positions to recommend the following strategies: promotion and strengthening of temporary special measures to promote gender equality within political parties; promotions of gender equality in governmental bodies; capacity development for women’s political participation; building on capacities and knowledge available within the women’s movement; advocacy and awareness raising; provision of adequate financial resources; supportive work/life balance of men and women in political and public offices and

conducting research to support promotion/implementation of mechanisms and strategies (UNDP, 2010, p. 53–54; also see Mazey 2002). Despite the considerable legal and regulatory framework aimed at gender mainstreaming across Europe, its nonbinding nature weakens the potential of achieving gender equality across Europe. Even the individual case law presented to the European Court of Justice ultimately relies on the courts capacity to enforce legal obligations across countries and on the victims of discrimination willingness to report cases of discrimination. The question then shifts to the capacity of gender mainstreaming legislation to achieve social transformation in terms of achieving gender equality. Woodward (2008) contends the promise of gender mainstreaming was its transformative nature of the inclusion of women in all policy areas; however, as evidenced by the exclusive focus of policies on equal treatment in employment, this does not seem to be realized. It also appears that cultural values further reinforce sex segregation within the labor markets. The existing traditions and stereotypes on the roles and expectations of women and men influence the choice of their educational path and professional careers. There are fewer women working in scientific and technical jobs and this results in women working in lower valued and lower paid sectors of the economy. In sum, there is little evidence that the EU’s gender mainstreaming strategy has led to dramatic changes in employment. The implementation of gender mainstreaming through equal treatment legislation and regulations has allowed for a questioning of the gender neutrality of policies, which challenges the status quo in the EU policy system. However, the extent of its transformative character’s ability to affect core policy areas and radically change policy processes within the European institution is yet to be seen. Additional research is certainly needed on the extent to which gender has been mainstreamed into the political, economic, and social policies of the EU. In particular, there is a great need for further evidence on the impact and effectiveness of gender mainstreaming.

REFERENCES Bettio, F., & Veraschchagina, A. (2009). Gender segregation in the labour market. Root causes, implications and policy responses in the EU. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Beveridge, F., & Nott, S. (2002). Mainstreaming: A case for optimism and cynicism. Feminist Legal Studies, 10, 299–311. Beveridge, F., & Shaw, J. (2002). Introduction: Mainstreaming Gender in European public policy. Feminist Legal Studies, 10, 209–212. Beveridge, F., Nott, S., & Stephen, K. (2000). Mainstreaming and the engendering of policy-making: A means to an end? Journal of European Public Policy, 7(3), 385–405. Booth, C., & Bennett, C. (2002). Gender mainstreaming in the European Union. The European Journal of Women’s Studies, 9 (4), 430–446. Burri, S., & Prechal, S. (2008). EU gender equality law. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

GENDER MAINSTREAMING IN THE EU Casali, S., & Alvarez Gonzalez, V. (2010, March). 17 percent of Full-Time Employees in the EU are Low-Wage Earners. Eurostat: Statistics in Focus. Retrieved March 9, 2010 from http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/ portal/page/portal/product_details/publication?p_product_code=KSSF-10–003. Daly, M. (2005). Gender mainstreaming in theory and practice. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 12(3), 433–450. European Commission. (2009). Report on equality between women and men. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Commission. European Commission. (2010). Report on equality between women and men. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Commission. European Court of Justice. (2009). Case Law. Retrieved February 5, 2010, from http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/Jo1_6308/ecran-d-accueil. European Legislation. Treaties and Directives. (2010). Retrieved February 5, 2010, from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri= CELEX:32006R1922:EN:NOT. Eurostat European Statistics. Population and social conditions publications (2009). Gender pay gap. Retrieved March 6, 2011, from http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1& language=en&pcode=tsiem040&plugin=1. Eurostat European Statistics. Population and Social Conditions Publications (2010). Retrieved February–April 2010, from http://epp.eurostat.ec. europa.eu/portal/page/portal/eurostat/home/. Eveline, J., & Bacchi, C. (2005). What are we mainstreaming when we mainstream gender? International Feminist Journal of Politics, 7(4), 496–512. Franco, A. (2007). The concentration of men and women in sectors of activity. Eurostat: Statistics in Focus. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European. Fredman, S. (2010). Making Equality Effective: The Role of Proactive Measures. Brussels: European Commission. DG for Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities Unit. Retrieved on March 9, 2011, http:// ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=641&langId=en. Hafner-Burton, E., & Pollack, M. A. (2002). Mainstreaming gender in global governance. European Journal of International Relations, 8(3), 339–373. Hafner-Burton, E., & Pollack, M. A. (2009). Mainstreaming gender in the European Union: Getting the incentives right. Comparative European Politics, 7(1), 114–138. Hickman, G. R. (2010). Leading change in multiple contexts: Concepts and practices in organizational, community, political, social, and global change settings. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hoskyns, C. (1996). The European Union and the women within: An overview of women’s rights policy. In R. A. Elman (Ed.), Sexual politics and the European Union: The new feminist challenge (pp. 13–22). Oxford: Berghahn Books. 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), 118–135. Jahan, R. (1995). The elusive agenda: Mainstreaming women in development. London: Zed Books. Jenson, J., & Valiente, C. (2003). Comparing two movements for gender parity. In L. Banaszak, A., K. Beckwith, & D. Rucht (Eds.), Women’s movements facing the reconfigured state (pp. 69–93). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Joint Committee on Human Rights. (2006). Human trafficking. London Great Britain Parliament. Kronsell, A. (2005). Gender, power and European integration theory. Journal of European Public Policy, 12(6), 1022–1040. Lombardo, E. (2005, Fall). Mainstreaming in the European constitutionmaking process. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 12(3), 412–432. Lombardo, E. & Meier, P. (2008). Framing gender equality in the European Union political discourse. Sexual Politics, 15(1), 101–129.

