Petra Debusscher

The current European Commission has shown ambition with regard to gender equality – perhaps more than it will be able to keep over the next years as it is operating in an increasingly challenging context full of ‘major structural constraints’ (Abels and Mushaben 2020). Over the past years, several European Member States have gone through ‘unprecedented processes of de-democratisation’ with negative consequences for (gender) equality and social justice (Lombardo et al. 2021). Conservative governments, often supported by religious groups, have been systematically attempting to remove the word ‘gender’ and ‘gender equality’ from key European Union (EU) policy documents, thereby undermining progress in the gender equality agenda. Yet despite these challenges, over the past two years the Commission has invested significant effort to move forward in implementing its Gender Equality Strategy 2020-2025, unblocking crucial legislation for gender equality and stepping up its fight against gender-based violence with the support of gender advocates within and outside the institutions. All in all, the Commission, now itself headed by a woman, has provided strong leadership under crisis conditions – including resurgent refugee waves, the corona pandemic and the Ukraine crisis – and is strategically advancing the gender equality agenda. While gender mainstreaming in all EU policy areas in all phases of the policy cycle remains far-off, despite it being a constitutional EU obligation for over two decades, there are reasons for optimism, especially as the determined Commission President has the backing of a Commission where 40 per cent of top positions are held by women, and of a host of allies from the EU institutions and from civil society.

This article assesses the study of gender equality policies in European Union external actions with a focus on the theoretical and empirical routes to understanding the field in times of crises. It argues that the emerging body of literature on gender in European Union external relations makes it possible to explain, understand, and judge the European Union in global politics by rethinking the nature of power from a gender perspective. The article then argues that to develop gender and European Union external relations in its next decade, it is necessary to rethink the study of the European Union as a global gender actor. This encompasses a reassessment of the ‘European Union’, ‘gender’, and the ‘global’, as well as the development of a holistic macro-, meso-, and micro-analysis. The article concludes by proposing a distinctive theoretical and methodological approach which involves a holistic intersectional and inclusive study of gender+ in European Union external actions.

How does the European Union (EU) include gender equality within its budget sup-port? This article examines budget support as an aid instrument through a gender lens by taking on the case of EU development cooperation with Botswana. The aim is to demonstrate how budget support plays out in practice and to analyse its consequences for the EU's global commitments on gender equality. I assess budget support with a feminist institutionalist approach combining an analysis of process and content. The article concludes that the EU cannot achieve a genuine accountability to women in the practice of its budget support resulting in a limited female ownership. While the EU aims to be a forerunner in the promotion of gender equality, this is not matched by the EU's external services on the ground which tend to be gender-blind. In the context of a masculine state apparatus, the use of budget support becomes problematic as the voices of women and their movements are being structurally marginalised.

Can gender equality quality criteria developed for assessing EU internal policies be used unequivocally for evaluating EU external policies? Or might a methodological adaptation be necesary? To engage with this dilemma, the author evaluates the two-dimensional quality model of Krizsan and Lombardo and examines what a reorientation of the model would entail to better allow for the analysis of gender policy implemented outside of Europe. The author argues that to allow for an in-depth analysis of EU gender policy abroad, the model’s procedural criteria ‘empowerment of women’s rights advocates’ and ‘transformation with reference to the prevailing context’ need to be brought centre stage and mainstreamed throughout the research design. The author suggests doing this by explicitly involving the views of gender activists from the national context in the analysis and using their perspectives as a touchstone for the evaluation of quality. To examine the proposed methodological model’s suitability for analysing the quality of gender policies in EU external relations, this operationalization is applied to the case of EU–South African development cooperation. The article concludes that the inclusion of gender advocates’ perspectives is necessary to avoid stereotypical, paternalist and Eurocentric ideas about the meaning of gender equality abroad and allow for a contextually grounded reflexivity on the quality of gender policy. Finally, it is argued that it is the role of feminist research to enhance women’s capacity for self-determination methodologically and to hear the voices of national actors that might otherwise not be heard in EU external relations.

