CHAPTER 25 THE STATE AND GENDER EQUALITY From Patriarchal to Women-Friendly State? JULIA S. O'CONNOR 1 INTRODUCTION ‘Tus chapter addresses the transformation of the state in countries belonging to the Organisation for Economie Co-operation and Development (OECD) with regard to the shaping of gender relations and key factors contributing to changes these relations over recent decades. Some ofthese changes are associated with policies thst have an explicit _gender focus, in particular policies eelating to gender discrimination, body rights, gender based violence, representation in decision-making, and the reconciliation of employment ‘and caring demands. Ata broader level, strategies and policies without a gender equality focus may have profound impacts on gender relations auch as child poverty measures, ed cation, housing, public transport, labor market, and migration policy We address selected changes with respect to elements ofboth types of policy and their outcomes and also the extent to which they reflect a change in state structures, The discussion is atchoced, on the fone hand, by labor market change, in particular the policy objective ofncreasing the labor ‘market participation of women, and, on the other hand, by change in the decsion-mak- {ing machinery related to gender equality. These two domains afford ens through which Progress in, and bacrers to, the transformation of the state in a gender equality'veman. fiendly direction can be identified, ocusing on terminalogy and concepts in itrature on the welfare state, broadly con ‘ceived, Section 2 points to significant changes in the analysis of gender inequality since the 1970s. Tiss followed (in Section 3 and 4) by a discussion of transformation in two senses, the frst of which isthe transformation of welfare states as ceflected in approaches to labor ‘market participation end the rationale for theie adoption by core OECD states since the TUE STATRANDGENDER EQUALITY 483 1970s, with «particular focus on gender equality objectives and implications. The second transformations related tothe growth, and in some eases the emis, of gender equallty, ‘machinery and the role of gender mainstreaming as a mechanism inthe transformation of gender relations. Section 5 concludes by acknowledging the significant changes in gender relations over the past several decades and considers 1 what extent we can characterize ‘contemporary staesin core OECD countries as women-friendly. 2 FRom Women’s Poticy TO GENDER ANALYSIS A Note on Terminology Due to the contested nature of several key concepts used in this chapter, a note on ter~ aminology Is necessary. The title refers to “gender equality” and the achievement of a “women-friendly state” Gender refer to the socially constructed structural, relational, and symbolic dtferencesbetween men and women. The concern of gender sensitive analy- sisi with “how gender is involved in processes and structures that previously have been. conceived as having nothing to do with gender” (Acker 198g: 238). Gender diferences are ‘widely identified in contemporary analysis, but the recognition of socal, economic, and. political differences associated with gender thats, gender awazeness—is very different from gender analysis n feminist scholarship, which Ann Orloff (2009: 38, note 2) identi esas studies of gender that contest gender hierarchies.” We consider thisissuehereinthe discussion of gender awareness, rather than gender egalitarianism, in social investment strateges (Jenson 2009). ‘The concept of the “womaa-Srlendly sat” was pu forward by Helga Hernesin er anal- ‘pis of Seandinavian countriesin the mid-1980s (1987-38! A woman fendly state would not force harder choices on women than on mn of pet ‘ait unjust eeatment om the basis of ser... Iajustices on the basis of gender would be largely eliminated withouc an increase fo other forms of inequalty, such as emo groups sf women, ‘Thiscanceptand the associated concept of tate feminism, or “feminism rom abore inthe form of gender equality and social policies, ana the feminization of welfare state-elevant professions” (Heraes 1987 13), have had enormous normative inlacace in scholarship, ‘on the welfare state in the intervening years, although Anette Borchorst and Blste Sim (@008) conclude that they are compelling metaphors rather than strong analytical catego- ries, This may be so, but they were major contributions to welfare state analysis: st, they affirmed the potential for the empowerment of women through the welfare state and the possibilty of feminism from above,” with ts “counterpart and challenge inthe femini tion from below’ among women activists in political and cultural activities” (Hermes 987: 133). Second, they acknowledged thatthe achievement of gender equality was a political task that necessitates participation inthe political system ata time when much feminist analysis saw che state in general and the welfare sate in particular as inherently patrar- chalinsttutions.484 _JuLIAs, o'conNOR ‘Te igs saw a renewed iterestin policy regimes, patcalryin response tothe pub- leation of Te Tree Wolds of Welfare Cepia (Esping- Andersen 1990). Ths i fied three welfare regimes, refering to cluster of more or less distinct welfare sate yes in terms ofthe principles of rights and bases of stratification on which the welfare state fs butle the social democratic, as exemplified by the Scandinavian counties Uber, as exemplified by the welfare sates in the United States (US), Canada, Austzalla, New Zealand, rtsin, and rela: and the comport or sats-basd regimes, a5 exemplified by Germany, Franc, and tly. Goss Esping- Andersen's book generated a iy debate concering the bases of clasifcation, Oncof the key outcomes ofthis debate was the cee ognition of ditner southern welfare state cluster, exemplified by sly Spa, Portugal and Greee(Fertera 96) These fou