Gender Mainstreaming in Theory and Practice · Gender Mainstreaming in Theory and Practice 435...

Gender Mainstreaming in Theory and Practice

Daly, Mary E.

Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State and Society,Volume 12, Number 3, Fall 2005, pp. 433-450 (Article)

Published by Oxford University Press

For additional information about this article

Access Provided by University of Canberra at 02/21/12 2:50AM GMT

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/sop/summary/v012/12.3daly.html

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/sop/summary/v012/12.3daly.html

Fall 2005 Pages 433–450 doi:10.1093/sp/jxi023© The Author 2005. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: [email protected] Access publication November 8, 2005

MARY DALY

Gender Mainstreaming in Theory and Practice

Abstract This article utilizes the findings of a recently completed, eight-countryresearch project to visit some key issues in the theory and practiceof gender mainstreaming. The research results indicate that gendermainstreaming is a diverse entity when looked at from a cross-national perspective but rather hollow when considered within thenational setting. To the extent that there is a “common core” togender mainstreaming in action across countries, it lies in the ten-dency to apply the approach in a technocratic way and to be non-systemic in compass. The argument is advanced that this is at leastin part attributable to particularities in the development of main-streaming. The article suggests that gender mainstreaming is under-developed as a concept and identifies a need to elaborate further onsome fundaments. In particular, the conceptualization of main-streaming needs to be rethought with special attention devoted tothe understanding of the problematic of gender inequality thatunderlies it and the articulation of the relationship between gendermainstreaming and societal change.

Gender mainstreaming is one of those essentially technicalconcepts that has managed to achieve a relatively wide currency in ashort time. It is a term that has no ready popular resonance and yet isnow used quite comfortably in policy circles. One can speculate as tothe reasons why gender mainstreaming seems to have capturedthe imagination of policy-makers. As the research reported hereshows, it is seen as the most “modern” approach to gender equality.Another, not unrelated, factor is its wide promotion by international

SP12(3).book Page 433 Tuesday, November 29, 2005 1:19 PM

Bridget Beall

MUSE

434 ◆ Daly

organizations, such as the United Nations (UN), Council of Europe,and European Union (EU). For all that, it is a term that appears totravel well; yet, the character and robustness of gender mainstream-ing are not beyond question. The theoretical literature has focusedespecially on gender mainstreaming as a political strategy. The par-ticularity of the literature is striking in other ways as well. For exam-ple, the division is unclear between work that seeks to advancemainstreaming theoretically and that which focuses on its articula-tion as a policy approach. Indeed, the development of gender main-streaming as a theoretical concept and its promotion as a model ofpolicy-making have proceeded simultaneously, with some of themost significant conceptual elaboration of gender mainstreaminghaving been carried out under the auspices of policy organizations(especially the Council of Europe). Although this is not in itself nec-essarily problematic, it has served to influence which aspects of gen-der mainstreaming have been foregrounded for analysis anddevelopment. As it stands now, I consider it fair to say that gendermainstreaming is better developed as (policy) approach than concept.

A dialogue between research and theory is therefore timely. Thispiece seeks to engage in such a dialogue by utilizing some of the prin-cipal findings from a recent cross-national research project to addresskey issues in understanding gender mainstreaming. The critique to bedeveloped is not one based solely on praxis. To an extent an exerciseconfronting theory with practice, the aim is to employ the findings toreflect on critical aspects of policy-making and to inquire further intothe theoretical underpinnings of gender mainstreaming. In thisendeavor two issues are seen to be critical: the problematic of gendermainstreaming (in the sense of the relationship between gender main-streaming and gender inequality) and the relationship between gen-der mainstreaming and social change.

The empirical fundament of the piece comes from a recently con-cluded EU-funded study. Known by the acronym EQUAPOL, theresearch centered on case studies of how gender is being integratedinto policy in the following eight countries: Belgium, France,Greece, Ireland, Lithuania, Spain, Sweden, and the United King-dom.1 Running from 2002 to 2004, the project was oriented tocross-national comparison of how gender mainstreaming is con-ceived of by policy-makers and other stakeholders, the visionunderlying gender mainstreaming as practiced for policy purposes,and the measures that are being taken to put gender mainstreamingin place in different national settings. In sum, the aim was to assessthe progress and impact of gender mainstreaming in a range ofnational settings. The eight countries were selected for comparisonmainly on criteria relating to their history of addressing gender


Gender Mainstreaming in Theory and Practice ◆ 435

relations and their tradition of public policy-making. The originalhypotheses of the study sought to establish whether and how thehistory and tradition of policy-making affected the approach takento gender and the readiness to adopt gender mainstreaming (as the“latest” approach). In addition to a country’s general approach, thestudy focused on progress in implementing gender mainstreamingin fields of social policy (especially income and education policies).The empirical data of the project mainly consisted of informationobtained through interviews with policy-makers and key stakehold-ers. This piece concentrates selectively on the results. Rather thandetailing institutions and practices in each national setting, it isoverview and broad-brush in nature. Its main intent is to considerthe extent to which key findings, especially those relating to cross-national variation, speak to how adequate gender mainstreaming isfor the task at hand and how well it has been thought through andconceptualized.2

Main Trends in Relation to Gender Mainstreaming

The distinctiveness of the gender mainstreaming approach is that itseeks to institutionalize equality by embedding gender-sensitive prac-tices and norms in the structures, processes, and environment ofpublic policy. All the countries examined in the study have made aformal commitment to implement a gender mainstreaming approachto gender equality. However, to say this is to say relatively littlebecause there is much cross-national variation.

Looking across the eight countries, a number of broad trends areto be observed.

One quite robust pattern is that countries are spreading responsi-bility for gender across units or departments. This can be read as amove toward gender mainstreaming and away from the former cen-tralization of responsibility for gender and the practice of treatinggender as a specialist field of policy (as implied by both equal treat-ment and positive action approaches). The shift is being effected indifferent ways or through different means. In some countries—Irelandand the United Kingdom—“decentralization” is being led by the revi-sion of equal treatment legislation to involve all public bodies inantidiscrimination policy. The roots of gender inequality are in thisview seen to lie in proscribable gender-based discriminatory prac-tices. In these two countries antidiscrimination legislation does notexhaust the approach to gender—it is flanked by efforts to introducegender mainstreaming (albeit on a selective basis) alongside anexpansion of positive action measures. In other countries the preferredmethod of spreading responsibility is through the “transversal”


436 ◆ Daly

action plan on gender equality (Belgium, France, Greece, Lithuania,and Spain). Though it takes different forms and varies in how widelyit extends and in its coherence as a plan or strategy (as against a col-lection of measures), the underlying strategy is for different ministriesto be assigned or assume objectives and/or targets in relation to genderequality as part of an overall plan. In a third scenario the systematicuse of gender analysis tools in the design and implementation of allpolicies is the signature piece of contemporary gender policy (Sweden).What this means in practice is that all public, private, and voluntaryorganizations (for example, ministries, public authorities, privatefirms, voluntary associations, and so on) become active participantsin the attainment of gender equality in society and that they use dedi-cated means and methods for that purpose.

Another, and related, empirical trend is for national administra-tions to treat gender mainstreaming in an “à la carte” fashion. Oneof the most notable features of gender mainstreaming as it is devel-oped in the literature is that it is grounded on the one hand in ananalysis or vision of how gender inequality is perpetuated and on theother in a range of activities and/or tools to attack inequality. Thelatter include the production of gender disaggregated statistics, theuse of gender impact assessment methods, and gender budgeting.This duality is not generally found in practice. Instead, what mightbe called a “funneling effect” occurs whereby agencies adopt some ofthe components of gender mainstreaming, especially tools or tech-niques, often in the absence of an overall framework. As it is prac-ticed within and across national settings, then, the implementation ofgender mainstreaming places an overarching, if not excessive, focuson policy-makers acquiring skills and implementing a set of methodsand procedures. One could read this as a tendency toward “technoc-ratization” of gender mainstreaming. This is certainly how it hasbeen represented in the literature (Beveridge and Nott 2002; Yeandle,Booth, and Bennett 1998). To the extent that there is technocratiza-tion, gender mainstreaming resembles more a mode of delivery thana policy agenda or program in its own right. When selectivity reigns,the research reveals gender analysis of policies to be the most favoredtechnique or policy practice. It, in turn, is understood in a technicalway, mainly as gender impact assessment of policies or of budgets(that is, the scrutiny of policies for their gender friendliness). Swedenis the exception in that it has in place an entire “package” in the senseof an acceptance of the analysis of gender equality, as well as the inte-gration of the full spectrum of relevant procedures for gender main-streaming across levels of administration. The tendency towardsselectivity has been noted by other research also (Council of Europe2000).



