gender mainstreaming and eu enlargement

8/7/2019 gender mainstreaming and eu enlargement

1/23

Gender mainstreaming and EU

enlargement: swimming against

the tide?Charlotte Bretherton

ABSTRACT Despite a commitment by the European Union (EU) to integrategender equality in all its activities, mainstreaming has been notably absent frompolicies towards Central and East European countries (CEEC) during the pre-accession period. The signicance of the gender dimension in the context ofenlargement is demonstrated, with some emphasis on the Polish case. Impedimentsto implementation of mainstreaming strategies within the EU are then examined.It is concluded that enlargement policy is illustrative of a conict between ideas andinterests which serves to inhibit institutionalization of mainstreaming principlesand practices, not only in relation to enlargement but across EU policy areas and

beyond.KEY WORDS Central and East European countries; European Union; gendermainstreaming; institutionalization; Poland; pre-accession strategies.

INTRODUCTION

Enlargement of the European Union (EU) involves a unique and complexprocess through which the external becomes internal so that the characteristicsand priorities of new member states become integral to the evolution of

political cultures and policy priorities at the EU level. The proposed Easternenlargement, to include countries undergoing fundamental and unprecedentedtransition, raises many questions concerning the EUs capacity to absorb newmembers while also maintaining commitment to established principles. Incircumstances where there has been a sustained transitional backlash againstwomen in Central and East European countries (CEEC) (Titkow 1998: 29),our concern is with the ability of an enlarged EU to maintain and consolidateits commitment to the principle of gender equality.

The EUs most recent strategy for the promotion of gender equality is

mainstreaming; that is, integration of gender equality considerations in allactivities and policies at all levels (CEC 1998a: 22).1 Given the deteriorating

f i CEEC h C i i h h i d h d

Journal of European Public Policy 8:1 February 2001: 6081


2/23

period (CEC 1998b: 21). Despite this, failure to initiate a mainstreamingstrategy in the context of enlargement has frequently been noted (EP 1995,1997, 1998, 1999a).

Mainstreaming is a demanding strategy. As we shall see, its successful

implementation would require that its principles and practices were institu-tionalized that is, achieved the status of norms or rules which routinelyoperated to facilitate or constrain behaviour in all aspects, and at all levels, ofEU (and ultimately CEEC) policy processes. Institutionalization unfolds overtime (Pierson 1998: 29). It is the consequence of processes of social inter-action, through which shared ideas, or beliefs, are constructed and becomeembedded, thus shaping expectations of future behaviour. In some EU policyareas, such as structural funding, it might be argued that the process ofembedding mainstreaming principles has begun (Fitzgerald and Noble 1998;

Horelli 1998). In no policy area, however, has gender mainstreaming beenrmly established (CEC 1998b). There is thus a need to investigate both thespecic obstacles to initiation of mainstreaming strategies in the enlargementcontext, and to identify impediments to institutionalization of gender main-streaming principles per se.

In his analysis of the governance of the Single European Market, SimonBulmer notes a convergence between ideas and the interests of signicantactors which constitute swimming with the tide (Bulmer 1998: 379). Swim-ming against the tide has not been a focus of institutionalist analyses; ratherthe emphasis has been upon the enduring qualities of institutions, and theirability to shape and constrain future outcomes (Garrett and Weingast 1993;Bulmer 1998; Pierson 1998). In the present context, the focus is ratherdifferent. Mainstreaming is a strategy which seeks to promote institutionalchange in circumstances where divergences between ideas (supportive of genderequality) and interests (reected in already institutionalized male dominance)are likely to impede the construction of shared beliefs. Examination of theprinciples of gender mainstreaming permits a fuller understanding of the

challenges involved.

PRINCIPLES OF GENDER MAINSTREAMING

Mainstreaming is a relatively recent approach to genderequality whichimplies equal valuation of different characteristics among and between womenand men. Its emergence reects acknowledgement of the inadequacies ofstrategies intended to promote womens equality, which implies the attainmentby women of equal status with men, on mens terms. Thus, traditional women-focused approaches to equality have aimed to assist women in adapting toestablished norms and values, and rhythms of life, which have long operated

C. Bretherton: Gender mainstreaming and EU enlargement 61


3/23

Importantly, then, mainstreaming is not an attempt to remedy an absence.Understandings about gender are already deeply embedded; they shape andconstrain social interaction at all levels and are written into the very logic anddesign of the organizational relations of public life (Davies 1999: 36). Thus,

for example, the preference for routine and formulaic decisions, the impartial-ity and impersonality so valued in the performance of administrative tasks, andthe hierarchical nature of bureaucracies, reect the institutionalization ofmasculine principles. In consequence, attempts to mainstream gender equalityare confronted by pervasive understandings and practices supportive of maledominance.

Within the EU, the fundamental challenges facing the mainstreamingstrategy are acknowledged by the Commission: The promotion of equalitymust not be confused with the simple objective of balancing the statistics: it

is a question of promoting long-lasting changes in parental roles, familystructures, institutional practices, the organisation of work and time (CEC1996a: 5). Gender mainstreaming, then, reects analysis of the roles andbehaviours not only of women, but also of men; and of the interactionbetween them. It implies that men, as well as women, will need to adapt.Gender-focused approaches do not merely seek to add women to a particularcontext; they seek to change the context itself. Mainstreaming is thus a long-term, comprehensive strategy for achieving gender equality. The Councilof Europe (1998: 7) provides a useful denition: Gender mainstreaming is the(re)organisation, improvement, development and evaluation of policyprocesses, so that a gender equality perspective is incorporated in all policiesat all levels and at all stages, by the actors normally involved in policy-making.Mainstreaming strategies, then, cannot be delegated to specialist equalityunits. Policy-makers and administrators at all levels (local, national and EU)are required to participate in their implementation. Thus, if mainstreamingis to become institutionalized through practice, practitioners will need initiallyto be persuaded of the effectiveness of mainstreaming in generating efcient

policies which reect the needs and interests of all sections of society (Councilof Europe 1998: 11). Within the EU, it is anticipated that gradualimplementation of mainstreaming practices will promote learning and ulti-mately institutionalization. For example, use of gender impact assessmentsshould, it is argued, uncover the unintended negative consequences (forwomen) of policy decisions that appear to be gender neutral (CEC 1997a: 3).Nevertheless, as the Commissions rst progress report demonstrates (CEC1998b),2 the processes of institutional learning are likely to be slow anduncertain.

