FEMINIST THEORY
Governance—understood as the shift from hierarchicaland bureaucratic forms of decision making to selforganization,networks, and negotiation—has remainedelusively immune to a comprehensive feminist analysisat local, state, and international levels. Genderedtheories of governance are absent in the conventionalliterature and are neglected by feminist scholars. Thereare, however, feminist critiques of theories of internationalrelations, the state, and public policy, all ofwhich touch on governance, and they provide us withan entry point into feminist theories of governance.
A feminist theory of governance will have twomain components. The first will be the perspectivethat informs the theory. Hence, a gendered approachto governance may be liberal and focus on resolvinginequalities perpetuated by the private-public spheredichotomy, it may be radical and seek gender equalitythrough institutional and ideological reform, or it maydraw on interpretive theory and view the state as aconstruction of discourses and practices so that sexualdomination is a contingent product of history and notimmutable. The second component will be its focus,drawn from the common themes and concernswhen gender and governance converge in the fieldsidentified—international relations, the state, andpublic policy.
Feminist International Relations
Feminist international relations is the field mostremoved from conventional state-bound or localanalyses of governance. It provides critiques of globalization,development, and democratization andaddresses the impact of global governance institutionson women. A particular feature is an emphasis on
neoliberalism and the role of markets, which is understoodas a gendered discourse that has become theparadigm for global governance.
Feminist Theories of the State
Feminist state theory maintains that political processesreflect and reproduce patriarchy, which will not changesimply by increasing female representation in politicalinstitutions. A fraternal contract, based on essentialistunderstandings of gender, makes male political participation“natural,” and treats women as incidental to theprocess of governing so that they are marginalized andexcluded from decision-making and agenda-settingprocesses. The token representation of women in thestate parallels the token representation of women withingender-blind mainstream state theory. Women are veryunderrepresented in state structures. The gendering ofthe state ensures that women’s interests are articulatedin “feminine” spheres such as welfare and education(opposed to the state’s violent and repressive spheres).
There is little recognition that state actions reproducegender relations and identities through regulating maritalrelations, reproduction, wage discrimination andmale violence, so that men are continually favored.However, although these processes reflect and reproducepatriarchy, feminist theorists believe the processesare open to change, rather than fixed.This notion underpins poststructuralist approachesthat assert feminist state theory rests on the illusionthat the state is inherently male. The state is not structurallygiven but, rather, the product of erratic and disconnecteddiscourses and the contingent success ofvarious groups in articulating interests and homogenizingclaims. Politics is therefore a set of contestsabout meanings rather than about objective interests.
The importance of discourses is also recognized bystandard feminist state theory: fraternal discoursesconstruct the state on the assumption that the subjectis male, so rather than explicitly defending male interests,government is conducted as if only men’s interestsexist and in the belief that men are acting in theinterests of society as a whole.
Feminist Critiques of Public Policy
Feminist critiques of public policy are concerned with the role of women, the fate of women’s issues in thepolicy process, and how policy affects women’s interests.
From a liberal perspective, public policy isframed by male perceptions of the public domain, andthe boundaries of the public sphere are positioned sothat private problems that all women face in social andeconomic life are not viewed as public issues. Areasthat affect women more than men are badly resourcedand do not have a high profile in the public sphere. Amore radical reading is that the liberal public-privatedichotomy conceals the fact that women are subjugatedby patriarchal and class relations with a universalist,egalitarian, individualist gloss.
Gender mainstreaming is the push to institutionalizegender equity in all policy areas at all levels of government,where national machineries or centralized coordinatingunits ensure the design, implementation,monitoring, and evaluation of all policies and programsso that inequalities are not propagated. However, suchinitiatives are easily undermined by using publicdiscourse to portray gender mainstreaming as an eliteagenda serving special interests, or a rent-capturingagenda of people wanting to live off other people’staxes. Hence, neoliberal or rational choice discoursescan sideline equity issues, demonstrating the power oflanguage to shape what can and cannot be seen.
Another concern is that successful mainstreamingallows the state to commandeer the drive for genderjustice so that it loses its edge. Gender policy is merelysymbolic policy, which is unsynchronized with otherpolicies and will result in only incremental gains atbest. A gendered policy proposal will be placed at thebottom of the political agenda, will be marginalized inthe formulation process, and thus will not attract adequate policy feedback: This is, for example, why equalpay policies have not been integrated within generalemployment policy. A radical interpretation is thatequity policies are seen as a threat and are activelyundermined by male bureaucratic resistance, and theonly way female agendas can inform policy is by internationalfeminist movements challenging masculinistactions and discourse to transform the underpinningideologies of states and bureaucracies.
Most apposite to governance—understood as theshift from bureaucracies to networks—is the work ofAdam Tickell and Jamie Peck. They employed a feministlens to study the regendering of local governancein Manchester, United Kingdom, and found thegrowth of non- or quasi-state bodies in the decisionmakingprocess has naturalized business power andmale power as the legitimate conduit for effectivelocal governance. At the national level, Janet Newmanassessed the impact of contracting out caring serviceson women and work in the United Kingdom, and findsa reduction in women’s public-sector jobs, whereascompetition between service providers drives lowerwages and more part-time and insecure employmentfor women. This spiral reflects the negative valueplaced on women’s labor as jobs such as social carework represent a marketized version of traditionaldomestic tasks.
Toward a FeministTheory of Governance
It follows that a feminist theory (or theories) of governancewill variously be concerned with the following:
1. How governance institutions and the contractingout of services affect women
2. The representation of women in political institutions,elites, and networks, though recognizing agendered division of labor, and marginalization andexclusion from agenda setting and decision making
3. Gender mainstreaming of policy and successfulroutes to implementation through the programmingof the bureaucracy
4. The impact of masculinist discursive practices, particularlyneoliberalism and markets as a gendereddiscourse
5. Sexual domination as the outcome of contingentdiscourses and practices.
However, we must be aware of potential inconsistenciesor contradictions within such theories. Theyraise several questions. If there is reduced direct serviceprovision, how can gender accountability beenforced? Does a largely top-down view of implementationneglect the discretion of bureaucrats andservice providers to frustrate gendered policy goalsand overlook empowering women as citizens in thepolicy process? Even when gender advocacy networksare in operation, how can the contingency of governanceoutcomes square with driving women’s interests?
As Newman observed, networks can disguiseissues of equality and formalized power, and rights arerendered less significant than patterns of influence ininterpersonal and interorganizational relationships.
—Claire Donovan
Further Readings and References
Barrett, M., & Phillips, A. (Eds.). (1992). Destabilizingtheory: Contemporary feminist debates. Cambridge, UK:Polity Press.
Newman, J. (2005). Regendering governance. In Remakinggovernance: Peoples, politics and the public sphere.
Bristol, UK: Policy Press.
Rai, S. M. (Ed.). (2003). Mainstreaming gender,democratizing the state? Institutional mechanisms for the
advancement of women. Manchester, UK: ManchesterUniversity Press.
Tickell, A., & Peck, J. (1996). The return of the Manchestermen: Men’s words and men’s deeds in the remaking of
the local state. Transactions of the Institute of BritishGeographers, 21, 595–616.
Waylen, G., & Rai, S. M. (Eds.). (2004). Gender, governanceand globalisation [Special edition]. International FeministJournal of Politics, 6(4).