PSA Postgraduate Northern Conference
Friday 6th of June 2008
· R Cavaghan, University of Edinburgh, Policy Formation and Europeanization – Gender Mainstreaming in the EU
Research Questions
My project has two principal research questions:
1. How are processes of interpretation and negotiation, which result from gender mainstreaming practices, shaping and creating gender equality policies within the EU?
2. How do these processes shape member state policies towards gender equality?
Project Summary
Specific research on gender mainstreaming in EU member states has highlighted the wide variety of actions (Daly 2005) and policy articulations described as ‘gender mainstreaming’, (Bacchi 2005, Verloo 2005) as well as ‘disappointing’ implementation (Bruno et al 2006, Walby 2004).
Gender mainstreaming policy in the EU nevertheless mobilises considerable rhetorical resources. Multiple annual reports and work plans are complied with contributions from member states and DGs (Director Generates). These are supplemented by EU best practice guides, evaluation reports compiled by expert groups and committees on gender equality, as well as opinion documents issued by lobbyists, social partners, committees and institutions such as the EP (European Parliament). My project seeks to focus on this extensive rhetorical activity and to ask what gender mainstreaming is achieving. What is the significance of these processes of negotiation and what is being achieved?
Conceptualising Gender Mainstreaming in the EU
The origins of gender mainstreaming as a policy are often cited as the 1995 UN Platform for Action, adopted at the United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing. Here, gender mainstreaming was described as a process where policy making in all locations would integrate a gender perspective into all their undertakings; “governments and other actors should promote an active and visible policy of mainstreaming a gender perspective in all policies and programmes, so that, before decisions are taken, an analysis is made of the effects on women and men respectively” (Council of Europe 1998: 11). Subsequent research on gender mainstreaming however has shown that ‘gender mainstreaming’ often bears only a passing resemblance to the UN’s definition and that a wide variety of practices are described as ‘gender mainstreaming’ by states, NGOs (non governmental organizations) and supranational bodies (Daly 2005: 439). In part this has been attributed to gender mainstreaming’s status in the EU as a ‘soft’ policy (Walby 2004: 7) and it’s implementation through the OMC (Open Method of Coordination) (Woehl 2007).
It is therefore important for my project to define exactly what policy or practice I recognise as gender mainstreaming in the EU. I conceptualise EU gender mainstreaming as a new gender equality policy approach which pushes gender equality actions into all EU policy areas (rather than restricting gender equality policy to isolated equal opportunities or positive action programmes). This results in a process, whereby new policy communities at the EU level are obliged to participate in the development of gender equality policies located in and pertaining to their specific policy field. The processes of deliberation and development which occur in the creation of these embedded gender equality policies are my location of interest.
Method
Frame Analysis
My approach sees the definition of policy issues not as a preliminary process in a traditional policy cycle, but as a political process involving negotiation and deliberation which ‘l[ies] at the heart of the action’ (Weiss 1989: 98 in Daviter 2007: 655). This process is described by Rein and Schoen as policy discourse, a term which I will borrow (Rein and Schoen 1996:145).
I have chosen to undertake frame analysis of policies because it facilitates a detailed analysis of the very different ways gender equality policy is described within EU gender equality policy discourse. By using policy frame analysis comparatively and combining it with process tracing I seek to provide a nuanced description of EU gender equality policy and policy discourses in a variety of locations (see below).
Policy frame analysis is premised upon the assumption that “policy frames are not descriptions of reality, but specific constructions that give meaning to reality, and shape the understanding of reality” (Verloo 2005: 20). It is helpful to think of framing then as the process actors engage in when they seek to articulate their policy preferences in a meaningful or intelligible way, or ‘the process of selecting, emphasizing and organizing aspects of complex issues according to an overriding evaluative or analytical criterion (Daviter 2001:1).
