GENDER ISSUESACADEMIC YEAR 2013-2014

Lecture 2

M.A. Confalonieri

Policy paradigms in gender equality policy –ideas , causal explanations, policy tools , policy conflict .

The paradigm of equal treatment and its weaknesses

POLICY PARADIGM .

• “an interpretive frame-work that specifies the nature of the policy problem , the policy goal and the kind of instruments that can be used to attain them” (Hall)

Policy paradigm

• 3 components of a policy paradigm:• A cognitive element- description of the policy

problems and its causes , including the link between the social sphere where the problem occurs and other social spheres.

• A normative element – reference to values that are at stake. These values can be uncontroversial in the political culture or they can be controversial.

• Instrumental element- regards to the type of policy tools that should be used to solve the problem (clearly connected with the former)

Types of policy (Lowi)

Coercition (costs)

Use of coercition

On individuals On large collectivities

Direct, immediate

Regulative(ex: anti-discrimination law)

Redistributive(ex:quotas; differential income taxation of women and men)

Indirect, diffuse Distributive(childcare)

Constituent(organizational and procedural

reforms for mainstreaming)

Cognitive element Normative

elementPolicy type

Type of policy instrument

Intevene on ..

Degree of policy conflict

Equal treatment

Sex inequalities are caused by deliberate discriminatory behavior towards women and men

Individuals in the same

position must be treated equally

Formal equality (fairness of treatment)

Regulative General rules, negative

(prohibiting discrimination)

Individual behavor

Low

Equal opportunities and affermative action

Sex inequalities are caused by the unequal opportunities for women and men, mainly due to the differences in roles with reference to the sphere of care

Differentials in the capabilities of women and men (as social groups ) justify differential treatments in order to restore competition or achieve a just final distribution

(substantive equality)

Distributive

Redistributive

Differential allocation of values instrumental to achieve final resources (education, childcare) or “reverse discrimination”

The distribution of instrumental resources or final value between womene and men

High

Gender mainstreaming

Inequalities are caused by the social construction of gender and are all pervasive in a society

Gender should not produce inequalities

or gender differences should be respected and socially valued

Constituent Organizational and procedural innovation of policymaking in order to integrate the goal of gender equality in all

policies

Structures, procedures, roles, knowlede and values that influence policymaking

Relatively low (at least in the short term)

Equal treatment prohibition of discrimination

• Equality as fair treatment .• Prohibition of direct discrimination.• Discrimination is treating individuals differently

because of their sex.• Fairness is treating individuals in similar situation

equally, irrespective of their group identity.• Group identity must be irrelevant, is a forbidden

criteria in allocating values (pay, career etc.).• Individualistic bias of equal treatment

Indirect discrimination

• Means treating individuals (apparently equally) in reference to criteria or properties that are differently distributed in the two groups.

• Group identity becomes relevant.

• Ex: de-taxation of overtime work (proposal put forward in Italy in 2010).

Discrimination• Defined as a voluntary “deviant” behavior

by an actor .

• The basic assumption is that society is “normally” fair with reference to the allocation of values except for “deviant” behaviors that must be forbidden.

•

Equal treatment policy -Instruments

• Negative rules • Rules prohibiting discrimination: Anti-

discriminatory legislation.• Rules regard individual behavior (the

discrimination)• Sanctions are also on individuals .• Intervention is ex-post (once the principle of

non-discrimination has been infringed)• Even if the existence of anti-discrimination law

is a deterrent

Anti-discriminatory policies

• By far the most developed of gender equality policies.• EU equal treatment on the work place directives in the

1970s (but the principle of equal pay was already included in the legislation of some EC countries).

• Low financial costs (regulations)• Low political cost because it appeals to ideas on equality

as of formal equality between individuals entrenched in liberal democratic cultures, non-controversial.

• EC- a further reason :issue linkae with the project of the single market

Equal treatment- weaknesses

• The most important is that EQ is based on fallacious premises (cognitive element is false): women and men are not in the same situation.

• To treat equally subjects that are unequal does’t necessarly produce more equality.

• It may exasperate pre-existing inequalities

The main fallacy of Equal treatment approach

• Investigations of equality – theoretical as well as practical – that proceed with the assumption of antecedent uniformity . . . thus miss out on a major aspect of the problem. Human diversity is not a secondary complication (to be ignored or to be introduced ‘‘later on’’); it is a fundamental aspect of our interest in equality.

(Sen 1992: xi)

The fallacy of the assumption of uniformity

• The debate on women’s night work

• An extreme case :the femicides of Ciutad Juarez (Mexico)

Equal treatment- weaknesses

• The problem of enforcement

• Equal treatment are enforced mainly through the appeal to enforcement agencies of the victim of discrimination.

• Assimmetries of resources (financial, power) between the victim and the discriminator.

• Quality of enforcement mechanisms

Equal opportunities and affirmative action• Away from the assumption of uniformity

• Group differences are not irrelevant, they are the starting point: sex inequalities are caused by the unequal opportunities for women and men, mainly due to the differences in roles with reference to the sphere of care.

• Justice is not treating un-equals equally, but to treat them unequally, to compensate for pre-existing inequalities and to produce a just distribution of social values and resources . The goal is not formal (procedural) equality but equal final distribution.