In the course of history an interesting evolution has taken place in European gender equality policies. This story started in 1957 when the European Economic Community was founded and the principle of equal pay for equal work for men and women was included in the Treaty of Rome to avoid unfair competition and distortions in the free European market. Soon the Treaty article would evolve into a broader demand for equal rights related to work and result in a series of binding directives. In the eighties and nineties gender equality would increasingly enter other policy domains by means of non-binding soft law and gender mainstreaming. More recently, the EU has turned towards an approach of multiple discrimination which involves other grounds of discrimination, such as race and sexuality. The aim of this article is to review the history of gender equality policy in the EU while distinguishing some general trends, and discuss the implications of the most recent turn towards an anti-discrimination framework. I conclude that despite a continuous broadening of policies and strategies, economic motives continue to be the leitmotiv throughout this history. Also the broadening of EU equality policies with regard to the inclusion of multiple inequalities risks being trapped in the same economic logic. Nevertheless, despite the economic framing of EU equality policies, the pluralist and open nature of the EU’s decision-making process still provides gender activists with multiple access points to attempt to re-frame the way in which gender issues are addressed, as the struggle for a gender-just Europe continues.

This article examines Rwanda’s gender equality policies with the intention of contributing to the ongoing debate in the literature on the meaning of gender equality initiatives in authoritarian states. The article evaluates the transformative potential of Rwanda’s gender equality policies with reference to deep-rooted societal norms and practices within which gender inequalities are embedded. To this end, the article draws on in-depth interviews conducted in Rwanda with a range of stakeholders, as well as on documentary research. It explores the factors informing the Rwandan commitment to gender equality, and the positive developments this has brought about, before identifying five trends that threaten the transformative potential of Rwandan gender equality policies. The authors conclude that while a strong political will and target-driven policies offer opportunities for promoting gender equality, the transformative potential is jeopardized by the dominance of an underlying economic rationale; the neglect of the ‘invisible labour’ of women; the formalistic implementation of gender policies and their focus on quantitative results; the limited scope for civil society voices to influence policy; and the lack of grassroots participation.

Door de jaren heen heeft een interessante evolutie plaats gevonden op het gebied van het Europese beleid rond de gelijkheid tussen mannen en vrouwen. Dit verhaal start in 1957 bij de ondertekening van het Verdrag Van Rome waar het objectief van gendergelijkheid bijna per ongeluk in het stichtingsverdrag van de Europese Economische Gemeenschap (EEG) werd opgenomen, om oneerlijke concurrentie en verstoringen van de Europese vrije markt te voorkomen. Algauw ontstond een bredere eis tot gelijke rechten, gerelateerd aan werk. Gendergelijkheid trad bovendien via niet-bindende richtlijnen ook steeds meer binnen in nieuwe(re) Europese beleidsdomeinen, zoals familiebeleid, huiselijk geweld, en politieke vertegenwoordiging. Ondanks de verbreding van het beleid, blijven economische motieven als een rode draad door deze geschiedenis heen lopen. Verschillende moedige activisten binnen en buiten de instellingen hebben hier handig gebruik van gemaakt. Zij hebben het gelijkerechtenbeleid in Europa mee vorm gegeven en op de agenda gehouden. Het instrumentele frame dat de Europese Unie hanteert en waarbij gendergelijkheid ondergeschikt is aan economische doelstellingen, belemmert echter het transformatieve potentieel van het Europese genderbeleid.

This article examines gender mainstreaming in European Commission development aid through quantitative and qualitative analysis of policy documents. The research aim is twofold. First I evaluate whether a genuine shift has been made from a conservative Women in Development paradigm to a transformative Gender and Development paradigm. Secondly I examine whether the European Commission advocates a Europeanness in its gender policy towards developing countries. The quantitative analysis assesses language, format and budgets. Next, qualitative analysis embarks on a deeper reading of how gender (in)equality is approached. I conclude that the shift towards a transformative Gender and Development paradigm has only partly been made and that the Commission promotes a Europeanness in its gender policies, which links the internal and external agenda.