eeglmecasters infor thisanalis- ‘Welfare regime analysis provided an opportunity forthe engagement of researchers {rom wo streans of research—those engaged in welfare stat esearch that ul thea had sot addressed gever issues, and feminist comparative analysis, which had addresed the same or similar fue through a gendered analysis that contested and challenged gender Ierachies. The debates have ben widely rehearsed It will sufice to point ou thatthe gender-senstve critiques and the wier ody of gender analysis of welfare states turned fon the concept of cizemhip, paid and unpaid care autonomy, and dependence and interdependence, and thighlightedtheimportnt distinction between marketand family provision n-what was often concelved as an undifferentiated private/non sate sphere of provision. A pariularlynfuental intervention wasthat of Jane Lewis on gender and the development of policy regimes (90). ‘From Male-Breadwinner to “Adult-Worker Model Family” or to Varieties of “Dual-Earnership” Models? Lewis (1992) argoed that the idea ofthe male-beadwinaet family model has historically «ut across established typologies of welfare state and tha the model hasbeen supported and moaified in diferent ways and to diferent degrees in diferent counties, Services facilitating the labor fore participation of women were absent or very limited in strong mmal-breadwinner sates, sich as Britain and Ieland, up to the gps, whereas they were relatively well developed in weak male-breavsinner sates such a Sweden. Ths reflects dhe fact that weak male-brealvinner sates are rately sucessful in solving the fue of valuing caring work—wome are compensated al marke rate or caring work, which {is typically unpald, or paid at very low rates, in trong male-breadwinaer sates this dif ference is reflected in levels of public provision of childcare and cae for other dependent peopl, a wll atin the payment ates fr those mostly women, wo carey out this caring ‘employment within welfare states. Tn the lat wentieth century there was a shit in several economically developed coun- tres from the male-breadwinner family mode to the “one-and-a-hal€earer family” and * Focanoverviewofetcie debate seus Connor (996). The joel Social Pais has bewn key forumforpashiogtheDoandar sot debateandanalysison gender ane staresacesfrsisue nig ‘THE STATE AND GENDER EQUALITY 485 ‘Table 25.1 Women aged 15-64 in the labor force, 1960-2010 (selected OECD countries arranged by welfare regime classification) Tulctime Ccounves __tabor mate patcpationrete__Paretie erloyment__eauivaent_ wo tgo 200TH Scio democratiresime Dena “a * a 2% & Seen 0 6 ” o 2 o Nowa 6 n 6 * » cy Conserve reine cermsay ry 9 ” a * 0 Fravee ” @ & * 2 8 Nethelans? 26 8 a 2 a 6 ere 6 8 n “ » 2 35 0 a ” 38 a Grats a * ™ 2 8 United Staes 43 8 25 ® - ‘vss » 8 x ” 38 2 New Zand 31 2 n *® 3 6 southem gine oly tags a ” soos Sein (gms) ° “ (gaia? Portagl —(97)538 88 % 0 (oes a se cenit erecta et meat tonne cic ane Hitt taveueat ete inecy tse Tei ase ono cba el te se anrinen eecomrsca toy mcs ne acidmar= ects is gp tan in some-—Lewis identifies Sweden and the US—there was sift tan 'adult worker model family” which assuoes chat all adult workers at inthe labor market (Lewis 200: 1). ‘Table as. iistrates women's incressinglabee market participation from 3960 to 2010 in4 OECD countries, including liberal. social democratic, conservative, and southern welfare ‘regimes, with interesting vatlation across cistrsand inthe timing of change.485 _ JULIA. c'¢oNNOR “The social democrti user demonstrates the highest levee of pastcpation from 1990 ‘omvards, having experienced is mos significant increas femal abo fore partiipe- tion betteen 1960 and 190. A broadly similar pattern is evident forthe liberal chistes, withthe exception of Ireland, where the major Increase occurred postass0. Germany and Spein also experienced thei greatest change in thie evi, and this reflects msjor increases in female parttime employment, pariculaly In Germany. a ako happened in Ireland and tly In contrast, the percentage of women in par-ine work decreased from 2990 to 200 in the socal democratic cluster ad the bea liste, withthe exception of Ireland. n 20.0, bot the US and Sneden bad less than 20 percent he ele abu force in par-time work In 201, parttime employment asa proportion of total employment vases than 39 perentin the countries included in Table, exloing the Netherlands, where 6 percent of total female employment was part-time, electing 8 persistent long term pattern (Visser 2002)? The nal columa of Table 251 presents data on fulltime cquivaleot participation for women in 2010 These indicate considerable suport forthe subeantlprevence of an adult worker model nll counties, excluding tal. Spln arn the Netherlands, which ae the ony countries with ss thas so percent fulltime equiv lent participation for women Tn its Gender Brit, the OECD (200) concludes tha the “‘dyal eatnerhip' model bas become the norm" inthe maorty of the OECD counties, ut ths reflect very mixed Picture. Based on 2007 dat, at east so percent of couple families with chien aged 0-14 ing OECD countries are characterized by fll-time dual-earmership; these countries are Finland, Portugal, al ofthe 2004 Eastern European accession countries to the Earopean ‘Union (EU) except the Coech Republic (49 percent) and Hungary (4 perce), and prob- aly the US, whete the datado not disaggregate fll and part ine employment, Tn Sweden and France, 41 percent of couple familles with children aged 0-14 are fullsime dual-earmer fails, while 35 percent of such fails a Sweden and 2 percent in France have one patent working fllsime and one working per-time fs important to note that these countries, especialy Sweden, are characterlaed By “long” part-ime work, thats between 0 and o hours pet week and Sweden bas one ofthe highest rates of full-time equivalent female employment