A third trend concerns the increasingly complex mix of equalityapproaches to be found within and across countries. Rather thangender mainstreaming supplanting other approaches to gender equal-ity, the evidence for each country is of a mix of approaches.3 Com-plexity is increased by the fact that the three models—equalopportunities, positive action, and mainstreaming—are not separablein practice but are intertwined with and build on one another. Oneimplication is that one cannot (and should not) study gender main-streaming in isolation because it is in all countries predated by andgrounded in an existing history and set of gender equality measures.Context matters. In addition, one can speak of a process of evolutionin gender equality policy in Europe. This process involves not just theintroduction of gender mainstreaming but ongoing significantchanges in the equal treatment and positive action approaches. Forexample, in some countries positive action measures, which origi-nally targeted women’s employment and human capital endow-ments, are now being applied to what one might call the privatesphere (such as domestic violence in Spain) and more widely in policyspheres beyond their traditional “home” in employment and educa-tion. Apart from this, the focus of positive action has broadened toinclude measures specifically targeted at men (for example, boys’educational development programs in Ireland) or at both women andmen (gender stereotyping interventions in France, Greece, andSpain). Equal treatment legislation has also undergone importantdevelopment. In many countries such legislation has been reformedto broaden both the concept of discrimination and the sphere ofapplication (for example, public services and facilities, aside fromeducation and the workplace). In effect, the three approaches shouldbe seen as evolving simultaneously.

It should be noted that these findings challenge those parts of theliterature that have tended to represent the three approaches ratherschematically, in terms, for instance, of three generations. Rees(1998), for example, portrays the emergence and development ofeach of the approaches as confined to the specific circumstances andperiods of time during which they became dominant in the countriesof Europe and in EU policy. Her description of the approaches, then,draws on the main features characterizing each at a particular periodof time. In effect, Rees “freezes” each approach and in so doing pre-cludes the possibility that each may develop and change over time.For example, her characterization of equal treatment draws on thehallmark features of legal measures for gender equality introduced inthe 1970s. These were rooted in the idea that women should not bediscriminated against vis-à-vis men. Positive action, regarded as themain approach during the 1980s, is depicted as based on the recognition


438 ◆ Daly

that women and men are “different” in key respects and that suchdifferences, as well as the failure to deal with them, have acted to dis-advantage women. Gender mainstreaming, for its part, is representedas an approach that turns attention away from individuals and theirrights (equal treatment) or deficiencies and disadvantages (positiveaction) toward those systems, processes, and norms that generatesuch inequalities. The findings of the study outlined here suggest thatwe should cast a cold eye on chronological periodization—approaches to gender equality are living entities, enduring over timeand also subject to change and capable of showing dynamism. It isalso worth underlining that the contemporary policy mix in relationto gender is more complex than that which prevailed in the past—nocountry has only one approach in operation. Rather, differentapproaches sit alongside each other, and approaches are beinghybridized. Hence, the distinctions among different approaches areless clear-cut than one might assume. All of this speaks stronglyagainst seeing approaches as fixed and distinct.

The discussion thus far implies a strong sense of similarity acrosscountries. To leave it at this would be to seriously mislead the reader;in fact, while countries might be heading in a roughly similar direc-tion, their departure point and the substance of their activities andobjectives in the service of “gender mainstreaming” vary hugely.

The Problematic of Gender Mainstreaming

Policy-makers in all eight countries make the rhetorical claim thatthey are applying a gender mainstreaming approach. This cannot betaken at face value because they mean something quite different bythis. Taking countries as a whole, at least three varieties of a gendermainstreaming approach can be identified. The first, with Sweden asthe locus classicus, can be styled an “integrated approach.” Gendermainstreaming is employed in a global fashion, whereby responsibil-ity for gender equality is extended to most, if not all, actors involvedin public policy and is embedded across institutions in society. Thesecond variant, found in Belgium and Ireland, can be depicted as“mainstreaming in the form of limited transversality.” In these con-texts of “mainstreaming light,” transversality indicates little morethan the involvement of different government departments or minis-tries in the implementation of a plan or program around genderequality. What gender mainstreaming means in these contexts is aspreading out of responsibility for gender-related objectives to moreline ministries. However, mainstreaming is at an early stage of devel-opment and typically does not span the entire policy spectrum or hier-archy. In a third scenario, true especially of France and the United



Kingdom and to a lesser extent Greece and Spain, gender main-streaming is a highly fragmented endeavor, confined either to a smallnumber of policy domains or to a specific program within a domainand disconnected from general governmental policy on gender.Mainstreaming in these countries is a tender shoot. Whether theactivities that are going on merit the label is debatable. To the extentthat mainstreaming implies breadth and depth, it probably shouldnot be deemed to be in operation in these countries.

Although the cross-national characterization presented above isnew, in some ways the point about variability has been anticipatedby the literature. Over time, and especially as an empirical base ofwork has begun to build up (Behning and Serrano Pascual 2001;Mackay and Bilton 2003; Rubery and Fagan 2000; Yeandle, Booth,and Bennett 1998), scholars have come to recognize that gendermainstreaming is a variable entity. One can espy two kinds ofresponses to diversity in the literature. The first is to suggest that thelack of widespread agreement on how gender mainstreaming is prac-ticed and understood is not problematic, given that its meaning iscontingent and constructed in context. Walby (2005a), for example,indicates that the contrasts are theoretical rather than substantiveand that all approaches are capable of producing working defini-tions. A second tendency is to broaden the definition. Booth and Bennett(2002) tend in this direction, in that they view gender mainstreamingas incorporating the three approaches (what they name equal treat-ment, women’s perspective, gender perspective). Squires (in this vol-ume) is even more inclusive. She suggests that mainstreaming shouldcease to be understood as a distinctive strategy that moves beyondthe previous strategies of equality of opportunity and positive actionand instead be viewed as a broad strategy that entails the incorpora-tion of the other two strategies as and when appropriate. It seems tome that, apart from the conceptual stretching that is involved here,this representation of mainstreaming is too contingent and runs therisk of depicting mainstreaming as little more than a capacity toincorporate the two approaches as the occasion calls. Although Iwould not call for a uniform approach, in my view the lack of clarityin the concept/approach at the present time is causal. It provides fertileground for political expediency, for example—because mainstream-ing is so elastic, it is easy to make a claim to be doing mainstreaming.In addition, one could attribute the tendency toward technocratizationto lack of clarity in definition and conceptualization.

In this context it seems appropriate to recall some of the origins inthe literature of gender mainstreaming. Theoretically, gender main-streaming draws from feminist analyses of gender inequality, aimingto revise and further develop key feminist concepts and approaches.


440 ◆ Daly

So grounded, gender mainstreaming claims to offer a superior under-standing of the ways in which deeply embedded norms and assump-tions about gender relations pervade all aspects of social and politicalbehavior, sustaining far-reaching gender inequalities in society(Mazey 2000, 336). Gender mainstreaming is especially grounded ina strategy of change, seeking to address gender inequality by focusingeffort on organizational culture, processes, and structures, especiallythose associated with policy-making. The relationship between gen-der mainstreaming and feminist theory is underlined in definitions ofgender mainstreaming provided by those official bodies that havebeen foremost in actively promoting the implementation of theapproach. Thus, the Council of Europe, the UN, and the EU makereference (either explicitly or implicitly) in their definitions to thegoal of gender mainstreaming as not just being about gender equalitybut also being capable of achieving it. The research results on empir-ical practice highlight a number of obstacles to the progress of gendermainstreaming.

One of the most significant results is that in seven out of the eightcountries studied, gender mainstreaming does not depart from ananalysis of gender inequality as a structural problem. Sweden is theexception. The single most widespread motivation for introducinggender mainstreaming is a general wish or compulsion to updateand/or improve gender equality policy. To explain: in a contextwhere gender mainstreaming is seen, and promoted by the EU espe-cially, as the best (practice) approach, the primary incentive forcountries to engage with gender mainstreaming is to “modernize”their gender equality approach and architecture in that direction.Hence, the introduction of gender mainstreaming, rather than emerg-ing out of or being embedded in a philosophy about gender inequal-ity as a structural phenomenon, tends to stem from policy-makingexigencies or current styles or fashions. One could say that main-streaming has won the “style battle.” Countries see it as in theirinterests to update. Often, there is an instrumental reason for this: itis quite common, for example, for the introduction of gender main-streaming to be aimed at satisfying (usually EU) constraints tied tothe allocation of funding. Another motivation for gender main-streaming, albeit less common, is for it to be aimed at more effectiveachievement of policy objectives that are quite distant from genderequality (for example, improvements in productivity). For these rea-sons, gender mainstreaming tends not to be grounded in a discourseabout gender and equality—the debate about the acceptability ofgender inequality in society is one that took place much earlier inmost countries and has not been updated or revisited in a fundamentalway in the service of introducing gender mainstreaming. As a result,



while one can find women and men present in the policy focus, gen-dered social roles and relations tend not to be recognized as part ofthe societal fabric of inequality.

There are two underlying points here. The first is that gendermainstreaming has become part of the accepted wisdom about whatmodern gender equality architecture should look like—it has becomea symbol of modernity. Second, there is the fact that the “symbolic”use of gender mainstreaming has an effect on the objectives adopted.In particular, it serves to shift the orientation of and impetus for policychange away from gender inequality as a policy problem and towardthe modernity of policies. These are not mutually exclusive, but cur-rent practice means, then, that gender mainstreaming can be divorcedfrom overall gender equality objectives, an essential element of gen-der mainstreaming as it is conceived theoretically.