Moreover, failure to implement a mainstreaming strategy has been particu-larly evident, and perhaps singularly unfortunate, in the context of the

62 Journal of European Public Policy


4/23

GENDER DIMENSIONS OF TRANSFORMATION IN CEEC

The processes of economic transition and democratization in CEE societieshave been differentiated by gender, and there is much evidence to suggest thatwomen have suffered disproportionately from their consequences (Funk and

Mueller 1993; UNICEF 1994; Subhan 1996; Renne 1997; Bretherton 1999).In the brief overview below,3 the focus is upon employment and democratiza-tion key issues for the EU.

Women and employment

Prior to 1989, the majority (up to 94 per cent) of working age women werein full-time paid employment in CEEC (Siklova 1993: 75). This level ofparticipation was supported, across CEEC, by a range of policies and provi-

sions intended to facilitate the reconciliation of work and family life including paid maternity leave, entitlement to annual paid leave to care for sickchildren and heavily subsidized kindergarten provision.

Despite these provisions, which have eroded steadily since 1989, genderdisparities in terms of pay and promotion resembled those in the West(Einhorn 1993; Heitlinger 1993). Moreover, women suffered a debilitatingdouble burden of domestic and paid work. Thus a telling consequence ofwomens experiences under state socialism was a signicant and sustained fallin the birth rate across CEEC. This was associated, in the absence of adequatecontraceptive provision, with a high abortion rate. For example, in Hungary,in the late 1960s, there were 134 abortions for every 100 live births (UNICEF1994: 60).

After 1989 it quickly became evident that the processes of marketizationand privatization would create unemployment in CEEC. For socio-psycho-logical as well as economic reasons, it was also anticipated that unemploymentwould, and indeed should, affect women disproportionately. In Poland, forexample, there was a belief that women would be better able to adjust to

unemployment, since they could devote themselves to home and family,whereas unemployed men would be likely to drink, steal or go shing (Reszke1995: 16).

For new CEE governments after 1989, womens position in society was anearly matter of concern and an important aspect of the repudiation of theprevious system. Thus, in the rhetoric of CEE politicians, the heroine worker-mother of state socialism was replaced by highly traditional images of women.In Poland, and to a lesser extent in other CEEC, debates about womens statuscrystallized around the issue of abortion. The woman-mother for whompregnancy is a blessing must be an idol announced Marcin Libicki, Polishrepresentative at the Council of Europe (in Malinowska 1995: 41).



5/23

Dodds 1998). Consequently, a major problem for women is that, onceunemployed, they are signicantly less likely than men to be re-employed.Discriminatory practices in relation to retraining schemes and recruitment toemployment are strongly evident and in some CEEC, notably Hungary4 and

Poland, job vacancies are openly advertised by gender. In addition, the reducedavailability, and increased cost, of childcare provision across CEEC has im-pacted particularly upon low income groups. The urgent need to obtain workhas also made women vulnerable to sexual harassment and exploitation (UNI-CEF 1994).

The labour market impacts of economic transformation have not beengender neutral. In 1989 the majority of working age women, across CEEC,were in paid employment, albeit concentrated in poorly paid, low-status jobs.Today, even these jobs are unavailable to women. In these circumstances it

might appear that the EU equal opportunity acquis has a great deal to offerCEE women. In practice, however, the situation is rather more complex.Womens rights under state socialism were accorded from above and there waslittle tradition of womens activism in their defence. Inevitably, the gapbetween rhetoric and reality has made CEE women sceptical of notions ofwomens emancipation, and ambivalence remains concerning womens rolesand status a description of how women see their own situation is completelylacking. Their voices their critical considered voices are rarely heard inpublic (Ascady 1998: 77). This raises important implications for the develop-ment of civil society in CEEC.

Democracy, participation and civil society

In order to full the EUs criteria for membership, acceding countries mustdemonstrate achievement of democracy. This implies not only establishmentof formal institutions and procedures but public awareness of, and support for,the norms and practices associated with liberal democracy. Thus, in addition

to participation in decision-making at the elite level, we would expect to ndwomens involvement in the autonomous grassroots organizations characteristicof civil society.

In the case of elite participation, womens representation in the formalpolitical system, particularly in national parliaments, was relatively high whencompared with EU levels. However, again, the gap between the rhetoric andreality of womens political participation was great. Representation in nationalparliaments was predetermined by quota and womens participation was per-ceived as an obligation, imposed from above to symbolize the achievement ofequality. This perception was reinforced by the fact that parliaments themselvesplayed a largely symbolic role. In the higher echelons of the Communist Party



6/23

proportion of women in the national parliaments of CEEC (Lokau 1998).There has subsequently been a slow increase, to an average of 10.7 per cent forthe ve rst tranche CEE applicant countries. Nevertheless, this remainsbelow the EU member state average of 20.5 per cent,5 while women currently

comprise 30 per cent of Members of the European Parliament.The fall in womens representation in CEEC cannot be explained byreference to womens lack of experience or qualications women are as highlyeducated as men and the new democratic procedures were unfamiliar to menand women alike. Rather, it reects the enhanced status of parliaments andparliamentarians, in circumstances where quotas no longer operate and whererenewed emphasis upon traditional gender stereotypes has encouraged orlegitimized womens relative absence from the public sphere of politics.

Low participation in formal political systems could, arguably, be compen-

sated by the development of strong, autonomous womens organizations.However, these have been slow to evolve in CEEC and, again, this is a legacyof the past. For forty years the only womens organizations ofcially permittedwere those sponsored by the Communist Party. The purpose of these organiza-tions was to extend the reach of the Party, and participation was stronglyencouraged. Consequently, as Siklova, has noted (1998: 34), an aspect ofwomens newly acquired freedom has been the freedom not to have to organizeourselves into politicized groups.