135

Lombardo, E., & Meier, P. (2006). Gender maintreaming in the EU. Incorporating a feminist reading? European Journal of Women’s Studies, 13(2), 151–166. Lovecy, J. (2002). Gender mainstreaming and the framing of women’s rights in Europe: The contribution of the Council of Europe. Feminist Legal Studies, 10, 271–283. Mazey, S. (1995). The development of EU equality policies: Bureaucratic expansion on behalf of women? Public Administration, 73(4), 591–609. Mazey, S. (2000). Introduction: Integrating gender-intellectual and ‘real world’ mainstreaming. Journal of European Public Policy, 7(3), 333–345. Mazey, S. (2002). Gender mainstreaming strategies in the E.U.: Delivering on an agenda? Feminist Legal Studies, 10, 227–240. Metcalfe, B.D. (2006). Exploring cultural dimensions of gender and management in the Middle East. Thunderbird International Business Review, 48(1), 93–107. Metcalfe, B.D. (2007). Gender and HRM in the Middle East. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18(1), 54–74. Murray, U. (2003). Good practices: Gender mainstreaming in actions against child labour. Geneva: International Labor Organization. Pillinger, J. (2005). Pay equity now! Gender mainstreaming and gender pay equity in public services. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 7(4), 591–599. Prechal, S., & Burri, S. (2009a) EU rules on gender equality. How are they transposed into national laws? Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Prechal, S., & Burri, S. (2009b). Gender equality law in 30 European countries. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Commission. Rees, T. (2005). Reflection on the uneven development of gender mainstreaming in Europe. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 7(4), 555–574. Report of the Fourth World Conference on Women. (1996). Retrieved February 16, 2011, from United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and Empowerment of Women: http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/beijing/ official.htm Roth, S. (2008). Introduction. In S. Roth (Ed.), Gender politics in the expanding European Union: Mobilization, inclusion, exclusion (pp. 1–16). Oxford: Berghahn Books. Rubery, J. (2002). Gender mainstreaming and gender equality in the EU: The impact of the EU employment strategy. Industrial Relations Journal, 33(5), 500–522. Rubery, J., Grimshaw, D., & Figueiredo, H. (2005). How to close the gender pay gap in Europe: Towards the gender mainstreaming of pay policy. Industrial Relations Journal, 36(3), 184–213. Sarikakis, K., & Regan Shade, L. (Eds.). (2008). Feminist interventions in international communication: Minding the gap. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Shaw, J. (2000). Importing gender: the challenge of feminism and the analysis of the EU legal order. Journal of European Public Policy, 7(3), 406–431. Squires, J. (2005, Fall). Is mainstreaming transformative? Theorizing mainstreaming in the context of diversity and deliberation. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 12(3), 366–388. Stevens, I., & van Lamoen, I. (2001). Manual on gender mainstreaming at universities. Leuven, Belgium: Garant. Stratigaki, M. (2005). Gender mainstreaming vs positive action. European Journal of Women’s Studies, 12(2), 165–186. United Nations Development Program (UNDP), Bratislava Regional Centre. (2010). Enhancing women’s political participation: A policy note for Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States. Bratislava: UNDP. Verloo, M. (2001). Another Velvet Revolution: Gender Mainstreaming and the Politics of Implementation. Working Paper No. 5/2001. Vienna: Retrieved March 9, 2011, from http://www.iiav.nl/epublications/ 2001/anothervelvetrevolution.pdf

136

LAVENA AND RICCUCCI

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 and Society, 12(3), 344–365. Verloo, M. (2006). Multiple inequalities, intersectionality and the European Union. European Journal of Women’s Studies, 13(3), 211–228. Walby, S. (2005a). Gender mainstreaming: Productive tensions in theory and practice. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State and Society, 12(3), 321–343. Walby, S. (2005b). Introduction: Comparative gender mainstreaming in a global era. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 7(4), 453–470.

Walby, S. (2006). Complex social systems: Theorizations and comparisons in a global era. London: Sage. Woodward, A. E. (1997). Gender transformations. London: Routledge. Woodward, A. E. (2001). From community to coalition: The politics of recognition as the handmaiden of the politics of redistribution. Theory, Culture and Society, 18(2–3), 113–35. Woodward, A. E. (2004). The European Union and gender equality: Emergent varieties of gender regime. Social Politics, 11(1), 4–29. Woodward, A. E. (2008). Too late for gender mainstreaming? Taking stock in Brussels. Journal of European Social Policy, 18(3), 289–302.