A second obstacle highlighted by the research is the possibility thatgender mainstreaming may not necessarily be gender-focused at all.Let me explain. Many of the initiatives implemented under the rubricof gender mainstreaming draw philosophically from a positive actionapproach (which takes women as its focus). The Belgian StrategicPlan for Equality Affairs, an initiative aimed at building a basis forthe consolidation of gender mainstreaming as the main approach togender equality, is a telling example. Drawing on the principles andmethods of transversal positive action plans, the Belgian StrategicPlan consists of the implementation, on a cross-sectoral basis, of spe-cific measures mostly targeted at women.4 Another example, alongwith the Belgian plan, is the integration of a woman’s, rather than agender, perspective as part of mainstreaming policy in variousregions of Spain. Take the initiative to integrate a woman’s perspec-tive in environmental policy in Andalusia for example: this is donethrough a women-specific program (Women and the Environment[GEODA]), which is not informed by a gender analysis. Given thatthe tradition of gender equality policy in these two countries haslargely favored a positive action approach, these examples suggestone hypothesis about the trajectory of gender equality policy: incountries with a positive action tradition, some gender mainstream-ing principles and techniques can be accommodated in a tradition ofequality policy that has different principles, methods, and institu-tions. Once again, malleability (or perhaps more benignly framed“inclusiveness”) as a characteristic of gender mainstreaming comesto mind.

In sum, the reported research results question both the presenceand uniqueness of the two main elements that have been used tocharacterize gender mainstreaming in comparison with the othergender approaches: (1) that the goal of gender mainstreaming is to


442 ◆ Daly

tackle structures of inequality (rather than discrimination orwomen’s disadvantage), and (2) that, contrary to the other twoapproaches, it incorporates a gender perspective. Policy, it seems, iscarving out new possibilities. In this context, scholarship cannot shyaway from the matter of what is distinctive and particular about gen-der mainstreaming.

Gender Mainstreaming and Change

As well as questions of constitution or problematic, the extent towhich gender mainstreaming is transformative is a critical issue. Asignature appeal of gender mainstreaming is that it promises to bringabout change and transform the status quo. The context of gendermainstreaming is developmental, in that, at the risk of slight exagger-ation, it represents an accumulation of learning over some threedecades about gender inequality and the best policy to address it. Inthe words of Verloo (2001, 3–4), “By reorganising policy processesso that regular policy makers will be obliged and capable to [sic]incorporate a perspective of gender equality in their policies, thisstrategy aims at a fundamental transformation, eliminating genderbiases, and redirecting policies so that they can contribute towardsthe goal of gender equality.”

Let us consider the evidence. For the purpose of identifying poten-tial changes, it is helpful to register that there are at least five differ-ent levels or dimensions at which gender mainstreaming may takeeffect. One is at the level of discourse or rhetoric. In this regard, theEQUAPOL research provides evidence of a clear shift in discoursefrom a focus on women to one focusing on women and men (withthe family often as backdrop, alongside the labor market). However,the extent of the shift is questionable—I am reluctant to characterizethe discourse as being one of gender because in most cases an analy-sis of power relations is lacking. Second, there has been institutionalor structural change in that dedicated gender mainstreaming unitshave been set up in a number of countries. These are often seen astechnical support units and are usually staffed by people who areskilled in gender mainstreaming. Their task is to provide training forpolicy-makers on the techniques and tools of gender mainstreaming.Third, there has been innovation in the tools used to make policy—asoutlined above, gender focused policy analysis, evaluation, and mon-itoring mechanisms have been introduced. Fourth, and as a result ofthe last two types of change, new data has been made available(sometimes this means old data with new disaggregations), and newresearch has been undertaken. Finally, the research identified someinnovation in the way that policy is made. The range of official



actors in the policy process has broadened, especially through theinclusion of those in line ministries or departments or agencies here-tofore not associated with gender. Furthermore, there has been a vis-ible increase in social dialogue through the institutionalization ofconsultation practices, the creation or consolidation of advisory bod-ies representing women’s groups (for example, women’s nationalcouncils), and an increase in government investment with a view toequipping women’s representatives with the necessary skills to par-ticipate in policy-making.

Care needs to be taken in attributing significance to these develop-ments, however. There are two main reasons why they might becharacterized as innovation rather than change. The first is thatprogress has been generally limited, as well as uneven, within andacross countries. Only three of the eight countries in the study—Belgium, Ireland, and Sweden—show evidence that the introductionof mainstreaming has been associated with change. There is evidencefor these countries of some change in the understanding of the ine-quality problematic, as well as the establishment of new policy prac-tices, techniques, or institutions (associated with the specific aim ofintegrating a gender perspective into policy-making across differentdomains). However, two caveats have to be registered about thebroader picture as regards change. First, in no country other thanSweden has there been change across the spectrum, that is, in the dis-courses, structures, processes, and agency of policy within and acrossdomains. Second, there is significant variation among countries interms of the degree of change. In a number of cases, especially Franceand the United Kingdom (at central government level), and to a lesserextent Greece and Spain (the latter also at central government level),gender mainstreaming efforts, while present, are highly fragmented,being confined either to a particular domain or to a specific programwithin a policy domain, and generally disconnected from generalgovernmental policy on gender.

The second reason to be careful is the lack of depth or embedded-ness. There are a number of grounds to be skeptical about gendermainstreaming in this respect. The most profound centers on themeaning of transversalism. As reported, one of the most widespreadinterpretations of mainstreaming is of transversalism. However, notonly is there a selective utilization of different components of gendermainstreaming, but also the transversalism that exists, while it mightextend widely, is not embedded. This is the antithesis of the holisticchange that is at the core of gender mainstreaming as conceptualizedin academic work. Jahan (1995) offers some conceptual assistancehere, in differentiating between policy that is agenda-setting and thatwhich is integrative. The former implies a far-reaching set of changes


444 ◆ Daly

(in policy paradigm), whereas the latter sees gender introduced with-out a significant change in the status quo. The EQUAPOL researchindicates that what is taking place is a form of integration that ischaracterized by some breadth but little depth. In other words, hori-zontalization does not translate into embeddedness across policydomains, institutions, and policies. In contrast, an agenda-settingapproach, according to Jahan (1995), requires change on manyfronts: decision-making structures and processes, articulation ofobjectives, prioritization of strategies, the positioning of genderissues amid competing emerging concerns, and the building a mass ofbase support among both women and men. With little evidence ofthese characteristics, the degree of institutionalization of gendermainstreaming must be adjudged to be low. Better understood ashorizontalization, transversalism, as it is practiced, does not integrategender into the core of policy but tends to add it on as an additionalobjective or consideration that then has to fight for its place amongthe policy priorities.

Embeddedness, of course, can also occur and be expressed inanother way. Drawing on the insights of constructivist analysis, Verloo(2003), among others (such as Hafner-Burton and Pollack 2000), hasfocused on the framing of policy, querying the extent to which gen-der mainstreaming leads to frame extension and frame bridging.Here the purpose and focus are to detect shifts of meaning and inten-tion (in terms, for example, of the analysis of the “problem” of gen-der) and how these are reflected or not in the dominant frame andalso in shifts of agency (in terms of the identity of the actorsinvolved). Although the current research finds that the range ofactors involved in gender-relevant policy-making or policy imple-mentation has broadened somewhat, there is no evidence that theseactors approach the “problem” of gender with an altered mind-set.In any case, in the imagery of Beveridge and Nott (2002), the“expert-bureaucratic” model prevails (in that experts and special-ists continue as the main actors), rather than the “participatory-democratic” model (which would involve a range of individualsand civil society organizations). In addition, though policy-makersmay more readily speak of gender, equality policies in most coun-tries are still overwhelmingly targeted at women. Hence, there is noevidence to suggest that the (vision of the) polity itself has changedor that there has been a reconfiguration of power relations.

These results are somewhat (but only somewhat) counter to thoseof Behning and Serrano Pascual (2001), who argue, on the basis ofan analysis of the impact of gender mainstreaming on national practicesin employment, that most policies represented as gender mainstream-ing are a continuation of previous policies. While there are some



grains of truth in this assessment, the current research suggests thatgender mainstreaming is not just a new label in that (1) there hasbeen an impetus to integrate gender across a wider range of policiesthan heretofore, and (2) some new initiatives (structural and policywise) have been undertaken.

Gender Mainstreaming Reconsidered

The thrust of the research reported throughout this article leads,I believe, to a series of fundamental questions about the nature ofgender mainstreaming. A helpful way of cutting through theundergrowth is to inquire whether there is something inherent inthe conceptualization of gender mainstreaming that fixes the gazeon procedures and processes (and hence inhibits both embedded-ness and the founding of gender mainstreaming measures in a gen-der inequality problematic). The short answer is “yes.” Gendermainstreaming tends to be defined in operational terms. So, accord-ing to the Council of Europe (1998, 13), “gender mainstreaming isthe (re)organisation, improvement, development and evaluation ofpolicy processes, so that a gender equality perspective is incor-porated in all policies at all levels and at all stages, by the actorsnormally involved in policy-making.” It centers, then, on policyprocesses and on reorganizing institutions so that the responsi-bility for gender is generalized widely across the policy spectrumand hierarchy.