Despite a lack of enthusiasm for participating in formal organizations,women across CEEC have become involved in numerous groups, primarilysmall and local, organized around issues such as domestic violence apreviously unacknowledged problem in CEEC. Particularly signicant, how-ever, has been the development of transnational networking by CEE womensgroups. Exasperated by the unwillingness of most of the major political partiesacross the region to consider womens expectations and anxieties (Rueschmeyer1998: 286), the United Nations system has become a focus for lobbying bywomens groups pressing for implementation, by their governments, of the

1995 Beijing Platform for Action (OS KA 1998a). Increasingly, too, attentionhas focused upon the potential for EU ofcials, in the context of enlargementnegotiations, to inuence CEE governments.6

These responses to the adverse effects of transition upon womens politicaland economic status are indicative of the continuing debate over the status ofwomen in CEEC.

GENDER EQUALITY IN CEEC: CONTEMPORARY

DEBATESFormal adoption by CEE governments of the 1995 Beijing Platform for Action



7/23

protection for women and/or that gender equality is a low priority in thecontext of the overwhelming challenges of economic and politicaltransformation.

Lack of elite commitment is compounded by low levels of gender awareness

in CEEC. The model of womens emancipation imposed under state socialism in many cases upon highly traditional societies lacked gender analysis oreven acknowledgement of gender as a social construct. This continues to bereected in difculties in translating or nding social equivalents for theconcept of gender, as well as scepticism concerning its relevance to CEEC(Regulska and Roseman 1998: 24). While debates and analyses within CEECare constantly evolving, and gender studies is becoming established in aca-demic departments, awareness of gender as a relational concept has been slowto develop. Consequently attention continues to focus primarily upon the

status of women.While low levels of gender awareness are common, the differences between

CEEC are such that generalizations quickly become untenable. Consequentlyattention will focus upon Poland, where transitional backlash has beenparticularly severe but where there is a relatively strong womens movement.

The Polish case

In Poland, since 1989, debates about womens status have been intense, andthe Catholic Church has been highly proactive in leading the transitionalbacklash against the social and political advancement of women (Titkow1998: 29). While protracted controversy over abortion provided an initialfocus for womens mobilization, from the mid-1990s the issues pursued bywomens organizations became much broader.

At the elite level, these debates are reected in the positions adopted by thetwo broad coalitions which currently dominate Polands fragmented political

system. Between 1993 and 1997 the governing coalition comprised theAlliance of the Democratic Left (SLD) and the Polish Peasant Party (PSL).Secular in orientation and espousing a social-market ideology, the SLDPSLcoalition was receptive to lobbying by womens organizations and introduceda number of measures supportive of womens advancement. These culminatedin the April 1997 National Action Plan on Women, which reected the (then)governments Beijing commitments.

The October 1997 general election saw a major shift in Polish politics. Thepresent government, also a coalition, is dominated by Solidarity Electoral

Action, itself a co-ordinating body for some thirty socially conservative, centre-right groups, many of which have religious afliations. The smaller coalition



8/23

Action is responsible for, among others, social policy, religious affairs andeducation.

Since the change of government in 1997 the diminution in elite commit-ment to womens equality has been a matter of great concern to Polish womens

organizations. Indeed it has been the stimulus for concerted action. In 1998,for example, a non-governmental organization (NGO) association was createdspecically to protest against the governments departure from the Beijingcommitments of its predecessor.7 Among the Associations concerns are theremoval of womens issues from the mandate of the (former) Plenipotentiaryfor Women and the Family. This was among the earliest acts of the newadministration and was accompanied by spending cuts which clearly demon-strated the governments unwillingness to commit resources to this policy area.These included failure to implement the programme on domestic violence

launched by the previous government, which entailed loss of United Nationsfunding. This policy shift on the part of the Polish government is noted in theCommissions most recent report on Polands readiness for accession, whichexpresses concerns about the need to make progress on national policies forimproving the treatment of women (CEC 1999b: 14).

A further policy reversal following the 1997 elections was the abolition, bythe new Plenipotentiary for the Family, of the monthly consultative NGOForum, which considered the gender implications of government policies and

programmes. This abandonment of an embryonic mainstreaming strategyaccords with the present governments contention that womens equality isalready protected by existing laws. This contention requires examination.

The principle of equal rights for women and men is established by Article33 of the new (1997) Polish Constitution. There is no elaboration of thisprinciple, however, nor is there any means of checking whether it is contra-vened by existing or new legislation.8 The Polish Labour Code also in-corporates this general principle, but again there is a lack of specic provisions,not least in relation to recruitment. As a consequence employers do not try tomake it a secret that they prefer to employ men; moreover, it is commonpractice to require women to provide certicates declaring that they are notpregnant (Womens Rights Center 1998a: 2). In addition to general provisionson the principle of equality, Section VIII of the Labour Code deals withProtection of Womens Work. Article 176 contains a key provision: Womenshall not be employed in work which is particularly onerous or harmful tohealth. The Council of Ministers shall, by regulation, specify a list of suchwork. Originally (from 1979) women were prohibited from employment in

more than ninety occupations. In 1996 the list of prohibited occupations wasshortened for example, women are now permitted to drive buses and trams



9/23

Polands present protective approach is incompatible with EU equalitylegislation and will require amendment prior to accession. The central issue,then, will be to ensure that the general principles of equality already enshrinedin Polish law are given practical expression. This will require the development

of an effective equality machinery an area where EU practice is likely to haveinuence, and where Polish NGOs, lawyers and parliamentarians have forsome time been actively lobbying. There has, for example, been considerablepressure for the introduction of an equal opportunity act. Ironically, amongthe issues raised by the present government in opposing the draft bill was itspotential incompatibility with EU law (Fuszara and Zieli nska 1998a: 4). It issurely signicant that, in the debate about the position of women in Polishsociety, EU policies and principles, variously interpreted, are regularly cited byboth sides.