inthe EUs (ee last column of Table.) contrast, “one-and-a-half earner household, though increasing overtime isthe ‘most usual arrangement only in afew countries: Austria, Germany, Switzecand, the UX {United Kingior),andin particular the Netherlands" (OECD ao1o: 1) Over 6o percent of ‘women with children aged thee tofve in couple families these countries worklessthan sohours per week~thefiguceisalmos8 percent in the Netherlands ‘The increase in ull-ime equivalent employment refects change in policy oresttion ‘in several countries and isin line with the prescriptions of the EU and OECD, which have hada policy emphasis on increasing the employment rate of women over the pat several decades Yet, there is increasing recognition by such organizations that {despite name. ous improvements in women's educational and employment outcomes, many countries have not achieved gender equaityineconomie oppartunties and outcomes” (OECD 2019). “Thisis the impetus forthe OECD Gender Initiative, whichis dzected at addressing gender ‘quality in three areas education, employment, and entrepeeneurthip (OECD 201) a * This inbated on go hours per neck utr pattie work, The Eurostat igure 76 percent for rovohwed onthe Dutch 5 boat Of ‘THE STATE AND GENDER EQUALITY 487 similar vein, the EU issued its Women’s Charter in 2010 (European Comtnission 2010) ‘which committed the EU to strengthening gender equality in alits polices. We will exarn- Ine the links with specific gender strategies as reflected in policy machinery in Section 4 st we conser thos strategies and policies informed by geader awareness and explicitly ed to preventing inequality but withouta specific gender equality focus. We askifthe persistence of the ender inequality underpinning these EU and OECD gender initiatives {slinked to an “incomplete revolution” in women's roles or if tis due tothe absence of a ‘gender equality emphasis in public plicy even when gender awareness is clealy evident. 3 TRANSFORMATION OF THE STATE AND THE SHAPING OF GENDER RELATIONS. IN OECD CounTRIgES ‘The Social Investment Strategy ‘We have chosen to focus on social investment partially because of its explicit focus on the creation of a “new architecture” to mect old needs more effectively and respond 10 ‘new seeds, but more particularly because ofits explicit gender awareness and concern ‘With policy areas on which feminist social policy analysis has focused for several dec- ‘des. The social investment approach isthe outcome of analyses by the OECD, the EU, and national governments in response tothe inability of traditional economic and social policy frameworks to address changing demographic trends, including population age- Ing and declining birth rates in most OECD countries, high unemployment, child por- erty and the intergenerational transmission of poverty and disadvantage (OECD 1996: sping: Andersen etal. 2002) Social investments futwre-ortented focus stresses prevention, including a strong focus con investment in families and children, so as to address child poverty, educational failure and the intergenerational transmission of disadvantage, Fundamental to this the recon- ‘lation of employment and family fe through parestal leave childcare, and employment flexibility, which are deemed essential to addressing low birth rates, associated dema- fraphic change, and new risks. The employment of mothers is identified as “the single ‘most effective bulwark against child poverty” (Esping-Anderven 2002: 9-10). Other key ‘lements of the future-oriented approach ae lifelong earning and investment in human. ‘capital, as opposed to “passive™ cash transfers, Underiying these objectives is the mutual reinforcement of employment and social policy goals. ‘Within the EU context a key driver of socal investment was the Lisbon Strategy with its emphasis on increasing employment rates, particularly female employment rates, ints ‘objective to achieve “sustalnabe economic growth with more and better jabs and greater sacial cohesion” Bez Cantillon (201) points out that despite growth in average income ‘and employment since its initiation in 2000, social policies and social redistribution have become less pro-poor. This reflets the neress in work-related spending.and the decline in raditional "passive" income support expenditures. n addition, the interaction of gen= der segregation and class results in public resources that are designed to facilitate the488 JULIAS.o’connon reconciliation of employment end family life, such a childcare and parental leave, dispro- ‘Portionaely benefiting dual earner, better educated, and more afluent couples (Cantillon aout: 4at: Ghysels and Van Lancker 20m), Prank Vandenbroucke and Koen Vleminckx ou) challenge the inevitability of middle class advantage, arguing thatthe problem, arises not because ofthe childcare and parental lave policy but because afinadequate act valion policy relating to low-skilled women, This ties in with Esping-Andersris incom- plete evolution argument, “Incomplete Revolution” and/or Gender Equality “Lost in Translation”? “The (ncomplete revolution” is Bsping-Andersen’ characterization of the fact that the change in women's roles has not "come to full maturation” (2009; 3), He argues that while female labor force participation “sets the stage,” it “does not define the revlution:” that ‘would imply “decisive ruptures with the way that women and men go about their lives” and the achiewement of a "gender-equalty equittrium’ (373; emphasis in the original). ‘This wll require the disappearance of the current social las differences in “marriage, fer- tity. divorce, employment and... hams production patterns” (172-173), The Nordic coun- ties and North America are identified as “the ideal typical images of what is crystallizing throughout the world” (73). The welfare state in partculae a socal investment oriented welfare