But the problems are more profound than technocratization. A sec-ond central question is whether gender mainstreaming has “characterflaws.” I suggest “yes.” One such flaw is that gender mainstreaminghas a fuzzy core. This is associated with a failure to acknowledge anddeal with tensions, if not contradictions, in the concept. Existing workis helpful in clarifying the nature of the tensions involved. Walby(2005b) points out how gender mainstreaming incorporates two dif-ferent frames of reference—one emanating from a gender equalitystance and the other from a mainstreaming stance—and that each pur-sues objectives that may be regarded as mutually inconsistent. That is,the promotion of gender equality and the desire to render mainstreampolicies more effective on their own terms by the inclusion of genderanalysis may be inconsistent. While the former can be regarded as afeminist goal, the latter is typically grounded in a strategy to improvegovernance. Woodward (2001, 14) offers a somewhat different articu-lation of internal tension or contradiction. She identifies gender main-streaming as involving a tension between rational and irrationalelements. The rational elements inhere in the gender mainstreaminginstrumentation that has been developed thus far, while the irrational


446 ◆ Daly

elements draw from feminist theory about gender inequality in organi-zations, which lays emphasis on irrational (that is, subconscious) pro-cesses that lead to oppression. For Woodward this duality opens upthe question of whether a “rational” approach such as gender main-streaming can tackle the structural power relations between the sexes.For the theorization of gender mainstreaming, it poses one fundamen-tal question: whether the two sides are mutually irreconcilable orwhether there is a way in which they can be reconciled. Some feministstake the former view, rejecting gender mainstreaming as a feministstrategy. The Swedish case, however, might be taken as an example ofhow the two stances can be reconciled and harnessed to address struc-tural inequalities in society. There, gender mainstreaming, understoodas an approach to address structural inequalities, is deeply embeddedand widely dispersed as a practice. However, the Swedish case is quiteparticular, if not unique, since the reconciliation of the two “conflict-ing” strands is made possible by the presence of other variables of ahistorical, social, and political cast (not least of which is a wide diffu-sion in society of egalitarian values). Indeed, an important lesson fromthe comparative analysis of gender mainstreaming in implementationis that a theorization of gender mainstreaming that is modeled on theSwedish case alone has significant limitations when used to accountfor gender mainstreaming experiences in countries where one or moreof the social, political, and historical conjunctures are absent.

In the absence of working through these tensions or contradic-tions, the tendency in gender mainstreaming is conservative. This isso in two senses: it becomes centered on techniques and on findingpoints of overlap between the agendas of gender equality and themainstream (Walby, 2005b). So rather than contest or struggle, thereis incorporation. A key underlying issue is the view of the state thatprevails. It is important to note here at the outset that gender main-streaming does have a critique of the state and a reform agenda forthe state. However, rather than treating the state as a site of conflictof interest over gender inequality, the process of introducing gendermainstreaming and of achieving change is represented as quiteconsensual: once policy-makers are “enlightened” and the range ofpolicy actors broadened, then gender inequality will be combated. Tothe extent that there is a problematization of the state in gendermainstreaming theory, it is seen to lie mainly in the scarce or inap-propriate skills and consciousness of political actors. One misses ananalysis of the power interests that are embedded in gender inequal-ity.5 At the present time, it is difficult to see in gender mainstreamingsomething resembling the feminist revisioning of the political “interms of power relations which cut across state, civil society andfamilial realms” (Squires 1999, 32).



There is a second problem, also, in that gender mainstreaming theoryhas not devoted sufficient attention to the relationship between stateand society. Even if actors produce policy that is enlightened, genderinequality might be alleviated by public policy but will not be elimi-nated by it. Why? Because as a social phenomenon gender inequalityhas its roots in society, and policy is not (fully) determinative of soci-ety. The theorization of gender mainstreaming, I suggest, has to focusmore on problematizing the relationship between gender main-streaming and society/societal change. While trumpeted as funda-mentally transformative, it lacks, as yet anyway, a full articulation ofa theory of change. In essence, gender mainstreaming targets publicpolicy reform with different dimensions identified as objects ofchange: policy-making processes, policy actors, public policy. The“change logic” that underlies gender mainstreaming would seem torun as follows: by reorganizing policy-making structures, broadeningthe range of actors involved, changing the mind-set of actors and thecontent and framing of policy, there will come about a change in thenature and process of governance itself. Even if one accepts this logic,it is not clear how change in governance translates into soci(et)alchange. What is the relationship between public policy and socialstructure and organization? These are not trivial points. As regardsthe embedding of gender inequality in society, gender mainstreaming,as it has been developed to date, speaks neither to agents who are notinvolved in the public realm nor to agency across different realms ofsociety. Policy and social institutions/agency tend to be elided. More-over, it is not clear how a value change among policy-makers (whichwill presumably be generated by greater learning) leads to a changein societal values. The vital gaps in theorizing mainstreaming lead meto suggest that the theory lacks a sociological core.

Overview

This article considered the state of gender mainstreaming, in practiceand theory, utilizing the results of a recent cross-national study ofgender mainstreaming in Europe. There is evidence of some gendermainstreaming in all of the eight countries studied. In particular,responsibility for gender policy is being widened among ministries,new tools and techniques (especially gender impact assessment) for pol-icy-making are being applied, and the range of actors involved in gen-der-related policy-making is broadening. Taken at face value, then, itappears that gender mainstreaming is advancing. However, a numberof qualifications have to be registered. First, the research underlinesgender mainstreaming as a diverse set of practices. In addition, the find-ings indicate that other approaches to gender equality policy, rather


448 ◆ Daly

than being caught in a time warp, are still operational and even at thefore in some nations’ gender policy. Equal treatment and positiveaction are therefore subject to ongoing development in relation totheir framing of the gender problematic, their objectives and meth-ods, and the actors and institutions responsible for their implementa-tion. What exists in most countries at the present time is a mix ofpolicies, even if it is frequently represented as gender mainstreaming.Second, gender mainstreaming is something of a porous vessel—itlends itself to a selective utilization of some of its basic principles andtechniques. The most widespread tendency is to focus on tools andprocedures. Relatedly, there is the fact that gender mainstreaming,when it is introduced, tends not to be rooted in an analysis of or setof programs oriented to gender inequality as a structural problem.Expediency, especially in terms of the wish to update the equalityarchitecture and national approach in the light of current “fashions”in policy-making and the pressure to do so in order to secure EUfunding, is the main motor behind most of the gender mainstreamingthat has been initiated in the eight countries studied. Finally, theamount of change generated by introducing gender mainstreaming,either in policy programs or in terms of political agency, is limited.Summing up, the introduction of gender mainstreaming practices inmost countries spells not a change of approach to gender but a moreeffective way of delivering an established equality policy that is ori-ented toward women.

All of this serves to focus the lens on the nature of gender main-streaming and whether it has been satisfactorily theorized and elabo-rated. The results serve to unpick some of the fundamentals assumedto date by gender mainstreaming theory. In effect, the cases studiedare, apart from Sweden, all “hybrid” cases of gender mainstreaming.As it stands, the theoretical literature is not able to account for thevariation that exists. To the extent that it has responded, it has doneso by emphasizing the contingent nature of mainstreaming. I suggestthat scholars need to go beyond contingent definitions because themalleability of gender mainstreaming as a concept, among otherthings, facilitates a break between the introduction of gender main-streaming and addressing gender as structural inequality. In otherwords, gender mainstreaming is introduced in the name of updatingexisting policy approaches to women rather than as the author of atransformative vision that recognizes gender as a societally embed-ded and structural problem. This is a decisive rupture and representsa real challenge for existing theory and practice. The double articula-tion of gender mainstreaming—as a philosophy or frame of analysisand as a set of techniques of policy praxis—deserves to be high-lighted in this context.



As things stand now, it is indisputable that we lack a weighty theorythat illuminates and explains the diversity of gender mainstreamingexperience across Europe. One of the main flaws of existing theory—and a possible starting point for further work—is that it is insuffi-ciently focused on the relationship between gender mainstreamingand soci(et)al change. There is, then, a need to specify further whatthe core of the approach is in sociological terms. Gender main-streaming is rife with tensions, especially those tensions between thegoals of integrating gender into the mainstream and of changing themainstream. One of the most important questions that has to be(re)visited is how gender mainstreaming as theory conceives of andrelates to gender inequality as a societal phenomenon. In this regard,this article has suggested that the relationships between state (espe-cially in terms of state actors and public policy) and society and how(and indeed if) they are configured for policy purposes need furtherelaboration. Scholarship must also go beyond the fuzzy and techno-cratic nature of gender mainstreaming and work toward elaboratingthe concept and approach as part of a coherent intellectual and policyendeavor.

NOTES

1. Along with Panteion University in Athens, which acted as the coordi-nator, the partner institutions were the Law University of Lithuania,Queen’s University, Belfast, the Free University of Brussels, and Umea Uni-versity in Sweden. I am very grateful to the partners for providing the empir-ical material on which this article is based. Sara Clavero was the researcheron the Queen’s University part of the project, and I would like to acknowl-edge my debt to her for help with many of the ideas developed in this article.

2. The full results and different reports of the project are available on thefollowing Web site: http://www.equapol.gr.

3. However, note that in Lithuania the mix does not include gendermainstreaming.

4. However, it should be noted that the plan represents a step beyondtransversal plans insofar as it also incorporates gender mainstreaming prin-ciples and techniques, such as the setting up of a gender mainstreaming ded-icated unit staffed by experts, the development of gender impact assessmenttools and monitoring techniques, and the idea of tackling gender-biasedinstitutional practices as a policy goal.