Alongside proposals for equality legislation, there have been demands for anindependent equality body to monitor and conduct research on womensstatus, encourage good practice and initiate litigation. This last is a crucial area.At present there is little case law on equality issues and womens NGOs havestruggled both to establish legal precedents and to assist poorly resourcedwomen in taking legal action (OSKA 1998a; Womens Rights Center 1998b).There has been public debate on this issue in recent years, including a well-publicized demand, from a cross-party group of Sejm deputies, for a Parlia-mentary Commission on womens rights. Telling, here, is the groupspokespersons contention that his proposal stood a better chance of successthan earlier initiatives by the Parliamentary Womens Group, owing to thelatters low status in the Sejm. The proposal for a Parliamentary Commissionwas nevertheless dismissed as unnecessary and articial by government minis-ters (Luxmoore 1999).

In the absence of a robust equality machinery, considerable responsibility fallsupon womens NGOs and the Parliamentary Womens Group. Links betweenthese groups are maintained via an NGO Forum having more than thirty NGO

participants. While the Parliamentary Womens Group is considered to haveachieved little success in inuencing policy (Fuszara and Zieli nska 1998b) theNGO sector is active and growing.10 Co-operation between NGOs extendsbeyond Poland and includes efforts, via the United Nations Human RightsCommission and other agencies, to put external pressure on the Polish govern-ment. The EU is of particular signicance in this respect; indeed, there is hopethat EU membership may assist in countering the current backlash. Thus, inJuly 1998, nineteen Polish womens organizations addressed a joint appeal to theEuropean Commission Task Force on enlargement:

We are aware of how seriously the issue of gender equality is treated in the



10/23

While an active NGO community is important, there is also a need forwider awareness of gender issues. Since 1989 the status of women has been acontested issue at the centre of debates concerning the nature and direction ofpost-communist society. This has undoubtedly raised awareness, but has also

deepened divisions between proponents of a conservative woman-mothermodel and those who advocate equal status for women. Nevertheless, there isevidence that a growing proportion of Polish women seek equal status,advocating balanced participation in decision-making and equal partnershipwithin the family (Titkow 1998; Womens Rights Center 1998a; Fuszara andZielinska 1998b). This preference is particularly evident among urban womenand younger women, suggesting optimism for the future.

To summarize the Polish case: despite setbacks since 1989, women haveremained highly visible in the public sphere. In the context of Polands

transition, the status of women has been an important, and divisive, issue. Atthe elite level, these divisions are reected in the shift of the present govern-ment towards social conservatism and, in particular, promotion of womenstraditional, maternal role. Enjoying strong support from the Catholic Churchand from sectors of the population notably in rural areas and the South this currently dominant ideology has ensured that there has been no sustained,high-level political commitment to gender equality in recent years. Never-theless, a contrary position, more supportive of gender equality, is evidentamong opposition parties and younger, urban women. Also important is thegrowing womens movement, increasingly mobilized in opposition to the socialpolicy of the present government and increasingly turning towards the EU asa potential source of support.

Examination of EU policies towards CEEC, however, provides little evi-dence that support will be forthcoming despite formal commitment to main-stream gender in all policy areas including accession.

EU POLICIES TOWARDS CEEC

After 1989, EU policies towards CEEC developed incrementally, from basictrade and aid agreements to increasingly close association and, ultimately, pre-accession strategies intended to assist CEEC in taking on the responsibilities ofthe acquis.

During this process a strong argument was made that aspects of the acquis,including social policy areas such as gender equality and safety at work, shouldbe set aside to facilitate accession. This argument was urged by a number ofacademic commentators (Smith et al. 1996; Preston 1997) and was opposed bythe European Trade Union Confederation and some member state govern-ments. While the arguments for a phased adoption of the acquis did not



11/23

CEE governments would be encouraged to regard gender inequality, and othersocial problems, as unimportant (marginal).

Agenda 2000, the Commissions strategy for a future, enlarged EU (CEC1997c), fuelled these fears. Despite the EUs proclaimed commitment to a

gender mainstreaming strategy, no attempt was made to integrate gender issues which were absent from the main body of the report. Neither did theappended Commission Opinions on individual applicant countries attempt tomainstream gender; they merely included a reference to equal opportunities asa distinct area of social policy. It was concluded that, in all candidate countries,the basic provisions of EU anti-discrimination law were largely covered bynational legislation (CEC 1997d). However, the entire policy area is dealt within a few brief sentences, similar for each applicant country, and there is noreference to problem areas such as Polands protective womens policy.11

Rather more space is devoted to the failure of CEE governments to insist uponthe EUs preferred labelling for cigarette packets.

The failure to mainstream gender in Agenda 2000 generated strong fearsthat enlargement will entail a general weakening of EU equality policy (CEC1997b; EP 1997, 1998). Despite these fears, which have increased as aconsequence of the continuing anti-equality backlash in several CEEC, therehas been no attempt to mainstream gender in the Accession Partnershipsnegotiated in the wake ofAgenda 2000. It is thus unsurprising that the

Commissions progress report on gender mainstreaming (CEC 1998b) identi-es enlargement as an area where greater effort is required. Despite this, theCommissions most recent Regular Report from the Commision on Progresstowards Accession (CEC 1999b) again fails to mainstream gender.

In the absence of a mainstreaming strategy, dialogue with CEEC on equalityissues has focused upon the legal aspects of the acquis; that is, adoption of anti-discrimination legislation in conformity with EU norms. Since adoption of theacquis is a requirement of accession which can readily be monitored, thispragmatic approach is regarded, by Commission ofcials, as the most effectivemeans of inuencing policy, and of generating debate about issues of equalitywithin CEEC (Interviews, Commission, September 1999). There is someevidence that this approach has borne fruit. Thus, perhaps in the interest ofensuring early accession, some CEE governments have been willing to movetowards EU practice more broadly through, for example, establishment of anequality machinery. In the case of Slovenia, it is argued, establishment of aparliamentary commission and a government ofce for women has been partof a well-planned effort to do anything that will enhance the countrys chance

of being admitted to the European Union (Renne 1997: 6). And in the caseof Hungary:



12/23

alize the defense of womens interests. The only people missing from thepicture were women.