slate, isthe “powerful exogenous rigger" needed to combat the inequallties resul- Ing from the incomplete revalution (73) mn contrast, lane Jenson (2009) argues tat the social investment paradigm sidelines the equality claims of adult women in favor of children. She argues that gender awareness in the social investment perspective does not carry through to gender egalitarian stetegies and that “something as been lost in the transation of egabtarla feminism into the gen- er awareness that infuses the socal investment perspective" (Jenson 2009: 473). Much ‘of her critique centers onthe future orientation ofthe social investment strategy and its failure to realistically address the structural bases of gender inequality in the here and now while making women central to the demographic stability ofthe population and the prevention of intergenerational poverty transmission. The necessary “corrective nterven- ions" to address gender differences in part-time work and pay levels and the distribution, ‘ofpaid and unpaid caring workto ensure gender equality arc absent (Jenson 2009: 472). ‘While childcare and parental leave are policy instruments proposed by gender equal- fty advocates, Jenson argues that their translation into social investment instruments has resulted in the writing-out of adult women ftom a gender equality perspective. Cantillon (@on) and Joris Ghysels and Wim van Lancker (201) provide evidence that some women-— specifically, women in single parent families and in less educated ang less afflens couple families—are disproportionatey “written ou,” to se Jenson’ terminology; or to put another way, they are atleast less Likely to benefit from future oriented social investment stratepes. Asa consequence, ther children ar also les likely to benefit from these policies, ‘evlting in the narrowing ofthe future-orented preventive impact of key social invest ‘ment strategis and Insteurnents, These patterns point to the complexity of achieving gen der equality outcomes even when pursuing avowedly gender aware strategies the context ofthe interaction of class and gender inequalities. As Joan Acker expresses it: "Looking at THESTATEAND GENDER EQUALITY 489 (the same ongoing practices] from one angle we se clas, from another we see gender, nei ther is complete without the other” (989: 249). We return to these issucs inthe Conclusion (Section 3). First we focus on strategies with an explicit gender equality focus, 4 GENDER EQUALITY AGENCIES AND STRATEGIES The concepcof state feminisn” was thesbjectof widespread nterestnthe 9908 timated atleast in part by the discussion arising from the UN World Conferences on Women fem 1975101995 (UN Division forthe Advancement of Women 2000). Tis interes isrefected in thefacusonineresing the represenaton of wonten in pola ysras,in the deweloprent of ender or moce usually womens equality ageicevnachinery in several counties and Jn the coring Loeter of networks of eholar nalying state eal and elated sues {ea Mebrde and Mazor gs: Mazur and McBride 2007 Outshoor ad Kantala 2007). Out concern er swith state frsiniam as concelved by Hennes (987: 35), in particular “em ‘nism feomaboveintheform of gender equal and social pais” areca instal gender guality machery apd gender mainstreaming, Womens policy machinery “destbes any structure developed by government with ts main purpose being the betement of womens soda status" (Outsbourn and Kantola 2007) The ist UN Wald Conference on Women in sp7sand subsequent conferences resulted in the dfson of dea relating to women’ policy machinery. Dung the UN Decade for Women 76-89, several UN member states xa lished such machinery —127 had done so by 1985 an 16 by 995 Saver 2007-1) This was the erlod ofthe resurgence of second wave feminism, when strongly mobilized women’s move- ‘ments several couniis, and interationaly wer invert n the declaration of 1975 as Incernationl Women's Yea an 976-8sasthe United Nation Deede fr Women. Experiences with Gender Equality Machinery Since the 19708 OECD countries and several economically developing countries, have, to varying degrees, puto place ministries, units within ministries or specialist agencies with ‘While the development and decline of gender equality machinery bas been dramatic in Australia and Canada, the two liberal welfare states wheze bureaucratic gender equality ‘machinery had been most extensively developed, there have been less dramatic but pe va. sive reversals in other liberal welfare sats, reflected in the restriction of funding andor 2 Thee incu resetcharunizatos ad advocacy gio fr clare and basing fe nate Cadi immigrant sadn moony woah, ‘THE STATE AND GENDER EQUALITY 492 the sidelining of equality agencies (re: UK see Fawcett Socety 2012; UK Women's Budget Group 29n). A thread running through 2 review of equality machinery overtime in all, ‘OECD countries and most markedly in libera! countries i the significance ofthe politica ‘orientation of government and the impact of changing political opportunity structures for ‘evil sacety movements, mchuding gender equality and counter-equality movements Tis Is evident not only in Australia and Canada, as cutlined above, but also inthe UK, fist ‘and most markedly inthe change inated and developed bythe Blair and Brown Labour [governments (Lovenduski 2007) and the cut-backs, particularly reflected in budgetary changes, by the Cameron/Clegg Conservative/Liberal coalition in 2010 (UK Women's ‘Budget Group 201: Fawcett Society 2012), I is alo evident in the US inthe differences in the opportunity structure for equality _movernents between the Clinton and Bush presidencies (McBride 2007) and between the ‘Bush and Obama presidencies (Cooper 2010). In this contest itis important to note the strong emphasis on individual rights and the vindication ofthese right through the courts ‘that has characterized gender equality