5. See Kantola and Dahl (2005) for a useful discussion and critique offeminist theorizing of the state.

REFERENCES

Behning, Ute, and Amparo Serrano Pascual. eds. 2001. Gender Mainstream-ing in the European Employment Strategy. Brussels: ETUI.


450 ◆ Daly

Beveridge, Fiona, and Sue Nott. 2002. “Mainstreaming: A Case for Opti-mism and Cynicism.” Feminist Legal Studies 10:299–311.

Booth, Christine, and Cinnamon Bennett. 2002. “Gender Mainstreaming inthe European Union: Towards a New Conception and Practice of EqualOpportunities?” European Journal of Women’s Studies 9 (4): 430–46.

Council of Europe. 1998. Gender Mainstreaming: Conceptual Framework,Methodology and Presentation of Good Practices: Final Report of Activitiesof the Group of Specialists on Mainstreaming. Strasbourg: Council ofEurope. Available at http://www.humanrights.coe.int (accessed 3 October2005).

———. 2000. Gender Mainstreaming: Practice and Prospects. Strasbourg:Council of Europe.

Hafner-Burton, Emilie, and Mark A. Pollack. 2000. “Mainstreaming Genderin the European Union.” Journal of European Public Policy 7 (3): 432–56.

Kantola, Johanna, and Hanne Marlene Dahl. 2005. “Gender and the State:From Differences between to Differences within.” International FeministJournal of Politics 7 (1): 49–70.

Mackay, Fiona, and Kay Bilton. 2003. Learning from Experience: Lessons inMainstreaming Equal Opportunities. Edinburgh: Governance of ScotlandForum, University of Edinburgh. Available at http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library5/social/lfel.pdf (accessed 3 October 2005).

Mazey, Sonia. 2000. “Introduction: Integrating Gender—Intellectual and ‘RealWorld’ Mainstreaming.” Journal of European Public Policy 7 (3): 333–45.

Rees, Teresa. 1998. Mainstreaming Equality in the European Union: Educa-tion, Training and Labour Market Policies. London: Routledge.

Rubery, Jill, and Collette Fagan. 2000. Gender Impact Assessment and Euro-pean Employment Strategy. Manchester, U.K.: EWER/UMIST.

Squires, Judith. 1999. Gender in Political Theory. Cambridge, U.K.: PolityPress.

———. 2005. “Is Gender Mainstreaming Transformative? TheorizingMainstreaming in the Context of Diversity and Deliberation.” Social Pol-itics 12 (3).

Verloo, Mieke. 2001. “Another Velvet Revolution? Gender Mainstreamingand the Politics of Implementation.” IWM Working Paper no. 5. Vienna:IWM.

———. 2003. “Reflections on the concept and practice of the Council ofEurope approach to gender mainstreaming.” Paper presented to ESRCGender Mainstreaming Seminar, University of Leeds, UK.

Walby, Sylvia. 2005a. “Introduction: Comparative Gender Mainstreamingin a Global Era.” International Feminist Journal of Politics 7 (4): 453–71.

———. 2005b. “Gender Mainstreaming: Productive Tensions in Theoryand Practice.” Social Politics 12 (3).

Woodward, Alison. 2001. “Gender Mainstreaming in European Policy:Innovation or Deception.” Discussion Paper. Berlin: WZB.

Yeandle, Sue, Christine Booth, and Cinnamon Bennett. 1998. “Criteria forSuccess of a Mainstreaming Approach to Gender Equality.” CRESR researchreport, funded under the Fourth Community Action Programme forEqual Opportunities for Women and Men (1996–2000).


This article was downloaded by: [University of Canberra]On: 20 February 2012, At: 19:00Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: MortimerHouse, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Gender & DevelopmentPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cgde20

Is there life after gender mainstreaming?Aruna Rao & David Kelleher

Available online: 01 Jul 2010

To cite this article: Aruna Rao & David Kelleher (2005): Is there life after gender mainstreaming?, Gender & Development,13:2, 57-69

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13552070512331332287

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form toanyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions,claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cgde20

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13552070512331332287

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

In the last decade, efforts to make thedevelopment ‘mainstream’ work forwomen have resulted in impressive gains

as well as staggering failures. In the wake of Beijing Plus Ten,1 numerous reviewsd o c u m e nt the strategic partnerships forgedbetween the women’s movement and policyreformers in the process of putting equityand women’s rights at the heart of develop-ment debates (UNRISD 2005; MillenniumProject Gender Task Force on Education andGender Equality 2005). Women have madestriking gains in getting elected to local andnational governance bodies, and enteringpublic institutions; girls’ access to primaryeducation has improved sharply; andwomen are entering the labour force inincreasing numbers.

Under the banner of gender main-streaming in institutional practice, there arenumerous examples of positive outcomesfor women’s lives, beyond policy measures.

They include bringing women to thediscussion table during the Burundi peaceprocess; strengthening or establishing organi-sations and networks to promote genderequality in mainstream agencies; main-streaming gender issues into law reformprocesses in Botswana (including nationalpolicy regarding HIV/AIDS); gaininggreater visibility for women’s work throughthe census in Nepal, India, and Pakistan; and protecting widows and orphans fromdispossession on the death of the male‘owner’, by supporting primary-justicemediation processes in Malawi. In Rwanda,where women were systematically rapedand murdered during the civil war, womenhave gained 49 per cent of the seats inparliament and formed local women’scouncils elected solely by women.

The problem is that these examples arenot the norm. Practices that successfullypromote women’s empowerment and gender

57

Is there life after gendermainstreaming? Aruna Rao and David Kelleher

In the world of feminist activism, the time is ripe for reflection and review. We need to ask why changeis not happening, what works, and what is next. This article points to the fact that while women havemade many gains in the last decade, policies that successfully promote women’s empowerment andgender equality are not institutionalised in the day-to-day routines of State, nor in internationaldevelopment agencies. We argue for changes which re-delineate who does what, what counts, who getswhat, and who decides. We also argue for changes in the institutions that mediate resources, andwomen’s access, voice, and influence. We outline key challenges, as well as ways to envision change a n dstrengthen the capacity of State and development organisations to deliver better on women’s rights.

Gender and Development Vol. 13, No. 2, July 2005

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

anbe

rra]

at 1

9:00

20

Febr

uary

201

2

equality are not institutionalised into theday-to-day routines of State and inter-national development agencies.

More important are the myriad,insidious ways in which the mainstreamresists women’s perspectives and women’srights. Economic orthodoxy promotingunmanaged, export-led growth throughcompetitive market capitalism, free trade,and fiscal austerity — including the drasticreduction of government social spending —has hurt poor women most (Elson 2005).Governance reforms have not forced Statesto address their accountability failures whenit comes to women’s access to resources andservices. For the most part, institutionalreform still means fiscal and administrativereforms rather than making systems workbetter for the poor, including women.

In South Africa, where Gender at Work2

has organised numerous consultations overthe past three years, the unease generated bythe gap between promise and reality ispalpable. Feminist activists speak of thefundamental difficulty in shifting theparadigm of patriarchy within which theyoperate, and the resultant high fall-out andburn-out. They tell us that they have onlymanaged to chip away at how power isexercised — there is no major shift here.They point to the enormous contradictionsthey see between good gender equity policiesand high numbers of women in positions ofpower, and some of the highest levels ofviolence against women in the world. InIndia (where Gender at Work is also active)social justice activists point to the rise in thepower of the State and right-wing politics,and an accompanying decrease in commit-ment to human rights principles.

At the level of formal institutions,whether they are trade unions, NGOs,women’s organisations, community-basedorganisations, State bureaucracies, or corporate structures, not much has changedeither. Organisational structures tend toreinforce the power of a few, who, for themost part, are unwilling to give up theprivileges of power. Even when power is

shared, decision making remains in thehands of a small number of senior peoplewho, in our experience, are less and lessinterested in gender equality. Moreover,management discourse dominates institu-tional life. The strength of traditionalmanagement theory, and organisationaldevelopment thinking and practice, is tofocus on efficiency and results. Its weakness,particularly as applied to social-changeorganisations in many Southern contexts, isthat it does not explicitly deal with powerdynamics or cultural change. Such theory,therefore, cannot help organisations todevelop strategic objectives derived from anuanced analysis of relational and materialhierarchies, or bring about outcomes thatchange those inequalities.

In the world of feminist activism, it istime to take stock and ask why change is nothappening, what works, and what does notwork. This rethink is happening at a time of unprecedented militarisation globallywhich has demoted and marginalised workon women’s rights. At the same time we areseeing an equally unprecedented mobil-isation of citizens against war, and againstthe negative effects of globalisation, as wellas f o r social justice. Campaigns such as theGlobal Call for Action Against Poverty(GCAP), led by citizen action groups, arefocusing attention on accountability ofglobal institutions, and new terms of tradeand development. But by and large, theseglobal movements and their groundingnotions of citizenship and accountability aregender-blind.