(Ascady 1998: 78)

Such innovations in CEEC may be dismissed as mere lip-service. It is note-worthy, nevertheless, that calls for similar equality institutions have beenstrongly rejected by the Polish government. Potentially, such bodies can beutilized by women to effect change; they can also serve to generate debate, andhence broaden awareness of gender issues.

As the Commission anticipates, awareness may be raised as a consequence ofadoption of the equality acquis and related measures. However the impact ofthis approach is likely to be minimized by the unwillingness of CEE govern-ments to participate in non-compulsory EU programmes. There has been a

slow response, for example, to the Commissions invitation to join the FourthMedium-Term Action Programme on Equal Opportunities. Thus, at the timeof the Commissions Annual Report for 1998, only Hungary had projectsalready established, although the governments of the Czech Republic, Estonia,Lithuania, Romania and Slovenia had recently notied their intention to takepart. Signicantly, the Polish government declined to participate in the ActionProgramme (CEC 1999a: 113)

Despite some successes in inuencing CEE governments, the ability toencourage gender sensitive policy in CEEC, and to raise awareness of genderissues across a wide range of policy areas, would undoubtedly have beenenhanced by a systematic attempt to integrate gender during the pre-accessionperiod. Areas where this approach might usefully have been employed includethe Phare (assistance) programme and the detailed, bilateral screening ofCEEC legislation conducted by Commission ofcials during 19989.

Mainstreaming gender in the context of the Phare programme would haveheightened awareness of equality issues within the public administration andNGO sectors of CEEC. In practice, however, no attempt was made to

integrate gender at any stage of the programme, from planning to implementa-tion. Thus, for example, gender equality considerations were not among thecriteria for project approval. Commission ofcials and contracted agencies werenot required to ensure that women, who tend to be well represented at lowerlevels in both the public administration and NGO sectors, were included inproject management teams or selected as participants in EU-funded trainingprogrammes.

While there has been an absence of gender mainstreaming within Phare, asmall number of programmes have targeted women specically. Within thedemocracy programme, for example, one of the eight designated areas ofactivity was equal opportunity and non-discrimination (grouped with minority



13/23

organizations. Nevertheless, gender mainstreaming throughout Phare wouldhave had much broader impact.

The pre-accession screening is a second area where a mainstreaming ap-proach might usefully have been employed. This involved a lengthy process of

bilateral meetings between Commission ofcials and CEE representatives(concluded in June 1999), which examined the policies of each CEECsystematically, and in considerable detail, in order to assess compatibility withthe acquis. The process was not simply a technical exercise; it involveddiscussion of implementation issues and an element of bargaining. In thiscontext, mainstreaming would have necessitated consideration of gender issuesacross all policy areas, providing a useful learning experience for EU andCEEC ofcials alike.

Following the practice in Agenda 2000, however, gender issues were con-

sidered during the screening process only in the context of the equal opportu-nity element of the formal social policy acquis. Doubtless, bilateral discussionof this policy area between Commission ofcials and representatives of appli-cant countries provided opportunities to clarify and discuss its broader im-plications. And there are indications that these discussions were inuential. InPoland, for example, proposals for a new family policy based upon a malebreadwinner model, which were current at the time of the social policyscreening, were subsequently abandoned. Thus the screening process providedan opportunity to inuence CEEC policy prior to commencement of theformal accession procedures (Interviews, Commission, December 1998). Inconsequence, the failure to mainstream gender across all policy areas representsan important lost opportunity.

Given these failures, there is a need to identify the impediments, at the EUlevel, to integrating gender in the context of enlargement.

IMPEDIMENTS TO MAINSTREAMING GENDER

Successful implementation of a mainstreaming strategy, it has been argued,would require that its principles and practices were routinely adopted andutilized in policy formulation and implementation at all levels; and that theyultimately achieved the status of embedded rules or institutions. Inevitably,however, the processes of institutionalization are selective, and receptiveness tonew ideas and principles is to a large degree a reection of interests. Clearly,the policy implications of gender mainstreaming are both more fundamental,and more challenging to established interests, than ideas such as competitive-ness (Mazey and Richardson 1997), mutual recognition (Garrett and Wein-gast 1993) and subsidiarity (Bulmer 1998), considered to have becomeinstitutionalized in EU practice. These ideas, moreover, were promoted and



14/23

ity have remained outside the mainstream. They have struggled against thetide of neo-liberal market principles and deeply embedded understandingsand practices supportive of male dominance. While these ideas and practicesare undoubtedly generic, they evolve over time and vary according to socio-

cultural context. This can be observed at the societal level, as in the case oftransitional backlash in CEEC; or within institutions, where differences inbureaucratic culture are reected in different levels of commitment to genderequality.

What, then, are the prospects for integrating gender in EU practice throughinstitutionalization of mainstreaming principles? Noteworthy, here, is Piersons(1998: 513) use of equality policy to exemplify the processes of institutional-ization at the EU level. Despite frequent references to gender equality,however, it is evident that he is referring to the less challenging principles of

womens equality (with men on mens terms). Nevertheless, progress towardsinstitutionalization of ideas about womens equality would support the conten-tion that, within the EU, the prerequisites for introduction of a mainstreamingstrategy are largely in place.12 Indeed they are considered to be particularly wellestablished in the EU context (Council of Europe 1998: 2333).13 Thus thestrategy has developed from a solid basis of equality policies which have shownprogression, over time, from a narrow focus upon equal treatment in employ-ment to a comprehensive womens policy by the early 1990s (Hoskyns 1996).