developments in the US and, to a lesser exten, in CGanada, Ths contrasts with the stroagec emphasis on collective rights thatexemplifesthe Situation in the Nordic countries and Austatia (O'Connor etal. 1999) Tis difference is reflected in the gender equality outcomes, particulaiy inthe higher levelsof gender segre- gation inthe Nordic countees, which exist despite more widespread gender equality gains ‘The reverses the casein the US (eee g. Estévez-Abe 2005) ‘There is considerable intra-regime variation in gender equality steuctures in the south ‘ern replme cluster. tly is at one extreme ofthe gender equality strategy and outcome spectrum. This i reflected in low female labor force participation, a weak gender equal- ity institutional structure and weak adherence, even where formal equality policies ae i place (Berger and Dorsch 2010; Renga ou) ‘In conteast, Spain was alatecomer to gender equality, withthe major equality changes ‘commencing ia 1983 when the Partido Soclalista Obsoro Fspatal (PSOE) wonits first dee tion (Lombardo 2009). The PSOE was in power ftom 1982 to 1996 during which period st decriminalized voluntary abortion on three grounds (the life and psychological health ‘of woman, rape, and serious fetal abnormality); refocmed the Penal Code, replacing offenses against honor with offenses agains eexual liberty; extended maternity lave; and made it possible for women to join the armed frees. In 398, it established by statute the ‘sutonomousJnsttuta del la Mujer (W1}, which was to oversee the gender equality agenda (Waliente 2007). “The PSOE regained offce in 2004. The gender equality institutions framework was strengthened by the establishment of the Equality Policies General Secretarietin 2904 and bythe establishment of the Ministry of Equality in 2008, The latter ministry was incorpo- rated into the Ministry of Health in 2010 during the tenure ofthe secone Zapatero PSOE government, ceatinga joint Ministry of Health, Social Policy and Equality, which taco porated responsiblity forthe WI and the Institute for Youth. Tls merger occurred in the context ofthe sharp financial and economic problems in Spain from 2008 onwards. The PSOE made commitment to maintain the WI to promote gender equality alongside a + Accondngto ma onio Got) Vice Preentfthe talan SenateandalemerSUComisionet halyisone ofthe most tadowrdcounties a Europe im almost every kato fender oly492__JwLIAs.o'cownon fature body covering the six inequalities identified ip the EC Treaty, that i, sex, raceleth nicty, age, sexual orientation eigion/belie, and disability (Lombardo 2008). ‘The Partido Popular (PP) assumed power in December 201 and has maintained this sministry structure. It campaigned on, and since its election has committed t, the sharp. restriction ofthe abortion law that was lberalized in 2008 by the PSOE, despite pub- Tic opinion polls which suggest that a majority ofits own supporters oppose this move (Bazinet 2012). During its previous period in office from 1996 to 2004, the FP dit not reverse gender equality gains, but this was period when the policy priority was in imple- ‘menting EU equality directives, ‘The key exemplarsofthe conservative welfare regime cluster, Franceand Germany, have highly institationalized gender equality structure, nationally and subnationally. The sg nificant diference is the French framing of gender equality within a universal citizenship ts framework. Asin the other counties, we can identify a relatively greater emphasis 1 the development and politica sallence of gender equality machinery during the ten- ure of lef Jeaning goveraments—the Socialist Party in France (38-95),and the SPD and the Greens in Germany (1098-2005). The women’s movement has been of varying signif ‘ance ove time in both countries. Sabine Lang (2007) concludes thatthe relative vieto- fies in Germany “are the result of specific constellations: of mostly lef leaning partis in ‘power, of feminists in executive office and ofa policy envizonment that is conducive to ‘gendered change” and she argues that if these factors change, women’s policy agencies can ‘be merely symbolic (Lang 2007: 137). Despite the extensive structure of agencies in France, Amy Mazur (2007) conchies that results are modest, highly politicized and marginalized. ‘Two significant devclopments over the pat couple af decades have changed the context within which women's equality agencies ae operating. These are the implementation of ‘gender mainstceaming and the recent growth of single equality agencies. Gender Mainstreaming ‘The Fourth UN World Conference in Beljng in 1995 is noteworthy for “the sift in focus from women to the concept of gender, recognizing that the entire structure of society, and all relations within it, had to be re-evaluated” (UN Division for the Advancement of ‘Women. 2000}, and fr its cll forthe adoption of gender mainstreaming, which i “the process of assessing the implications for women and men of any planned action, including. legislation, polices or programs, im all areas and at ll levels” (UN Women 2000: 2. The BU made a formal commitment to gender mainstreaming in Articles and Article 3 para raph 2 of the Amsterdam Treaty, which was signed in October 1997. All member sates and OECD countries now profess acommitmentto gender mainstreaming. ‘Gender mainstreaming implies a transformative strategy going beyond gender aware _ness to an analysis ofthe structural bases of gender inequality. Despite its radical poten- tial. there is ttle evidence of rigorous conceptualization and/or eigorous application of gender mainstreaming (Grzybek 2008; EGGSI 2010. Is transformative potential cannot be realized without the Full complement of necessary instruments that allow for the meas: tremeat of gender impact and its transparent dernonstration, Without cogent and trans- parent gender impact assessment (GIA), which