Moreover, while ‘citizens’ are mobil-ising, the infrastructure and resources forsupporting women’s activism to challengegender power relations in the home,communities, organisations, markets, andthe State are being dismantled. The archi-tecture of organisational structure, process,policy, and funding to support women’sempowerment and gender equality is beingeroded also at international and nationallevels. At the same time, new aid modalitiessuch as budgetary supports and Sector Wide

Gender and Development58

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

anbe

rra]

at 1

9:00

20

Febr

uary

201

2

Is there life after gender mainstreaming? 59

Approaches (SWAPs) may make it morepossible to cheat on gender equality goals.Gender concerns are falling through thecracks. Institutional change, capacity building,political partnerships, and women’sorganising are being marginalised in whatis, increasingly, a bean-counting approach todevelopment deliverables.

Gender mainstreaming —wedged between a rock andhard place?Gender mainstreaming is grounded infeminist theoretical frameworks, and itsappeal to ‘femocrats’ and to gender activistswas its promise of transformation. Butgender mainstreaming has been caughtbetween a rock and a hard place. At a macrolevel, it is operating in a policy environmentwhich is increasingly hostile towards justiceand equity, and which is further feminisingpoverty. At a meso level of organisations,gender mainstreaming has become a randomcollection of diverse strategies and activities,all ostensibly concerned with movingforward a gender equality agenda, but oftennot working in ways we would have hoped.At this level there is still active resistance tothe value of women’s rights and genderequality goals. Furthermore, where alliesexist, their hands are tied by policypriorities, poor infrastructure, and decreasedfunding levels. Finally, at a micro level, first-generation development objectives areenshrined in the Millennium DevelopmentGoals (MDGs). While the MDGs do incor-porate measurable indicators for women’sempowerment, there are a number ofdifficulties. First, they narrow the agendadangerously (by not including violenceagainst women, for example); second, many governments have not mainstreamedgender equality into the MDGs (other thanthe one focused on gender equality); finally, focusing on MDGs has pre-emptedsupport for women’s organisations andwomen’s organising — the vanguard of thepolitical fight.

The need for political strategising atmultiple levels, and deeper, institutionalchange, highlights the inadequacy ofprevious strategies. But it is unclear what thenew solutions are. Most feminist activistsand analysts acknowledge the need for newapproaches that address the discriminationbrought about by macro-economic policiesin employment, wages, and food security.New approaches must also support welfareservices that structure opportunities forwomen, that hold systems accountable, andthat allow for learning on the part of womenand men. Those approaches are beingformulated. They range from calls for a newsocial contract (Sen 2004), to the creation ofinnovatively managed market approaches(Elson 2005); and from calls for thetransformation of institutions and organi-sations (Goetz and Hassim 2003; Rao andKelleher 2002; Millennium Project GenderTask Force on Education and GenderEquality 2005), to a re-energised and re-politicised women’s movement. Allapproaches to bringing about genderequality must have a political component.This is because gender relations exist withina force field of power relations, and power isused to maintain existing privilege. In theremainder of this article we will elaborate onthe dimensions of institutional change.

What are we trying tochange? Our understanding of how to work towardsgender equality is that we need to changeinequitable social systems and institutions.Generally, people now speak of ‘institu-tional change’ as the requirement foraddressing the root causes of genderinequality. This means changing the rules ofthe game. These are the stated and unstatedrules that determine who gets what, whodoes what, and who decides (Goetz 1997;North 1990; Rao and Kelleher 2002). Theserules can be formal, such as constitutions,laws, policies, and school curricula; orinformal, such as cultural arrangements and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

anbe

rra]

at 1

9:00

20

Febr

uary

201

2

norms regarding who is responsible forhousehold chores, who goes to the market,who decides on the education of children, orwho is expected to speak at a village councilmeeting. It also means changing organi-sations which, in their programmes,policies, structures, and ways of working,discriminate against women or othermarginalised groups.

Different organisations have focused onone or other of the four areas listed below.Some organisations, for example, work onlegal and policy change, while others focuson changing material conditions. In order tobring about gender equality, change mustoccur both at the personal level and at thesocial level. It must occur in formal and

informal relations. This gives us thefollowing four clusters which impact oneach other:• women’s and men’s individual

consciousness (knowledge, skills,political consciousness, commitment);

• women’s objective condition (rights andresources, access to health services andsafety, opportunities for a voice);

• informal norms, such as inequitableideologies, and cultural and religiouspractices;

• formal institutions, such as laws andpolicies.


Figure 1: What are we trying to change?

Women’s and men’s

consciousness

Women’saccess toresources

Informal cultural norms and

exclusionary practices

Formal institutions: laws, policies,etc.

Individual change

Systemic change

FormalInformal

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

anbe

rra]

at 1

9:00

20

Febr

uary

201

2

Often we assume that change at one levelwill lead to change at the others. For example,women who have started and maintainedmicro businesses often report being moreself-confident. However, we also know, forexample, that it is possible to have materialresources but no influence; and that it ispossible to be ‘economically empowered’but not free from violence. Sustainablechange requires i n s t i t u t i o n a l change, whichinvolves the clusters of informal norms andformal institutions at the bottom of thediagram. But how does institutional changehappen? And most importantly, what is therole of development organisations in thatchange process? The organisations thatsupport those interventions also exist in thesame force field of power. This means thatthey will require capacities not only to w a n tto intervene in a significant way, but also tobe able to intervene. Typically, it will requirean ongoing change process to build andmaintain these capacities.

Figure 1 may be helpful in the followingways. First, in an abbreviated way, it showsthe whole universe of changes that might becontemplated to enhance gender equality.This can serve as an outline to documenthow these clusters appear in a particularcontext. Second, it allows change agents tomake strategic choices as to where and howto intervene. Finally, it points to the fact thatchanges in resources, capacity, and know-ledge are necessary, but not sufficient, forsustainable change. Ultimately, changes offormal and particularly informal institutionsare required.3

What are some of the keychallenges of institutionalchange?As we reflect on lessons from experience,and contemplate where we go from here, wesee four key challenges.

Challenges of institutional change on thegroundProgramme and project evaluations point tothe difficulty of moving from individualchange and learning to social change. Theydescribe the problem of socio-culturalacceptance of ideas of gender equality, thelack of capacity of implementing partners,and the difficulties of attitudinal andbehavioural changes at the individual andinstitutional levels.

Challenges of clarityA number of analysts have recently pointedout how a lack of clarity endangers imple-mentation of gender mainstreamingstrategies (Hannan 2003; Subrahmanian2004). However, the most pernicious mis-understanding is the separation of gendermainstreaming from women’s empower-ment work. In the name of mainstreamingresources are being withdrawn from projectsfocused on women’s empowerment.Although much work needs to be done withboth men and women, we cannot reducecommitment to programming that focuseson women, because that is where crucialprogress towards gender equality is beingmade.

Challenges of organisational changeThe lack of senior-management support;lack of accountability; lack of knowledgeand skills among senior staff on genderissues; marginalised, under-qualified, andunder-resourced theme groups and specialistsare all problems present in organisationsmandated to mainstream gender concerns indevelopment.

Challenges of measurementAt one level, there are ongoing difficulties in obtaining sex-disaggregated data. Atanother level, there is a lack of trackingmechanisms for the relative contributionsthat a particular project might make todifferent goals. For example, in a sanitationproject, how much of the project budget canbe said to be responding to the needs of


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

anbe

rra]

at 1

9:00

20

Febr

uary

201

2


women? Answering this would require asocial-impact analysis at the design stage ofthe project, and a sophisticated trackingmechanism. At a deeper level, however, isthe problem of measuring the intangiblesthat are at the root of social change of anysort. This is the change in consciousness ofwomen and men, the change in communitynorms, or the change in attitudes.Incremental changes must be perceived andunderstood as valued results, knowing thatgender equality is a long-term goal.

Beyond mainstreaming toinstitutional transformation If there is to be life after mainstreaming, ourexperience teaches us that it will requiretransformation at the institutional level. Wemust come to ideas like empowerment,citizenship, and rights with new eyes and amore overtly political analysis.

Transformation of gender relationsrequires access to, and control over, materialand symbolic resources. It also requireschanges in deep-seated values andrelationships that are held in place by powerand privilege. Transformation is, funda-mentally, a political and personal process.Sen (1999) says that institutions limit orenhance poor people’s right to freedom,freedom of choice, and action. Without acritical understanding of how institutionsneed to change to allow different socialgroups to secure their entitlements andaccess opportunities for socio-economicmobility, development goals cannot beachieved. From the perspective of poorpeople, institutions are in crisis and astrategy of change must: ‘(i) start with thepoor people’s realities; (ii) invest inorganisational capacity of the poor; (iii)change social norms; and (iv) supportdevelopment entrepreneurs’ (Narayan 1999,223).

Feminist thinking about empowermentdirectly engages with resources, power,ideology, and institutions (Batliwala 1996).

This implies a symbiotic relationshipbetween power and ideology, which gainsexpression and perpetuation throughstructures of all kinds — judicial, economic,social, and political. Empowerment in thisframework therefore means a trans-formation in power relations. S p e c i f i c a l l y ,it means control over resources (physical,human, intellectual, intangible); control overideology (beliefs, values, attitudes); andchanges in the institutions and structuresthat support unequal power relations.