Moreover, the relatively high prole of EU activity in this area has ensured thatthere is considerable awareness of EU efforts on behalf of women, particularlyat the elite level.14

Nevertheless, the EUs patchy implementation record indicates that impedi-ments to gender mainstreaming remain. Despite frequently reiterated commit-ment to the strategy, the Commission notes that lack of high-level backing inthe Directorates-General (DGs) remains an impediment to implementation(CEC 1998b: 11). This doubtless reects the fact that, despite sustained effortsto increase participation by women in decision-making (CEC 1991, 1996a;Leijenaar 1997), there remains within the EU institutions considerable im-balance among personnel at the higher grades. Hence the clustering of womenat the lower grades, typical of the masculinized bureaucracy, remains intact (EP1999b: 14). There are, nevertheless, signicant differences between (andindeed within) DGs in levels of commitment to the mainstreaming strategy.

In some policy areas, for example, structural funding (Fitzgerald and Noble1998; Horelli 1998) and employment (Bettio et al. 1998), there is evidence offaltering progress towards integration of gender. Relative success is also evident

in aspects of external policy. Here there is a sharp contrast between the failureto mainstream gender in relation to enlargement and the relatively successful



15/23

anticipated. Nevertheless, the Phare programme resembles development assist-ance in many respects, so that the absence of progress in relation to enlarge-ment is less predictable. Some explanation for these differences can be foundat the level of bureaucratic culture within the DGs.

Primary responsibility for enlargement has lain with DG IA, which dealt,also, with common foreign and security policy (CFSP). This reects thegenesis of EUCEEC relations as a priority of the nascent CFSP in theimmediate aftermath of the Cold War. While the Commission cannot be saidto operate a traditional foreign ofce, there has been a preoccupation withsecurity and other high politics issues (and a corresponding lack of interest inlow politics issues) among senior ofcials and seconded member state diplo-mats. While the contemporary agenda of international politics suggests thatthis distinction is untenable, it continues to be reected in policy style and

bureaucratic culture. Indeed recent analysis has highlighted the contrastingprocesses through which issues are constructed within DG IA and other,internally oriented, DGs (Morth 2000).

From a feminist perspective, too, there is a considerable literature dealingwith the failure to consider the gender dimensions of high politics issueareas.15 Here it is noteworthy that DG IA was one of very few DGs which, atthe time of the Commissions progress report, had failed to nominate anofcer responsible for gender mainstreaming (CEC 1998b: 5). Since genderequality is perceived as a low politics social issue for which responsibility lieselsewhere, DG IA does not participate in the internal processes for gendermainstreaming within the Commission. This demonstrates that the policyresponsibilities and bureaucratic culture of individual DGs can be an im-portant factor in determining the extent to which organizational life ismasculinized (Davies 1999); and hence levels of receptiveness to ideas aboutgender equality.

Enlargement, however, is not simply a matter of foreign policy, nor indeedof external policy more broadly conceived; it is a highly complex process

through which the external becomes internal hence requiring the involve-ment of all DGs. Co-ordination of this process, including the Phare pro-gramme, has been the responsibility of hard-pressed DG IA ofcials.16

Inevitably they have been subject to intense lobbying, not least by other DGsinterested in inuencing policy prioritization in CEEC (Interview, Commis-sion, December 1998).

Here, given its responsibility for the social policy acquis, it might have beenanticipated that DG V (Employment and Social Affairs) would have exertedinuence. However, DG V is itself internally fragmented and its ofcials have,in recent years, been preoccupied by major internal reorganization. Thus, whileDG V has undoubtedly promoted gender mainstreaming in policy areas within



16/23

devolution of programmes, which has not been conducive to awareness raisingon gender issues (Interview, Commission, December 1998).

Clearly there are signicant impediments to gender mainstreaming inrelation to enlargement. These ow, in part, from lack of awareness and

expertise among DG IA ofcials. This is greatly exacerbated, however, by thecomplexities of enlargement as an external/internal process, in which problemsof horizontal co-ordination inhibit development of a systematic mainstreamingstrategy. In the past, the relative weakness of DG V has compounded theseproblems. However, Anna Diamantopoulou, the new Commissioner for SocialAffairs, has adopted a considerably more proactive approach to these mattersthan her predecessor. She intends to introduce a range of measures tostrengthen co-ordination and implementation of the mainstreaming strategy(CEC 2000). To date, however, the internal fragmentation of the Commission,

and the ensuing competition between DGs have ensured that no agency hasbeen equipped to promote a comprehensive mainstreaming strategy acrossDGs. In relation to enlargement, gender mainstreaming has thus been acasualty, not only of the inhospitable internal culture of DG IA, but also of thebureaucratic politics of intra-Commission rivalry.

These problems are, of course, compounded by the lack of high-levelcommitment to mainstreaming within the DGs (CEC 1998b: 11). Thisreminds us that, while differences in bureaucratic culture can provide a partial

explanation for variations across policy sectors, institutionalization of main-streaming principles and practices faces a tide of pervasive and more funda-mental impediments.

CONCLUSION

In the context of the EUs proposed Eastern enlargement there has been afailure to pursue formal commitments to integrate gender across all EU

activities. This is a cause of great concern. Womens status in CEEC is bothdeteriorating and contested, and among sectors of CEE elites and societiesthere has been a backlash against womens advancement. Opposed to this,however, is an increasingly active womens movement, and a growing awarenessof the importance of gender analysis to policy development. In recent yearsthis has been associated with orientation towards EU membership as a sourceof support. However, by neglecting to integrate gender during the pre-accession period, the EU has failed to realize its inuence in promoting genderawareness in CEEC.

As a process through which the external becomes internal, enlargement is animportant determinant of the EUs future character. The low priority accorded



17/23

More deeply embedded within the mainstream, however, are ideas and prac-tices constitutive of patriarchy.