identiGes whether speclic polices have positive, neutzal, or negative impacts on gender equality, and a comunltznent co take the ‘THESTATEAND GENDER EQUALITY 493 findings into account in fearing policy including budget policy, end implementing gen- der udget analysis (GBA) to asess this, the practice of mainstreaming is merely aformel- intl policy exercise “The transition to gender mainstreaming without these necessary instruments allows for the glossng over of persisting structural inequalities, ased onthe analysis of 30 European countries, including the EUzy, the Expert Group in Gender Equality, Social Inclusion, “Health, and Long. term Care concloded that (EGGSI2010:6) “Though most counties have developed iataties that promote pender equal, a system tcand compecensve approach or activeincusion policies isgenrillylckingaad acaal Iinplemertation is ofen underdeveloped, Moreover the attention pad to gender mala ‘eearsingna be sense to poltal changes, revelling i alack of consistency. “this conclusion is consistent wih the extensive analysis and criques and the Limitations ‘of gender mainstreaming inthe EU and elsewhere? 5 Discussion AND CONCLUSION ‘heres emplingesdence of sgalcant anfomaton in gender rations ove the rascal Seeder nce OECD counties, which is elkted paral i daca ‘aul otcnes nd employes pripaton bat rogresshar 2a been uniform across (peenchn una tnd al per ealy meena opportunites otcomes par nu een chee even in counts wih oval ht velo rg. Te Maw ofiunge vests cos atonal andthe ptt of goer qa messes Se uly ache ballanio canomtropinaty of hese courte. The pes thn pds nega atts neg eno megane te ters ec nal EU and OFCD gener cgay tates king hse tat account eat concede that exe OBCD coun ae worn endl sts nie sens used by Herne 96) In elton to the Nerd coon Try yom ao tan they ar notte that do fre harder coeson worsen thonenvnn: have cinta -unjst stent onthe ast of ex ain particle ee ded eee bem finely sh song pou af women Cerne str) et tore OCD sates have een ransomed neltiontogder equated in anllisrnieaonlegsaton an formal procestes of genet eal abet some etn tha aes Alf ese sats ce be caer an eer oleae uate The fre to sate gender ingly wha the mone of broader ‘Totnes eas that ae frns of neu sch as among go of etn arid by Heres have ot ben aed Tn ios brine in terms wPan-ccmome dienes a Husted i labor acket pater and the socal * See rae Sensbury snd Chena Brg os ho sate he Swedish exe ste aie fie beeaahorl nil dear on esoureaming See abo Alon Wooden 208, Fehon eto ow). secs tans td Nama494 _10LIAs.o'coNNOR Invented in the shapt.These ote em of nly a he fous of terectinal avas, 0th cognition udernsewagsome diseimiatin ih ave hie te conten hin wnch nde get ee ane ropan Commins 907 Lombards nd ea song “helt the creation feng ity bodes counties acladig ‘Norway Sen th UK Rola 0) Tithe model big enmeged pe EU sine Artle fhe Amst Tet 957) ened excel epion, ‘ge dsabity and sexual aurea gods dsimination To sone ee ‘scan now speak ofan equality svatee tte, bt th ke er eq vate ness contained bythe ine onde stractaral basso tees a fe examize ht nett, opined fey capone Caarde an Mesos sss ‘key colon this naa tht polis mater ine of eon ender ‘aus suc, and while were ene ces re mparanhey ee nt ne ining. The ey infec the stength of epi, ns more bly, not Dares asilstted yee Canadian feel lel The deepen ef gener eqety Inthe sn india costs was mcd ot only tral ee nly pe, Soret were moreno poi pares mono ih wees see pats buts in exponen poly cours rebeced x UN ome Coca this oasonest Gender east varenbedded within caer srt understand of el ity and pre by the growth and ote song ender repression In pailsment an in ovromeat i te Noni sue The eropmen gee egy Inchneryn pia was slo the ste acl dencrar oem novo {nsmovenent resi inte wake ofthe tation te dmacay tm etry hat doled bck nascent gender ely developments ithe os ahd ee pate lin eerie twat women’ te Nowe ond pai hark igh ele ‘ett at nym praen als inthe soa emoticon eb “hele of gbtvig pte in the eachneat of women pl cheesy net only eientin Aaa and Canad Some link the decline sara weer eect Gane Tha conte eo fon and the absence 0 fundamen change nthe amigo gee cally i ‘course allowed for the reversal of gains. * neo aender easly dis Inia! te ces lig to ender oat rect he stor mobilen stole and economic ether pliy ches meta he aly ge Stes semming fom these ies the contepam'y ped te ontelton ‘reeshas rotdenetoencompass ntl iene ltl pets sprasaal ‘ena inne, ich ke BU and moe teal ease stats ach he ‘OECD the International Labour Of (110, snd th UN. Whe sae oy hate 2 * Generating in Sweden des a Bt Surya Rept 3 ely “evidence of uch practice from the 19705. ” cris 0s) enn ” Gender peettoninpasmertnce fm ¢ pectin theft democrat eo 97 ‘ogee hee rence ape 2 Dee ale rpetatton 37 pcorn oe ae, Pasa a pln ‘gender equalcabinetin 2012, ocorsine THESTATE AND GENDER EQUALITY 495 ‘enhanced capacity to address gender Inequality, as reflected in the existence of gender ‘equality agencies and gender mainstreaming, and while they demonstrate a high level of ‘ender equality awareness, the level of conformity to the requirements of commitments is. felatively weak in most countries—thsis epeatedly demonstrated in the petlodic reviews of practice in signatory countries of the Convention on the Ehmization ofall Forms of Dicrimination against Women (CEDAW 2014 and various yeas) and FU commitments (©Conno: 2008) Inreflecting on the process of change in gender relations over the past few decades, the zoe of the state has been pervasive and, at some times and in some locations, dominant, but tall umes it has been governed by the dominant politica orientation, bnclading the gender representativencse of parliaments and the pressure or lack of peesture from civil society sources, and from the equality-orlented women's ovement in particular. These {actors explain