Notions of citizenship, like institutions,are inextricably bound up with relations ofpower. ‘Like power relations, citizenshiprights are not fixed, but are objects ofstruggle to be defended, reinterpreted andextended’ (Meer 2004, 32). The negotiation isaround societal positions that discriminateagainst women, and gender roles (includingthe public/private divide that acts to containwomen and their agency primarily withinthe private sphere, while opening men’sagency to the public sphere). It is also aroundunequal power formed on the basis of class,caste, ethnicity, and other key markers ofidentity. Not only that: the negotiation is alsoa challenge to ideas that frame how we seethe world and how we act.

Similarly, claiming rights is a politicalprocess, played out as struggles between the interests, power, and knowledge ofdifferently positioned actors. A rights-basedapproach to development argues that allpeople are entitled to universal humanrights, and development should be orientedto meeting those rights. A rights perspectivepoliticises needs (Ferguson 1999). While aneeds-based approach identifies theresource requirements of particular groups,a rights-based approach provides the meansof strengthening people’s claims to thoseresources. The challenge of the rights-basedapproach is ‘in maintaining equal emphasison the need to build both citizens’capabilities to articulate rights a n d t h ecapabilities of political-economic institutionsto respond and be held to account’ (Jones

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

anbe

rra]

at 1

9:00

20

Febr

uary

201

2

and Gaventa 2002, 26). For individuals andgroups, demanding accountability requiresa sense that they have a right to do so(claiming that political space), andmechanisms through which their demandscan be made and responded to. On the otherside, accountability (according to the UNDPHuman Development Report 2000) is judgedby whether appropriate policies have beenimplemented and progress achieved.

Transformation: the role ofdevelopment agenciesWe think that transformative goals existuneasily within large development organi-sations, as they are likely to be overcome bytechnical considerations more amenable toadministrative practice. The key questionsare: given the uneasy relationship betweentransformation and large organisations,

how can we strengthen the capacity of Stateand development bureaucracies to deliveron their operational mandates? And howcan we shift organisational practice to focusbetter on equity and exclusion?

In order to strengthen the project oftransformation, we need to disaggregate therange of strategies and activities that aredumped in the gender mainstreaming bag(such as policy reform, advocacy, capacitybuilding, analytical frameworks, programmedevelopment, monitoring systems) andanalyse their gains and their failures(Subrahmanian 2004). This should also helpus to think strategically about what theseinstitutions are well placed to do. At thesame time, measurement systems need to bedeveloped that can capture the full range ofgender equality outcomes, both tangible andintangible.


Figure 2: Dynamics between top–down and bottom–up forces of change

Social and public accountability

- Economic and political opportunities- Equity and inclusion- Decentralisation of resources- Transparency and governance

Informalpressures- Ideology

and culture- Unequal power

relations

Formal pressures- Leadership

and vision- Gender equality

on the agenda- Inclusive

structures- Effectiveness- Accountability

Interaction between institutions,voice, processes, structures

Social change

Mobilisation and voice- Rights and choice - Capabilities, assets, resources

Empowerment

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

anbe

rra]

at 1

9:00

20

Febr

uary

201

2

Our change strategies should envisioni n s t i t u t i o n a l change. This does not meanreducing programmes such as those focusedon education or women’s entrepreneurship.It means seeing these not as ends inthemselves, but as means to equality.Institutional change requires politicalactivity to translate education or improvedhealth care into equality. One important ideais that of working on both demand andsupply sides of the institutional changeequation. By the supply side, we meanshifting opportunity structures t o w a r d sequality for women; changing incentivesand capacity in global, State, and communityagencies to respond to women. This includesdelivering on services and on rights. On thedemand side, we mean strengtheningwomen’s awareness of their own agency,voice, and mobilisation; their influence overinstitutions; and their ability to hold them toaccount.

Organisational deepstructure Organisational change needs to go farbeyond policy adoption and large-scaleprocessing of staff through gender trainingworkshops. It is clear that, like any othercomplex skill, the evolution of knowledgeand values (particularly for men) is a longprocess, requiring practice. Gender themegroups and specialists need to be betterresourced, but more importantly, they needto be part of decision making. Even whensenior managers agree that gender isimportant, gender equality still has todisplace other important values in decisionmaking. Only by ensuring a strong voice forgender equality advocates in decisionmaking will gender concerns be representedin the day-to-day discussion of competingneeds and values that are at the heart ofdevelopment work. Numerous analystshave emphasised the importance of strongleadership and accountability structures,including performance appraisal and better

monitoring. While we would agree thatthese are needed, 30 years of research andpractice in the private sector shows thatthese ‘command and control’ strategies arenot enough for significant organisationalchange.

In our work, we have described the ‘deepstructure’ of organisations. Like the uncon-scious mind of individuals, this is largelyunexamined, but constrains some behaviourand makes other behaviour more likely (Rao et al. 1999). The deep structure is thecollection of taken-for-granted values, andways of thinking and working, that underliedecision making and action. (See Figure 3.)Power hides the fact that organisations are gendered at very deep levels. Morespecifically, women are prevented fromchallenging institutions by four inter-relatedfactors:• political access: there are neither systems

nor actors who can put women’sperspectives and interests on the agenda;

• accountability systems: organisationalresources are steered towardsquantitative targets that are often onlydistantly related to institutional changefor gender equality;

• cultural systems: the work/familydivide perpetuated by mostorganisations prevents women frombeing full participants in thoseorganisations, as women continue tobear the responsibility for the care ofchildren and old people;

• cognitive structures: work itself is seenmostly within existing, gender-biasednorms and understandings.

It should not come as a surprise to learn thatthe deep structure of most organisations isprofoundly gender biased, and acts as abrake on work for gender equality. Forexample, one aspect of the deep structure isthe separation between work and family. As Joan Acker pointed out, a key assumptionin large organisations is that work iscompletely separate from the rest of life, and


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

anbe

rra]

at 1

9:00

20

Febr

uary

201

2

the organisation has first claim on theworker. From this follows the idea of the‘ideal worker’, dedicated to the organi-sation, unhampered by familial demands,and… m a l e (Acker 1990). Another aspect ofthe deep structure is the image of heroicindividualism. As organisations wereoriginally peopled by men, they are, notsurprisingly, designed and maintained inways that express men’s identity. Heroicindividualism can lead to a focus on winning,and noticeable achievement. This contrastswith the largely process-oriented, and some-times long-term, business of unders t a n d i n ggender relations in a particular context, andacting for equality. In addition, givenstereotypical gender roles, heroes tend to bemen, further contributing to the idea of menas the ideal workers and women as ‘other’.

Generating power tochange organisationsWe believe that there is a web of five spheresin which power can be generated to move anorganisation towards transformation.4 T h e s efive spheres are:• politics;• organisational politics;

• institutional culture;

• organisational process;• programmatic interventions.


Figure 3: The iceberg of organisational structure

Organisational deep structure

Formal rules

Cognitive systems

Politicalaccess

Culturalsystems

Accountabilitysystems

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

anbe

rra]

at 1

9:00

20

Febr

uary

201

2

The political sphere This is based on the assumption that becausethey live within gendered societies, feworganisations will devote the time, energy,and resources to effective gender equalitywork unless pressured to do so. But is there awomen’s constituency that is exertingsufficient pressure for gender equality to benoticed by the organisation as an issuerequiring attention? In some cases donors orboards of directors have been the source ofsome pressure, but local, political pressurehas more potential for holding organisationsaccountable. The key skills required areorganisation and advocacy. The pressuregenerated by this sphere may have manyresults, but they are dependent on work inthe other spheres.

Organisational politics This refers to the day-to-day bargaining thatgoes on between bureaucratic leaders asthey struggle to make their particular viewsa reality. This sphere is about access ofgender advocates to power, their bargainingability, and skill in the use of power. Poweris built from position, coalitions, clarity ofanalysis and purpose, and assets such asaccess to senior levels, and the ability toprovide valued goods (information, tech-nical expertise, material resources). Thestrong voice of an outside constituency is atremendous asset, but far from all that isneeded for a bureaucratic player. Theoutcome of bureaucratic ‘victories’ may bestronger policy, or increased resources, oreven the evolution of an alternativeorganisational culture.

Institutional culture Institutional culture is that collection ofvalues, history, and ways of doing thingsthat form the unstated rules of the game inan organisation. Most importantly, culturedefines what is valued as being trulyimportant in the organisation (often at oddswith official mission statements). Thissphere is important because of its capacity tomake things happen as well as to block

them. Another way to describe culture is asorganisational ideology: ‘Ideology is acomplex structure of beliefs, values,attitudes, and ways of perceiving andanalyzing social reality — virtually, ways ofthinking and perceiving’ (Batliwala 1996, 2).

Culture then, can be a powerful ally inmaking work on gender equality a valuedpart of the organisation’s work: the normal,the reasonable, ‘just good development’(Rao et al. 1999). Similarly, culture canexclude — making the organisation difficultfor women — and force a focus on ‘harder’,more ‘real’, outcomes (such as infrastructureprojects). Cultures are generally changed bythe influence of leaders, and by theunderstanding of others that the newdirections are valuable.