This article examines gender mainstreaming in European Commission (EC) development aid to Asian countries through quantitative and qualitative study of program documents. First, gender mainstreaming is assessed as a set of techniques of policy practice focusing on gender mainstreaming language, its place in policy texts and inclusion in budgets and indicators. Next, it is approached as a philosophy or frame of analysis, evaluating its transformative potential and analyzing how the issue of gender (in)equality is tackled. I conclude that gender mainstreaming in EC-Asian relations has flourished as an expert-bureaucratic tool, but its transformative potential has been neglected. The intra-European Union agenda, as well as the lack of space for Asian civil society voices, are proposed as explanations.

Op vlak van gendergelijkheid en vrouwenrechten houdt budgetsteun zowel risico’s als opportuniteiten in. Enerzijds biedt de verschuiving van de veelal gefragmenteerde en geïsoleerde donorgedreven projecten en programma’s naar brede sectoriële hulp kansen voor een holistisch  gendermainstreamingsbeleid. Gendermainstreaming
vergt immers een brede kijk op het integrale overheidsbeleid
en de introductie van een genderdimensie in de verschillende fasen van de besluitvorming. Ook de grotere focus op resultaten en performance biedt in principe opportuniteiten voor het objectief van gendergelijkheid. Anderzijds
is het terugschroeven van donorprojecten en –programma’s
rond gendergelijkheid weinig nuttig in een context waar het nationaal beleid van het partnerland genderblind is. In dit geval zorgt budgethulp immers voor een  versterking van de bestaande mannelijke bias, en komt het eigenaarschap de facto aan een machtige mannelijke top toe.

This article maps an application of gender mainstreaming with the aim of investigating how gender is institutionalised within EU development aid. I consider the case of aid towards Liberia from 2008 to 2013, examining first the extent to which gender was included in policy formulation and implementation. Next I attempt to explain this by analysing institutional inputs and networks at the EU Delegation in Liberia. Based on text analysis and expert interviews, I argue that gender factors were abolished in the actual implementation, despite relative support from the Delegation leaders, and the availability of training and expertise. The largest stumbling block to effective implementation was institutional weakness, represented by the disconnect between formal and informal institutional rules; gendered assumptions at the EU external services constraining the expression of marginalised perspectives; and a gendered double democratic deficit in the power play over which ideas matter and who accumulates resources.

This article investigates why gender mainstreaming has not occurred in European Union (EU) development aid towards Rwanda despite a two-sided receptiveness from Rwanda and the EU’s Directorate-General for Development and Cooperation. I use a feminist institutionalist approach to examine formal and informal institutions as well as the actors, networks and processes involved in policy formation and implementation. I argue that the largest stumbling block to effective implementation is an institutional weakness at the EU level which involves a decoupling of formal and informal institutions and leads to the ‘ceremonial’ behaviour of gender policy actors and a limited, instrumental policy guided by gendered assumptions. These reproduce further stereotypes and contribute to an asymmetrical power play within the institutions. This can disadvantage women and staff working on gender equality. Finally, the EU’s institutional practices structurally marginalize the voices of Rwandan women and their movement which is problematic in the context of an increasingly authoritarian state.