I am developing my approach to policy frame analysis based upon the method elaborated by the Mageeq Project (Verloo 2007). Mageeq developed a critical framing tool based on the idea that a policy frame has a typical format containing a description of the problem, a plan of action and a rationale for action (Verloo 2005: 22). Mageeq’s critical framing tool then consisted of a set of sensitising concepts and ‘dimensions’ of policy frames (Verloo 2005: 25) to be identified in each policy document analysed. These sensitising concepts and frame dimensions draw on concepts of prognosis, diagnosis and motivation (rationale for action) elaborated by Benford and Snow (2000). These were supplemented with the further dimension of ‘voice’ (who is speaking in a policy document) and additional sensitising concepts drawn from gender theory (Verloo 2005: 26). Consistently interrogating policy texts using this tool enabled comparison between the content of policies and is an approach I will also adopt. Using the information generated through this initial analysis of each document I aim to begin the identification of sets of frames.
Document Choice
Three policy areas will be analysed as case studies: employment policy, Violence against Women policy; and the EU’s over arching gender equality policy. In each of these policy areas materials which evidence the contributions and opinions of EU actors and lobbyist are available. These include evaluation reports compiled by expert groups and committees on gender equality within EU institutions, as well as opinion documents issued by lobbyists, social partners and institutions such as the EP (European Parliament). Member state contributions will also be collected, focusing on the the UK and Germany as case studies.
Qualitative Interviews
Semi-structured qualitative interviews will also be undertaken with actors involved in policy deliberation to triangulate the results of my policy frame analysis. Theses interviews will seek to ask whether actors recognise and understand the sets of frames I have identified and how they understand opposing frames. Interviews will also be particularly helpful in cases where official policy articulations fail to acknowledge or tackle gender. Here, interviews should help to uncover actors’ rationale for excluding gender equality, as well as lobbyists’ opposing framings of gender equality and their descriptions of the negotiations which excluded their voices. Participant observation or ethnography is also a further tool to consider, which may strengthen the credibility of the sets of frames I identify. This is a step I am currently considering.
Developing A Frame Analysis Tool
At this stage in my research I have undertaken pilot comparative analysis of policy comments submitted in reaction to the EU’s most recent gender equality strategy, A Roadmap for Equality between Women and Men 2006-2010, (Commission of the European Communities 2006). During this analysis clear differences both in diagnoses of the gender inequality problem and rationales for action are discernable. As an illustrative example - The European Social Partners’ comment concentrates on gender equality in the labour market and in the work place, indicating gender equality’s contribution to the achievement of the Lisbon Strategy (European Social Partners 2005: 1). This framing of gender equality as a tool for the achievement of the Lisbon Strategy is a frequently articulated description of the gender equality policy problem and its role within wider EU policy agendas. ‘Feminist’ actors such as the European Parliament Advisory Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men explicitly counter this frame arguing “women’s economic independence have[sic] to be objectives in themselves as part of the full and equal participation of women and men in all spheres of society, the full realization of gender equality’ (2005b). Whilst the framing articulated by the European Social Partners could be tagged as a an example of a ‘labour market’ or ‘Lisbon Strategy’ frame, the Advisory Committee in Equal Opportunities for Women and Men could be identified as sponsors of a ‘gender justice’ frame. These sets of frames will be identified through iterative comparative analysis. Pilot analysis suggests adding a further dimension to my frame analysis tool. This additional dimension would examine the relationship between established policy aims in ‘mainstream’ policy locations (such as increasing work force participation within employment policy) and gender equality goals. This dimension would help to capture a feature of over arching EU gender policy which I think may be key – the assertion that gender equality is present in many forms and relevant in all policy areas. It would also enable comparison of how this understanding is being negotiated ‘on the ground’ within DGs (Director Generates) in the EU.
Europeanization
So far I have explained the tools I will use to analyse policy discourse at the EU level. Considering my findings within the framework of Europeanization allows me to address existing discussions concerning the ‘disappointing’ outcomes of gender mainstreaming in member states and to investigate the implications of member states’ participation in EU policy discourses.
Broadly, Europeanization describes ‘what happens once EU institutions are in place and produce their effects’ (Radaelli 2000:6). The research agenda is broad, enjoying much internal debate and including many ‘domains’ of domestic change (e.g. political parties, opportunity structures, norms, legal structures). Two aspects of the Europeanization framework are particularly important for my research however. Firstly research located within the Europeanization framework is not premised on assumption that the effects of the EU will lead to convergence (Radaelli 2004:3). Secondly, recent research on Europeanization has begun to discuss ‘horizontal mechanisms’ of Europeanization (2003:41).