Organisational process This is the vehicle that turns the intangiblesof bureaucratic politics, organisationalculture, and political pressure into organi-sational action. This happens throughprogrammes, policies, and services. Thequestion is whether there are sufficientresources, and sufficient skilled andknowledgeable people, to lead the process oflearning and change. Ultimately, knowledgemust be spread through the organisation,and gender equality must become part of theorganisational skill set, along with otheraspects of development. If resources andexpertise are the grease of organisationalprocess, then approval mechanisms thatrequire gender analyses are the drivers. For example, some development agenciesrequire a gender analysis and strategy as acomponent of all projects. Finally, becausegender equality has never been achieved,organisational learning needs to be seen as akey capacity. This leads us to work on theground.

Programmatic interventions These constitute the last (and first) sphere ofpower. It is here that the work of the otherspheres is validated. It is also here that theorganisation delivers value or not. In the


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

anbe

rra]

at 1

9:00

20

Febr

uary

201

2

area of gender equality, what is of value isstill contested. What used to be thought of asgood practice is now challenged asinsufficient. What this means is that thissphere must be energised by appliedresearch, and by the development of newmethodologies that can make a difference.These methodologies must also capture theattention and support of other parts of theorganisation, as well as its partners.

Figure 4 shows some of the relationshipsbetween these spheres of power.

Even when the focus is at this level,however, we have reservations regardingthe usefulness of organisational changestrategies for making large organisationsmore interested in working towards genderequality. These strategies are helpful whenmanagers feel strong and continued pressure

to change. But in many cases, in large multi-lateral organisations, the pressure for workon gender equality is intermittent andmuted. The difficulty with governmentalsystems is similar: seldom is there significantpressure to take gender equality seriously,and many government officials are in anycase isolated from the pressure.

Building knowledge fortransformation and a‘politics of solidarity’In this article, we have argued that life aftermainstreaming must be focused oninstitutional transformation. This envisionschanges not only in material conditions ofwomen, but also change in the formal and


Figure 4: The organisational likelihood of promoting gender equality

INSTITUTIONAL CULTUREIs there a culture of

openness and dialogue?

PROGRAMMATIC INTERVENTION

Requires applied research,continuous learning and

attention to power dynamics

ORGANISATIONALPROCESS• Policy

• Procedure• Knowledgeable people

• Women in senior positionsPRESSURE

Women’s constituency (inside andoutside), senior leaders, donors,

accountability structures andincentives

ORGANISATIONALPOLITICSRequires

• Access to power• Clarity of analysis• Skilled negotiation

• Alliances• Networks

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

anbe

rra]

at 1

9:00

20

Febr

uary

201

2

social structures which maintain inequality.Organisations must also be transformed, sothat women’s empowerment and genderequality are firmly on the agenda, and aresupported by skilled, politically influentialadvocates. None of this will happen withoutthe simultaneous creation of enablingenvironments (supply), and the mobilis-ation of women’s groups for rights andaccess to power and resources (demand).

This vision is not the reality we now face.Our experience to date is telling us that thereis a frightening lack of knowledge withwhich to accomplish the institutionalchanges we need. Parts of this knowledge doexist in the work of organisations in differentparts of the world. We need to bring thesepieces together, and forge a new set ofunderstandings, which can guide our workbeyond mainstreaming.

Finally, in these times of political andeconomic conservatism, gender advocateswithin development organisations, andfeminists working in all kinds of spaces,need to come together to build what somehave called ‘a politics of solidarity’.5 This isneeded to infuse our work with vision andenergy. A politics of solidarity can help us toassess strategically how to advance thistransforming agenda, particularly whendifferent political and institutional arenasare not working in synergy with ourunderstanding of social change.

Aruna Rao is Co-Director of Gender at Work.She is a gender and institutional change expert,with over 25 years’ experience of addressinggender issues in a variety of developmentorganisations, primarily in Asia. She currentlyalso serves as Chair of the Board of Directors ofWorld Alliance for Citizen Participation(CIVICUS), and served as President of theAssociation for Women’s Rights in Development(AWID) from 1998 to 2001. She holds a Ph.D. inEducational Administration from ColumbiaUniversity, New York.

David Kelleher is Co-Director of Gender atWork. For more than 30 years, he has workedwith non-government and public organisations,helping them build their capacity to further theirsocial mandates. For the last few years he hasbeen involved in a number of gender andorganisational change projects. He has been aFellow at the Simmons Institute for Leadershipand Change in Boston. He has also been amember of the board of Directors of AWID, and iscurrently the Afghanistan, Pakistan, andBangladesh Co-ordinator for AmnestyInternational (Canada).

Gender at Work (www.genderatwork.org) existsto build knowledge and capacity on strategicchange for women’s empowerment, genderequality, and social inclusion. It was created inJune 2001 by AWID, Women’s LearningPartnership (WLP), CIVICUS, and UnitedNations Fund for Women (UNIFEM). It workswith development organisations and focuses onthe links between organisations, gender equality,and institutional change.

Notes1 Beijing Plus Ten is the UN-led ten-year

review of the implementation of theBeijing Platform for Action, adopted bythe Fourth World Conference on Womenheld in Beijing in 1995.

2 Gender at Work is a knowledge andcapacity building organisation focusingon the links between gender equality,organisations, and institutional change.Gender at Work works with develop-ment and human rights practitioners,researchers, and policy makers.

3 This framework is adapted from thework of Ken Wilber.

4 This framework owes much to all theprevious work in this field, butparticularly to Graham Allison (1969)and Caren Levy (1996).

5 See for example Deniz Kandiyoti (2004).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

anbe

rra]

at 1

9:00

20

Febr

uary

201

2

ReferencesAcker, J. (1990) ‘Hierarchies, jobs and

bodies: a theory of gendered organisa-tions’, Gender and Society, 5: 390-407

Allison, G. (1969) ‘Conceptual models andthe Cuban missile crisis’, A m e r i c a nPolitical Science Review, 63(3): 689-718

Batliwala, S. (1996) ‘Defining Women’sEmpowerment: A Conceptual Frame-work’, in Education for Women’sE m p o w e r m e n t, New Delhi: Asia SouthPacific Bureau of Adult Education

Elson, D. (2005) ‘Section 1: Macro-economics, well being and genderequality’, presentation at a panelorganised by UNRISD at The FordFoundation, New York in March 2004, tolaunch the UNRISD publication G e n d e rEquality: Striving for Justice in an UnequalWorld, 2005

Ferguson, C. (1999) Global Social PolicyPrinciples: Human Rights and Social Justice,London: DFID

Goetz, A. (1992) ‘Gender and Admin-istration’, IDS Bulletin , 23, Brighton:Institute of Development Studies

Goetz, A. (1997) Getting Institutions Right forWomen in Development, London: ZedBooks

Goetz, A. and S. Hassim (2003) No Shortcutsto Power: African Women in Politics andPolicy Making, London: Zed Books

Hannan, C. (2003) ‘Gender Mainstreaming:Some Experience from the UnitedNations’, paper presented at a conferenceon Gender Mainstreaming — A WayTowards Equality, Berne, 20 June 2003

Jones, E. and J. Gaventa (2002) ‘Concepts ofCitizenship: A Review’, IDS DevelopmentB i b l i o g r a p h y 19, Brighton: Institute ofDevelopment Studies

Kandiyoti, D. (2004) ‘Political fiction meetsgender myth: post-conflict recons-truction, “democratisation” and women’srights’, in ‘Repositioning Feminisms inDevelopment’, IDS Bulletin, 35(4): 134-6,Brighton: Institute of DevelopmentStudies

Levy C. (1996) The Process ofInstitutionalizing Gender in Policy andPlanning: The Web of Institutionalization,Working Paper No. 74, DevelopmentPlanning Unit, University College,London.

Meer, S. with C. Sever (2004) Gender andCitizenship: Overview Report, Bridge Packon Gender and Citizenship, Brighton:Institute of Development Studies

Millennium Project Gender Task Force onEducation and Gender Equality (2005)‘Taking Action: Achieving GenderEquality and Empowering Women’,www.unmillenniumproject.org (lastchecked June 2005)

Narayan, D. (1999) Can Anyone Hear Us?Washington D.C.: The World Bank

North, D. (1990) Institutions, InstitutionalChange, and Economic Performance ,Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Rao, A. and D. Kelleher (2002) U n r a v e l l i n gInstitutionalized Gender Inequality, AWIDOccasional Paper No. 8, Toronto: AWID

Rao, A., R. Stuart and D. Kelleher (1999)Gender at Work: Organizational Change forEquality, Connecticut: Kumarian Press

Sen, A. (1999) Development as Freedom, NewYork: Anchor Books

Sen, G. (2004) ‘Remaking Social Contracts:Beyond the Crisis in InternationalDevelopment’, Irene Tinker LectureSeries, International Center for Researchon Woman, Washington DC, 16November.

Subrahmanian, R. (2004) ‘Making sense ofgender in shifting institutional contexts:some reflections on gender main-streaming’, in ‘Repositioning Feminismsin Development’, IDS Bulletin, (35)4: 89-94,Brighton: Institute of DevelopmentStudies

UNRISD (2005) Gender Equality: Striving forJustice in an Unequal World, Geneva:UNRISD

Wilber, K. (1999) The Collected Works of KenW i l b e r, Volume 4, Boston: ShambhalaPress


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

anbe

rra]

at 1

9:00

20

Febr

uary

201

2

Date post:	04-Jun-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

Gender Mainstreaming in Theory and Practice · Gender Mainstreaming in Theory and Practice 435...

Documents