Since the establishment of the European Economic Community in 1957, interesting trends of 'thematic spill-over' have occurred in the field of gender equality (van der Vleuten 2007, 178). Over the decades, a supranational gender regime has developed and now extends far beyond the original legal right to equal pay. It includes various policy instruments such as action programmes, gender mainstreaming, and gender-responsive budgeting, and it covers many policy domains other than employment. The historical development of European Union (EU) gender equality policy has been characterised as a three-phased evolution, starting with equal treatment in the seventies, over positive action in the eighties, to gender mainstreaming in the late nineties (Jacquot 2015; Rees 1998). Some scholars distinguish a fourth phase because, since the end of the nineties, the EU's equality policy has expanded, not only to new fields, but also to cover multiple equality strands including race and ethnicity, religion and belief, age, disability, and sexual orientation. They argue that institutionally and normatively, this shift involves a move towards new solutions to tackling inequality and the emergence of 'a new politics of equality' (Kantola 2010, 2014, 2; Woodward 2012). The aim of this chapter is to review this history from its very beginning until present day, applying a feminist historical institutionalist lens. Specifically, we draw on the notions of 'path dependencies' and 'critical junctures' from the historical institutionalist toolbox. Path dependency bares the ways in which slow-moving causal processes are linked, while 'critical junctures' or critical 'real-world' events provoke the destabilisation of institutions and may enable change resulting in new equilibria (Waylen 2009, 249). To this, feminist institutionalism (FI) adds a gender dimension which reveals how rules are gendered, how rules have gendered effects, and how the actors who make, break, or shape the rules are gendered (Chappell and Waylen 2013). The next section presents the main features of feminist historical institutionalism. Subsequently, the different phases of EU gender equality policies are discussed with a focus on the extent to which they represent a new turn or, rather, reflect continuity. We conclude with a discussion of the insights gained by applying a feminist historical institutionalist lens.

Despite its generally critical nature, gender has been largely absent from the mainstream literature on development policy. As the European Union (EU) has long claimed gender equality to be part of its core values and identity in the world, a gender perspective is indispensable to understand the EU’s role as global actor. Scholarship has shown a rhetorical emphasis on gender, but when push comes to shove, the results are uneven: gender is not systematically mainstreamed across the EU’s development policy and often instrumentalised to support economic goals. It has shown how seemingly gender- neutral policy is gendered and gendering, both reflecting as well as producing (unequal) gender relations. This scholarship has also investigated gender imbalances and male work cultures in EU development policy- making, demonstrating that ‘who decides what matters’ is a highly gendered matter, with real life consequences for men and women across the world. This chapter starts with an overview of EU development policy, introducing its history, main themes, and policy actors as well as some key directions in scholarship. Next, I trace the emergence of gender from the fi rst attempts to integrate women’s issues in European development until present day. Then I delve into the respective scholarship and sketch the main routes it has taken so far. Following, I discuss some limitations within this scholarship, including a focus on decision- making and ‘policy on paper’ rather than on impact on the ground, as well as a compartmentalised and at times rather Eurocentric approach focussed mainly on gender alone and on the European Commission as the key policy actor. Finally, I discuss how the EU is currently at a crossroad in a volatile global context and propose directions for future research.

This chapter examines the quality of gender equality policies in EU development co-operation with South Africa to gain a deeper understanding of the EU as a global gender actor. In this chapter the perspectives of South African gender advocates are used as a touchstone for the evaluation of both process and content dimensions of quality. The research shows that EU-South African co-operation conforms with dominant development paradigms which seem to neglect the specific South African contextual legacy. If the EU wants to stay relevant as a global promotor of gender equality, it would do good to include national gender advocates’ voices in external policy processes in a more meaningful and systematic way, as to avoid Eurocentric ideas on the meaning of “quality” in gender policy abroad.

The 59th session of the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) will take place at the United Nations (UN) Headquarters in New York from 9 to 20 March 2015 and will be attended by UN entities, Member States and non-governmental organizations from all regions of the world. The key priority theme will be the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, including current challenges that affect its implementation and the achievement of gender equality and the empowerment of women, 20 years after its adoption. The CSW will undertake a review of progress made of the implementation of the Beijing Platform for Action (BPfA) and the outcomes of the 23rd special session of the General Assembly. Importantly, it will discuss opportunities for strengthening gender equality and the empowerment of women in the post-2015 development agenda through the integration of a gender perspective.

The 59th CSW session marks the 20th anniversary of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action and involves a full review of the implementation of the BPfA at global and EU level (Chapter 1). The study clearly demonstrates that the increased efforts in the EU and its Member States have had its effect the last five years: women’s participation in the labour force and in higher education have risen, the gender pay gap has improved and women’s representation in decision-making bodies has gone up. Furthermore, the provision of services for survivors of gender-based violence has improved. Importantly there is a significant increase of gender statistics produced by Member States.