Most Europeanization research is premised on an understanding of vertical processes where member states experience adaptational pressure from the EU and policies are translated into domestic practice (Radaelli 2003:40). This approach has yielded significant insights into the effects of ‘hard’ policy instruments, but has difficulty in capturing or perceiving the impact of ‘soft’ policy. More recently however, scholars have started to explore the possibility of ‘horizontal’ mechanisms of Europeanization and effects on policy frames (Radaelli 2003:40). Horizontal mechanisms of Europeanization are thought to progress through soft, symbolic or vague policies (Knill and Lehmkuhl 1999: 3) and through “the diffusion of ideas and discourses about the notion of good policy and best practice” through ‘new governance architectures’ (Radaelli 2003: 40) such as the OMC.
Taking this approach allows us to move away from a conceptualization where ‘gender mainstreaming’ is understood as a clear policy, defined at the EU level, which is subsequently ‘metabolized’ at the domestic level (Radaelli 2003:41). Instead, I analyse the content and dynamics of the substantial rhetorical activity which takes place within EU policy discourses to discern an impact on member states.
Gender mainstreaming has not been implemented with hard tools. The policy actions articulated in multi-annual gender equality plans, such as the most recent Roadmap for Equality between Women and Men 2006-2010, (Commission of the European Communities 2006) are not backed by directives or any regulatory tools. Despite this gender mainstreaming has enjoyed fairly extensive incorporation into one of my policy case studies, Employment, through the EES (European Employment Strategy). Here gender equality actions are included in wider EES policy which is implemented and evaluated through the OMC. We should therefore be able to observe whether member states’ framing of gender equality is changed through participation in the development and evaluation of EES policy which takes place during OMC processes. Violence against Women policy on the other hand does not enjoy such extensive implementation resources. Within this policy area I expect to see the more limited effects which might be expected of ‘symbolic’ or ‘vague’ policy.
In my final policy case study, over aching EU gender equality policy, I expect to observe the EU Commission attempting to manage the frame conflicts arising from the multiple different framings of gender equality articulated by different actors and DGs. I conceive of the activity taking place within this policy location as an important stage in the process which EU gender mainstreaming has produced: after inducing new policy communities to consider and include gender inequality and suitable policy remedies, the writers of EU gender equality policy seek to maintain an appearance of a ‘coherent’ EU gender equality frame and to further influence gender equality policy in DGs and member states.
Conclusion
This paper has explained how I hope to analyse EU gender mainstreaming activity. My approach takes a number of steps to analyse the substantial variation in gender mainstreaming practices in the EU. Rather than comparing actual EU gender mainstreaming policy to the definition articulated by the UN in 1995 I focus on the activity underway under the guise of gender mainstreaming policy in the EU, the processes which lead to these variations. Comparative policy frame analysis will facilitate a nuanced analysis of the processes of negotiation and deliberation underway in my three case study policy areas. Through the identification of ‘sets’ of frames I hope to identify relatively ‘stable’ policy frames which are frequently articulated within EU policy discourses. Process tracing will examine which articulations of policy ‘successfully’ enter ‘official’ policy. Combined with an analysis of the creation of over arching EU gender equality policy this will capture the repeated processes of negotiation and deliberation which gender mainstreaming in the EU has stimulated. Finally, by considering the results of comparative policy frame analysis within the Europeanization framework my project will also provide a case study of horizontal’ mechanisms of Europeanization and the Europeanization of policy frames.
References
Advisory Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men (2005b) ‘Opinion on the forthcoming Commission Communication on future developments for equality between women and men’ available at http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/gender_equality/gender_mainstreaming/gender/advcom_en.html, [Accessed 28/02/08]
Bacchi, Carol (2005) ’The MAGEEQ Project: Identifying Contesting Meanings of 'Gender Equality', The Greek Review of Social Research 117 (B), pp 221-243