toa significant extent the variation in the institutionalization of equality, structures and in equality outcomes. REPERENCES ‘ex fous “Te Pole win Parc” Soong 3 (a Map 3-240 Baris nea, 0t, Spain Angers Fenewith Panto igen born Law” tps! \newsyahoo.omipuin-anger emit lah aoe a nehpsa8 (htconsted7May2019. banotn, Tava ax Dono, BANGLA, 010 "Gentle Station in Maly” Gud Were Insite Arata pong oa debi cout omparon prod pais cunt conparon-talyaes bil st cond ear s0 Bet, Buns, orl Hea Long Why fo Goto Gee Earle at ip ‘rewiparpindafisly mas longa fo-goiaigendecegliy? (ast coed 36 lomiya0u operon ANS, x Si, Bits, 2008 "Woman friendly Pisa State Fema “heorzng Seandavan Geer ea” Fon Thay Aap 20-204 Broo, jana, och “Weate A al Nove Caternpry Gender Bln Can” Femi Tayo Avg 5-64 Cnttton, Bee, ton he Puredox of the Socal Invesinent Site Growth, ‘unloyieat and foveryn the ihen Era oural f European Sel uly, December aap CEDAW tov4 and sie, Convention on he Hinton fA For of Discrimination ‘Aga! Women County Reports Avs a paring wren cho qEitpartaim and now pir oe ode cewpagscdown secant soled 36 anary 201). Coonn, Civ oo, “Gander Bi, Deli he Deal” Or the es Magazine. ‘rake hipswrantbeksesapinecom/oietrneorrimme Cope pho ascends anary and) 128 expert Group on Concer Eat, Sc Inchon, Heh Long Ter Car), Tow. Gevier Mansteaming Active Tndton Paces. Loxemboury, coxeaboar Prblietions OfeoftbeEardpea Uaion, ssp ANDEAEN, Cota, 990 The Te Word of Were Caplan. Penton N rine Univesity Pesan Cantrge UR:Poly498 _ IULIAS. O'CONNOR 2002. "Towards the Good Society. Once Again?” In Why We Need a New Welfare State, GGosta sping. Andersen, Duncan Galle, Anton Hemerick, and Jon Myles, -35, Oxford, UK Oxford University Press, 2009. Theincomplete Revelation, Cambsidge, UK: lity — Gattis, Duncan; HEmeRitcR, ANTON, aND MYLES JOHN, 2002. Why We Need a New Welfare State. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, Esvévez-Ast, Maxcanira, 2005. "Gender Bias in Skills and Social Policies: The Varieties of Capitalism Perspective on Sex Segregation.” Social Politics Intemational Studiesin Gender State & Society (, June 180-235 Soropean Commission, 2000. Ditectrate-General for Employment Social Aftars and Equal Opportunities. Employment in Europe. Luxembourg, Laxembourg: Ofice for Official Publications ofthe European Communities (Series) Available at: http.igitaicommons. ‘lrcornlledu/inu/2a (ast consulted 28 January 2014). 2007. Tackling Mlipe Discrimination: Practices, Policies exc Las, Brassls, Belgium DGEmployment, Social Afaits and Equal Opportunites, — 20102. Dicectorate-General for Empioyment, Social Afairs and Baual Opportunities, Employment in Europ. Luxembourg Lnxemboure: Ofc for Oficial Publications of the Exeopean Communities (Series). Availableat-hipleceuropa.cu/sociallmain sptatide8 Blangld-enéenewsld=5488furtherNews=yes (lst consuled 28 January 213) —,20iob. Strengthening the commitment to equality between women snd iaen; A worne’s charter. Avalable ets hulp.europa.ew/elslation_surmmarisionployment_anc_social_pol: leyfequalty betveen_men_and_women/emcoss_en.htm (lastcansuted a anvary 2014) Fawcet Society, 012. The Impact of Austerity on Women, The Fawcett Society, London, UK. ‘Available at. iepuiwwwfawcettocletyorguk/tatackment id=gor last constlted 26 Tanvary2oi4). FERRERA, MAURIZIO, 1996. "Te Southern Model" of Welfare in Social Europe." ral of European Social Policy 6, February) 17-37, Gnvsets, Joni, xD Vaw Lancxan, Wis, 201. “The Unequal Benefits of Activation: An ‘Analysisof the Socal Distzivution of FamilyPolicy Among Families with Young Children” Iournat of Buropean Socal Paley ss, Decembet): 472-48 GazranK, Aowisena, £9, 2008. Gender Mainstreaming: How Can we Successfully Use its Politica! Potential? Warsaw, Poland: Heinrich Bol Foundation, Regional Office Wares. Hrenwts, HeLa, 987. Welfre Sate and Woman Power Essays sh State Feminism. Oso, Norway: Norwegian Univesity Pres. Jkxson, JANE, 2008. “Lost in Translation: The Social Investment Perspective and Gender Equality.” Social Pols International Studies in Gender, State 6 Society 6 (4, Deverbet} 148-483 KanroLA, Jonawa, 2010 “Shifting Institutional and Ideational Terrains: The Impact of Buropesnistion znd Neoiberalism on Women's Policy Agencies” Polley &- Politics 38 35-368, |Laxe, Sante, 007. “Gender Governance in Post Unification Germany: Between Insti ‘onalisation, Deregulation and Privatization” le Changing State Feminism, ed Toyce Ovtsboora and Johanna Kentola, 124-143 Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmailla, Lavesa, Crem, asp Ricevect, Now, 2012.“Exploring Gender Msnstrearingin the European Union.” international journal of Public Administration 35 (122-196 Lew, Jane, 1992. "Gender and the Development of Welfare Regimes” ournd! of Europea Socta Ptiya (3 August: 159-173 ‘THE STATE AND GENDER EQUALITY 497 —,2001 “he Decline ofthe Male Breadwinner Model: Implications for Work and Care” Soctl Politics International Studies in Gender, State Society 8 a, June) 12-269. Lowsanpo, Ewancrta, 2008. Spanish Policy on Gender Equality: Relevant Carcest Legislation and Policies, irasbourg: European Parliament, Directorate Geneval for Internal Policies. Available at ttpfwww-europar europa eu/document/ativitlevco0t2 coutoysouto7208T Ta4s72/201107208TT24572EN pa last consulted 6 January 2014) —. avo Veatoo, Munke, 2009. “Instttionslizing Intersectionality in the European lon?” International Feminist fournal of Politi (3): 478-495 Lovsnpusks Jon, 2007, “Unfinished Business: Equality Policy andthe Changiag Context of State Feminism in Great Britain.” In Changing State Feminismed Joyce Outshoora and Johanna Kantla, 144-263. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. ‘MeBaipe, Dozoray E, 2007. "Women's Policy Agencies and Climate Change in the US: The Ere of Republican Dominance. In Changing State Feminism, ed Joyce Ousshoorn and Johanna Xantela, 246-265 Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan ‘Mazur, Aaty 2007."Womer's Policy Agencies, Women's Movemeats and a Shifting Political ‘Context: Towards a Gendered Republic in Pance?” In Changing State Feminism, ed Joyce ‘Outshoorn and johanna Kantole 102-12. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan Av MeBriDE, Doxozhy E, 3907. "State Feminism Since the 1y60s-From Loose Notion toOperationalized Concept.” Politics & Gender 3(4)501-53- rane Mazon, Aut G, 20,1995. Comparative Stote Feminism. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications [Nomais, Pera, 1987. Politics and Sexual Equality: The Comparative Position of Women in Western Democracies, Boulder, CO: Lynne Renner. O°Cowsok, JULIA, HD, 2996. From Women andthe Welfare State 10 Gendering Welfare State Regimes Loodos, UK. Sage Publications Dedicated Issue of Curren Sociology 44(@) 3-130. —= "2008, “The OMC and the EES: Broadening the Possibilities for Gender Equality” Ln Gonder andthe Open Method of Coordination:Perspectiveson Law, Governance and Equality inthe EU, ed Fiona Bevemiogs and Sauanraa Viui0T. 77-101. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate. ORL OFF, ANNS,ANDSHAVER SHEILA, 1999.States, Markets, Families Gender Liberalism, “and Socal Policy tn Australis, Canada, Great Britain, andthe United States. Cambie, (UK: Cambridge University Press OECD, 1996. Beyond 2000: The New Socal Policy Agenda. Summary of High Level Conference, 2-43 November, OCDEIGD (o7) 66. Paris, France: OECD. Avalable butpslwww-oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdi?eate=OCDEY GDip7}¢s8edocLanguage=En (last consulted 2 May 2014) —, s010. “Genser brie" Prepared by the OECD Social Policy Division. Paris, France: (OECD, March, Available st: htpe/www.oecdorgllslfamily/44720849,paf (ast consulted s8]anuary2014) — aois.“Uaterin] Report on the Gender Initiative: Gender Equality in Education, Employment and Entrepreneurship.” Pars, France: OECD. Available at: htpelhwwwoeed orgleducation{ebiigs pa (last consolted 28 January 2014. 3015. "OECD Gender nitive.” Available at-http.www: occ orglelsiocloecdgender Initiative htm Gast consulted 7 December 203). ‘Ontore, Ai, 009."Gendering the Comparative nalysisof WelfareSites:An Unfinished Agenda.” Sociological Theory27 (3317-343, ‘OuTSHOORN, Joxcs, AND Kan70LA, JOHANNA, £D, 2007. Changing State Feminism. Basin. stoke, UK: Palave Macmillan,498 Jutta s. o'CONNOR esen Sontr ta, 20ly urapen Gene Equality Law ee} Stinsune Dane so Ben Cat, foop The romeo Pella ender Macosresing trata emit eral Pots se Stan Mania 990 Sat h Sut: omen ad able Poy i eae. Syd ‘snl alan avin, toon “hustle The Pl ofthe Fema? In Chongig Ste Feminiom conch ‘crstoonxandjvunsa Kasous, ayo btngake Uk Pre Macrlan Sutoeeta Mv, ot “Mapping the Fedo Gendt quale None Cues” Nose Guoernstite Asin at hpsweraitnlep cotenghnds NIKKpub MCpwBevrge.Mappogth-d Sekula pe scons May 2) sok mani. ano Cevvansson. het av Sender Equal nt Sih ‘ele tc Fomnueiw #0) Avia at ipsfouras enc py feniaatlarilevewslandt pig. gusecancflton eters pulse Jay 2 1 Wome’ st Group Te pact on Women othe Bdge 20, Ava a hupawwnvporeuklindx 78695 pascal 6 amar aoe) UNDivion rie advancenetof Wore soo Te our bal Veen Coafeencs “woo HimoralFougctve Mabe se hiplvoonoegomenwt de {slowspesion presi hn consTed ft h UN Woman, to “Gender Maesteg” nts apr of he canon an Soda Counc rnp. Arlabest hipaa womenweclowloGhs BD Ct cond oars \anberm Cri 0.“ gender ety ietaons the ply lis of he ein Invern Acomagat yer inthe Spnihcetlo me” Sve pera Potirsa( aa 34 Vasommnics, have, xo Vina, Kors, seu “Damping. Foret es the Soc vet Seo Me” Jorel ef een era ay December}: 450-471. sheers 7s Vs Oar, We, 2005 "he Patch Wel St: Recent Tends and Calne a Fra especie argent Sey tsp ‘ists 200 "Ihe Ft Pre Economy nthe Woe & Nol obeFallowed?” oul open Sac oy Pent Woobwand, Anoon 2008. “fo Late for Geer Mansteanig? Taking tok ral ole Buen Sol ly Wy gu a0) s0 su CHAPTER 26 FROM THE POSITIVE TO THE REGULATORY STATE A Transformation in the Machinery of Governance? KATHARINA HOLZINGER AND SUSANNE K. SCHMIDT 1 INTRODUCTION ‘Tur regulatory state is not a new phenomenon. lis core--regulating the economy and socal rsks—belong to traditional administrative state functions (Lodge and Hood 2010 9). The literature provides us with many diferent definitions of regulation (Lodge 2008). We follow Barry Mitnick (180: 7), whe defines regulation as “the public administrative policing ofa private activity srith repect to a rule prescribed inthe public interest” The evolution towards a “regulatory state"implying a state where regulation activity is 60 prominent that it becomes a defining feature—Is gonerelly seen to have started in the late nineteenth centucy wit the establishment of regulatory agencies inthe United States (US) that began replacing courts as solution providers, Court-based regulation had increas- {ingly fvored companies atthe expense of consumers, which directly translated into favor ing the ich against the poor (Glasser and Shleifer 2009) Focusing op state transformation with a view tothe regulatory state pus the policy «dimension tothe fore, Rather than engaging in distributive or edistributive policy-mak- ‘ng, model of the regulatory tate assume that reguation Isa central activity f the sate ‘Corapetition law, originating in 1890 in the US Sherman Act, shows that the regulation ‘of market allure has been a traditional cove ofthe segulatory state, The change from “the ‘postive tothe regulatory state” describes a transformation froma state that itself provides ‘many ofthe central public, social services and utilities to its citizens to state that pro ides the regulatory framework for these services to be rendered by private actors. The regulatory state was frst described by Harold Seidman and Robert Gilmour (1986) when