• Preferential treatment • A shift from fairness to justice.

Equal opportunities : what opportunities?

• Capability approach (Sen) : • a list of fundamental capabilities policy oriented (Robeyns

2006) This list includes :• life and physical health, • mental well-being, • bodily integrity and safety, • social relations, • Political empowerment, • education and knowledge, • domestic work and nonmarket work,• paid work,• shelter and environment, • mobility, • leisure activities, • time-autonomy,• respect • religion.

Equal opportunity measures

• - May intervene on:

• - initial resources in order to make women more capable of competing for final values (more education, support for childcare) .

• -final distribution through preferential allocation of social values (quotas)

Equal opportunity measures compensatory measures

• Ex: education – Childcare services – New lines of credit for starting new enterprises

(Italy 1992)

– Distributive policies (costs are diffuse)

Equal opportunity measures compensatory measures

• The former type (compensatory measures) are less politically controversial because, once the inequalities in the initial asset of resources are compensated for, the possibility of a full meritocratic competition is restored.

• There are more compatible with the ethics of competitive individualism (liberalism)

Preferential treatment or quotas in distribution of final values

• Redistributitive policy : costs are immediate and concentrated on a specific group (ex. Men competing for political power) : for every woman who “wins” there’s a man who looses.

• Redistributive policies with concentrated costs are those who generate the higher level of backlash on the loosers ‘ part.

Preferential treatment or quotas in distribution of final values

• Opposition to preferential treatment measures on the grounds that they would contrast the principle that selection should be based on merit .

Origins of affirmative action

• U.S. in the Sixties , for racial inequalities.

• Federal directives imposing that firms working for public procurements should hire preferentially members of unprivileged racial groups.

• Later affirmative action measures extended to other social spheres (in particular to access to higher education) and to inequalities based on sex.

Arguments for quotas –The Jurisprudence of the US Supreme Court

• Since affirmative action looks at odds with the values of competitive individualism of the US political culture , they have produced a number of cases before US courts.

• The jurisprudence of the Supreme Court has produced some arguments that justify the use of quotas. The main are:

• Compensating for existing inequalities• Representing a disadvantaged group in the political

and social elites • Provide role-models for the members of a

disadvantaged group.

05

101520253035404550

EU-27

Unghe

ria Malta Cipro

Roma

nia Irlanda

Lituani

aSlo

vacchi

aEs

tonia

Grecia Ita

liaRe

p. Cé

caRe

gno Un

ito Bulga

riaLet

tonia

Lussem

burgo Po

lonia

Franci

aAu

stria

Porto

gallo

Germ

ania

Sloven

iaBe

lgioDa

nimarc

aSp

agna

Olanda

Finlan

dia Svezi

a

QUOTAS in POLITICS : the fast track and a temporary measure

• In almost all 17 countries that show a better balanced representation than in Italy this was produced by the introduction of quotas for gender representation among the candidates. Quotas were introduced through legislative measures or, more often, through parties’ regulations. Exception is Denemark, where quotas were introduced in the Seventies by the parties of the Left, but abolished in the mid-Nineties because a substantial gender balance had been reached .

Party quotas

• Normally adopted first by Left and Green parties (often later imitated by they competitors ).

• Exist in Sweden, the Netherlands, Germany, Slovenia, Austria and the Czech Republic, and in the English Labour party

Legislated quotas

• In Belgium , Spain, France and Poland.

• Often after the adoption of quotas by some parties.

Women elected in the Lower Chamber of National Parliaments in some EU countries 1970-2007

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Sweden

Denmark

The Netherlands

FRG

Spain

Portugal

ITALY

France

Effectiveness of quotas

• Depends :

• -on the electoral system (normally work better with PR)

• - on the enforcement mechanisms (sanctions for non compliance) vary between the nullification of the party’s list and reductions in public financement of the party.

Women in the boards of enterprises

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2003

2012

Quotas for women in boards

• Norway in 2006 introduced a law prescribing 40% of female representation in boards: it passed from 22% in 2006 to 42% in 2012.

• Spain Ley de Igualdad 2007: 40% by 2015.• France : 2011 law imposing a 40% by 2017 and 20% by

2014.• Italy: 2012 –temporary quotas for 2 mandates of Boards

20% in the first 3 years, 33,3% in the following 3 • In Finland a Code for corporate governance prescribing

to the enterprises that don’t include at least 1 woman in their boards to justify why.

Proposal of the European Commission

• Commissioner Viviane Reading presented a proposal for a directive to rise to 40% the percentage of women in boards by 2020.

• Temporary measure . • Preferential selection of a women only between

equally qualified candidates .• Sanctions for non –compliance to be decided at

the m.s. level .• Despite being relatively moderate a great deal of

controversy

Softer measures for equal opportunities in careers in big

enterprises

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Austria Belgio Rep.Cèca

Finlandia Francia Germania Grecia Italia Norvegia Spagna Olanda RegnoUnito

Politiche carriere F

Misure per rientro

Sostegno cura

Orari flessibili

Equal opportunities and affirmative action

• Compensatory measures are less controversial but their effectiveness is less immediate.

• Strong, preferential treatment measures are more effective but tend to generate a higher degree of political controversy (varies with the political culture: equalitarianism individualism ; -> patriachal values )