Nevertheless there is still significant room for improvement at the EU and the global level as women and girls are at a disadvantage in all the BPfA’s critical areas of concern. Overall progress on the implementation of the Platform for Action has been slow, uneven and limited. Discriminatory gender norms and stereotypes, as well as women’s unequal participation in decision-making have hampered progress in all critical areas of concern.

Furthermore, progress on the critical areas of concern has been particularly slow for women and girls who experience multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination. Despite increased efforts at EU level, the Beijing +20 review shows that monitoring progress on the implementation of the BPfA is challenged by a lack of comparable, high quality data on
gender equality globally. Positively, the study shows that the 59th session of the CSW takes place at an opportune moment, as the international community negotiates the post-2015 development agenda (Chapter 2) which will succeed the MDGs and address poverty eradication and sustainable development globally. Among EU institutions there is a strong consensus on the central role of gender equality and women’s empowerment in the post-2015 framework. Gender equality is seen as a goal in its own right, as well as a crosscutting issue to be mainstreamed across the framework. Three key issues to be discussed at the 59th CSW are of particular concern from an EU perspective: the monitoring of results through gender
statistics and indicators (Chapter 3); the rights of marginalized and disadvantaged women and girls (Chapter 4); and the managing of the transition from the MDGs to the SDGs (Chapter 5). At the 59th CSW the EU should maintain a strong common position on gender equality and women’s rights and urge the CSW to link the post-2015 agenda explicitly to the goals of the Platform for Action, as the lack of convergence between the MDGs and the BPfA are among the main criticisms of the previous framework. The study concludes (Chapter 6) that 2015 provides a once in-a-generation opportunity to position gender equality, women’s rights and women’s empowerment at the heart of the global agenda. The CSW should therefore call for increased financing for gender equality, strong accountability mechanisms and a “gender data revolution” in the post 2015-framework.

The year 2015 will be a milestone for the future of women’s rights and gender equality policy in EU external relations as it provides the opportunity to take stock of a number of international and European initiatives (Chapter 1). While aid flows in support of gender equality and women’s empowerment (Chapter 2) have risen significantly over the past years in the international and EU context, most of this aid went to the education and health sector, while women’s lack of economic and political empowerment (Chapter 3) remain among the unfinished business of the Millennium Development Goals agenda. Sustained investments and a renewed international commitment to gender equality are thus crucial.

Among international organisations, the EU stands out in its support for gender equality, both in terms of its commitment to the implementation of the global women, peace and security agenda (Chapter 4), as well as in terms of its commitment to mainstream gender across all areas of EU external policy (Chapter 5). However among the EU’s external policy agencies, competency in gender policy analysis and receptiveness to gender mainstreaming vary across the respective policy areas. While the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Development and Cooperation – Europeaid (5.4) seems to have taken the lead on the matter, the Directorate-General for Trade (5.3) has not given much attention to gender inequalities. Other external policy services including, the Directorate-General for Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection (5.1), the Directorate-General for Enlargement (5.2) and the European External Action Service (5.5) have recently begun to take important steps towards a systematically gender mainstreamed policy.

A number of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats can be drawn out of this analysis (Chapter 6). First of all the EU has a strong policy framework in place covering most aspects of the promotion of gender equality and women’s empowerment in external policy, involving regular reporting on progress at a high level. Second, investments have been made to institutionalize expertise and capacity-building. Nevertheless, despite the fact that political commitments and high-level reporting tools create momentum and awareness-raising, effective implementation on the ground remains unclear. In addition, the analysis reveals that policy development and follow-up have been uneven across policy areas, while institution-wide gender expertise remains insufficient, dissipates, and is situated mostly at the lower levels of the hierarchy. Also the external environment forms a threat in the sense that donors operate in a context of economic crisis, marked by insufficient resources and priority overload. Sustained investments in the support of the global gender equality agenda thus remain essential.