The notion of swimming against the tide draws attention to the absence ofgender equality from the mainstream of ideas shaping policy development

within the EU. Mainstreaming, as a strategy for achieving gender equality,exposes and challenges the gender bias of dominant ideas and interests.Ultimately it seeks to change the mainstream, through displacing deeplyembedded understandings concerning male dominance. In consequence, thesuccess of mainstreaming, as a long-term strategy to promote processes oflearning and institution-building, is by no means assured. While enlargementto the East will enhance the opportunities for creative alliances among women,present evidence suggests that it will also strengthen the tide of mainstreamideas and interests which oppose the achievement of gender equality.

Address for correspondence: Charlotte Bretherton, Department of SocialScience, Liverpool John Moores University, 1521 Webster Street, LiverpoolL3 2ET, UK. email: [email protected]

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am greatly indebted to my niece, Krysia, and the representatives of womens

organizations who gave so much of their time during my visit to Poland in July1999. Invaluable, too, was the assistance provided by ofcials of the EuropeanCommission (DG IA, DG V and DG XVI) during interviews in December1998 and September 1999.

NOTES

1 Gender mainstreaming attained treaty status at Amsterdam (Article 3.2 TEC).

However, the strategy was introduced in the Third Medium-Term CommunityAction Programme 19911995 (CEC 1991). In 1996, following EU commitmentsat the 1995 Beijing World Conference on Women, the mainstreaming strategywas formalized and strengthened (CEC 1996a, 1996b).

2 Tangible outcomes are reported in the elds of development co-operation;employment policy; the Structural Funds; education, training and youth (CEC1998b: 3). Policies to support the internal market and economic and monetaryunion are highlighted, alongside enlargement policy, as problem areas (CEC1998b: 201).

3 Inevitably, womens experiences differ signicantly both between and withinCEEC. Ruralurban divisions are a particularly important inuence on womenspriorities, while issues of concern to ethnic minority or migrant women may differmarkedly from those of the majority. Unfortunately, space does not permit

l i f h diff



18/23

EU member states (%) First tranche CEEC (%)Sweden 42.7 Czech Republic 13.9Denmark 37.4 Poland 12.9Finland 33.5 Estonia 10.9Netherlands 31.6 Hungary 8.3

Germany 29.8 Slovenia 7.8Austria 24.7Luxembourg 20.0Spain 19.9UK 18.0Belgium 15.8Ireland 13.7Portugal 13.0Italy 10.0France 9.1Greece 6.3

Source: United Nations Development Programme (1999).6 This was evident from interviews with representatives of womens groups in

Poland (July 1999). Subsequent discussion with Commission ofcials (September1999) conrmed a similar situation in other CEEC and in the Balticrepublics.

7 The Womens Association for the Equal Status of Women and Men, Beijing, 1995is now active across the region, co-ordinating a network of NGOs from nineCEEC.

8 The Constitution has never been considered directly applicable in Poland and,

unlike the Hungarian case referred to above (note 4), there has yet to be asuccessful anti-discrimination case based on constitutional rights.9 Occupations from which all women are excluded are those requiring heavy or

intensive labour or involving exposure to high noise or vibration levels. Alsoprohibited is work underground or at high altitudes, or where there is exposureto electromagnetic elds and radiation. Pregnant women cannot work in areas ofextreme climate change or be exposed to low levels of electric energy (for example,an unprotected computer screen). Night work, overtime work and business tripsare prohibited for pregnant women (Womens Rights Center 1998a: 4).

10 The National Womens Information Centre lists 244 organizations in a recent

index (OSKA 1999). Previous indexes show 100 organizations in 1993 and 170in 1995 (Titkow 1998: 30).

11 The Opinion on Poland reads as follows: On equal opportunity, the basicprovisions of EC non-discrimination law between women and men are covered byPolish legislation, but the non-discrimination principle is not always respected inareas such as equal pay for equal work. The difference in pay between women andmen is considerable. Legal adaptation is also necessary for parental leave (CEC1997d: 14).

12 The prerequisites identied by the Council of Europe (1998) include:1 Political commitment at the highest level.2 An existing equality policy upon which to build.3 Prior establishment of a robust equality machinery.4 Widespread awareness of gender issues among policy-makers and the

bli



19/23

The Netherlands, Belgium and Denmark). New Zealand provides the single non-EU example.

14 Research conducted in the UK during the early 1990s found that levels ofawareness of EU equality policies varied considerably between grass roots andnational womens organizations and also between types of organization (Breth-

erton and Sperling 1996).15 See, for example, Enloe (1990), Peterson (1992) and Steans (1998).16 In addition to substantially increased workloads without commensurate increases

in stafng, morale among DG IA ofcials was affected by a major reorganizationof the external relations DGs in 1998, which coincided with the screeningprocess. This exacerbated the fragmentation already evident in EU external policy(Bretherton and Vogler 1999).

REFERENCES

Acker, J. (1991) Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: a theory of gendered organization, in J.Lorber and S.A. Farrell (eds), The Social Construction of Gender, London: Sage,pp. 16280.

Ascady, J. (1998) Still willing to grin and bear it, Transitions 5(1): 769.Bettio, F., Bimonte, S. and Tiezzi, S. (1998) The 1998 National Action Plans for

Employment: Assessment from a Gender Perspective, Report of the Gender andEmployment Networks of Experts, Equal Opportunities Unit, DG V, EuropeanCommission.

Bretherton, C. (1999) Women and transformation in CEEC, in M. Mannin (ed.),

Pushing Back the Boundaries: The EU and Central and Eastern Europe, Manchester:Manchester University Press, pp. 13254.Bretherton, C. and Sperling, L. (1996) Womens networks and the European Union:

towards an inclusive approach?, Journal of Common Market Studies 34(4):487508.

Bretherton, C. and Vogler, J. (1999) The European Union as a Global Actor, London:Routledge.

Bulmer, S.J. (1998) New institutionalism and the governance of the Single EuropeanMarket, Journal of European Public Policy 5(3): 36586.

CEC (1991) Equal Opportunities for Women and Men: The Third Medium-Term

Community Action Programme 19911995, Women of Europe, Supplement No.34.

CEC (1995) Preparation of the Associated Countries of Central and Eastern Europe forIntegration into the Internal Market of the Union, COM(95) 163 nal.