The European Parliament should therefore call upon the Commission and the EEAS to develop a strong position on gender equality and women’s rights in foreign affairs and development cooperation, so that the EU can take a leadership role in promoting the gender equality agenda globally after 2015. More specifically, the following recommendations (Chapter 7) are provided and discussed: building a coherent gender equality policy across all aspects of external relations, broaden and deepen the EU’s gender policy in its external relations and development cooperation, sustain and strengthen political leadership and accountability and further invest in institution wide expertise and capacity-building.

This chapter critically examines gender mainstreaming in EU development aid to assess whether or not the EU can be considered a leading and distinctive gender actor. To answer this question I will analyse the budget, gendered language and frame of high level policy programming documents. First I evaluate whether a shift has been made from a conservative Women in Development paradigm to a transformative Gender and Development paradigm to determine if the EU lives up to European and international commitments on gender equality and can be considered to be leading by example. Second I examine whether the EU advocates a distinctive ‘Europeanness’ in its gender policy towards developing countries. The chapter concludes that the shift towards a transformative Gender and Development paradigm has only partly been made. Moreover, I argue that rather than a distinctive ‘Europeanness’, the EU’s gender equality approach can be called a patchwork of approaches derived from other international institutions such as the UN or the World Bank. This implies that the EU is not the innovative leading gender power it claims to be.

The year 2015 will be a milestone for the future of women’s rights and gender equality policy in EU external relations as it provides the opportunity to take stock of a number of international and European initiatives. While aid flows in support of gender equality and women’s empowerment have risen significantly over the past years in the international and EU context, most of this aid went to the education and health sector, while women’s lack of economic and political empowerment remain among the unfinished business of the Millennium Development Goals agenda. Sustained investments and a renewed international commitment to gender equality are thus crucial.

Among international organisations, the EU stands out in its support for gender equality, both in terms of its commitment to the implementation of the global women, peace and security agenda, as well as in terms of its commitment to mainstream gender across all areas of EU external policy. However among the EU’s external policy agencies, competency in gender policy analysis and receptiveness to gender mainstreaming vary across the respective policy areas. While the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Development and Cooperation – Europeaid seems to have taken the lead on the matter, the Directorate-General for Trade has not given much attention to gender inequalities. Other external policy services including, the Directorate-General for Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection, the Directorate-General for Enlargement and the European External Action Service have recently begun to take important steps towards a systematically gender mainstreamed policy.

A number of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats can be drawn out of this analysis. First of all the EU has a strong policy framework in place covering most aspects of the promotion of gender equality and women’s empowerment in external policy, involving regular reporting on progress at a high level. Second, investments have been made to institutionalize expertise and capacity-building. Nevertheless, despite the fact that political commitments and high-level reporting tools create momentum and awareness-raising, effective implementation on the ground remains unclear. In addition,
the analysis reveals that policy development and follow-up have been uneven across policy areas, while institution-wide gender expertise remains insufficient, dissipates, and is situated mostly at the lower levels of the hierarchy. Also the external environment forms a threat in the sense that donors operate in a context of economic crisis, marked by insufficient resources and priority overload. Sustained investments in the support of the global gender equality agenda thus remain essential. The European Parliament should therefore call upon the Commission and the EEAS to develop a strong position on gender equality and women’s rights in foreign affairs and development cooperation, so that the EU can take a leadership role in promoting the
gender equality agenda globally after 2015. More specifically, the following recommendations are provided and discussed: building a coherent gender equality policy across all aspects of external relations, broaden and deepen the EU’s gender policy in its external relations and development cooperation, sustain and strengthen political leadership and accountability and further invest in institution wide expertise and capacity-building.

De Europese Unie (EU) heeft zichzelf uitgeroepen tot promotor van een sociale globalisering, waarin economische en sociale doelstellingen hand in hand gaan (Europese Commissie, 2004a; Europese Raad, 2007). Een van de instrumenten die zij hiervoor aanwendt, is haar ontwikkelingsbeleid.