CEC (1996a) Fourth Medium-Term Community Action Programme on Equal Opportun-ities for Women and Men (19962000), V/231b/96.

CEC (1996b) Incorporating Equal Opportunities for Women and Men into all Commu-nity Policies and Activities, COM(96) 97 nal.

CEC (1997a) A Guide to Gender Impact Assessment, Luxembourg: Ofce for OfcialPublications of the European Communities.

CEC (1997b) Annual Report from the Commission: Equal Opportunities for Women andMen in the European Union 1996, COM(96) 650 nal.

CEC (1997 ) A d 2000 F S d Wid E COM(97) 2000



20/23

CEC (1998a) Equal Opportunities for Women and Men in the European Union: AnnualReport 1997, Luxembourg: Ofce for Ofcial Publications of the EuropeanCommunities.

CEC (1998b) Progress Report from the Commission on the Follow-up of the Communica-tion: Incorporating Equal Opportunities for Women and Men into all Community

Policies and Activities, COM(8) 122 nal.CEC (1999a) Annual Report from the Commission: Equal Opportunities for Women andMen in the European Union 1998, COM(99) 106 nal.

CEC (1999b) Regular Report from the Commission on Progress towards Accession Poland October 13, 1999, http://europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/poland

CEC (2000) Gender Equality: A joint approach for a New Programme (20012005)europa.eu.int/comm/dgo5_opp/news/gender_equ

Council of Europe (1998) Gender Mainstreaming: Conceptual Framework Methodologyand Presentation of Good Practices, Strasbourg: Committee of Ministers.

Davies, C. (1999) The masculinity of organizational life, in S. Baker and A. vanDoorne-Huiskes (eds), Women and Public Policy: The Shifting Boundaries between thePublic and Private Spheres, Aldershot: Ashgate, pp. 3556.

Dodds, D. (1998) Five years after unication: East German women in transition,Womens Studies International Forum 21(2): 17582.

Einhorn, B. (1993) Cinderella Goes to Market: Citizenship, Gender and WomensMovements in East Central Europe, London: Verso.

Enloe, C. (1990) Bananas, Beaches, Bases: Making Feminist Sense of InternationalPolitics, Berkeley: University of California Press.

EP (1995) Opinion of the Committee on Womens Rights for the Committee onForeign Affairs, Security and Defence Policy, PE 215.521/n./Ann

EP (1997) Opinion for the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defence

Policy on the Commission Communication Agenda 2000 For a Stronger andWider Union, Committee on Womens Rights, PE 224.339/Part C/nEP (1998) Womens rights and the enlargement of the European Union, Brieng,

No. 26, Luxembourg.EP (1999a) Report on the interim report of the Commission to the European

Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committeeof the Regions on the implementation of the medium-term Community ActionProgramme on equal opportunities for men and women (19962000), Committeeon Womens Rights, PE 230.041/n

EP (1999b) Report on the progress report from the Commission on the follow-up of the

Communication: Incorporating equal opportunities for women and men into allCommunity policies and activities, Womens Rights Committee, PE 229.153/nFitzgerald, R. and Noble, P. (1998) Equal opportunities, 10-Net Thematic Paper3(2),

University of Strathclyde, Glasgow: European Policies Research Centre.Funk, N. and Mueller, M. (eds) (1993) Gender, Politics and Post-Communism, London:

Routledge.Fuszara, M. and Zielinska, E. (1998a) A short yet puzzling history of the Polish Equal

Opportunity Act, Warsaw, OSKA, Magazine of the national womens informationcenter4(5): 1214.

Fuszara, M. and Zielinska, E. (1998b) Women and the law in Poland: towards activecitizenship, Warsaw, OSKA, http://www.oska.pl

Garrett, G. and Weingast, B.R. (1993) Ideas, interests, and institutions: constructingthe European Communitys internal market, in J. Goldstein and R.O. Keohane( d ) d d l l f d l l h h



21/23

Horelli, L. (1998) Programming with a gender perspective, seminar on the main-streaming of equality between women and men in the Structural Funds, Viana doCastelo, 1315 September.

Hoskyns, C. (1996) Integrating Gender: Women, Law and Politics in the EuropeanUnion, London: Verso.

ISA Consult (1997) Final Report: Evaluation of the Phare and Tacis Democracy Pro-gramme 19921997, CEC, DGIA-53-98.Janova, M. and Sineau, M. (1992) Womens participation in political power in

Europe: an essay in EastWest comparison, Womens Studies International Forum15(1): 11528.

Leijenaar, M. (1997) How to Create a Gender Balance in Political Decision-making,European Commission, DG V, Luxembourg: Ofce for Ofcial Publications of theEuropean Communities.

Lokau, S. (1998) Number of female politicians plummets in Eastern Europe, CentralEurope Online, http://www.centraleurope.com/eco/news, 3 February.

Luxmoore, J. (1999) Polish women demand equal rights commission, The Guardian,23 July.Malinowska, E. (1995) Socio-political changes in Poland and the problem of sex

discrimination, Womens Studies International Forum 18(1): 3543.Mazey, S. and Richardson, J. (1997) Agenda setting, lobbying and the 1996 IGC, in

G. Edwards and A. Pijpers (eds), The Politics of European Treaty Reform: The 1996Intergovernmental Conference and Beyond, London: Pinter, pp. 22648.

Millard, F. (1995) Women in Poland: the impact of post-communist transformation198994, Journal of Area Studies 6: 6273.

Morth, U. (2000) Competing frames in the European Commission the case of thedefence industry and equipment issue, Journal of European Public Policy 7(2):17389.

OSKA (1998a) Magazine of the National Womens Information Center, Warsaw4(5).

OSKA (1998b) Womens organizations appeal to EU naj/oska/ninpoland/organiza-tions/temp.html

OSKA (1999) Indeks organizacji kobiecych w Polsce, Warsaw: National WomensInformation Center.

Peterson, V.S. (ed.) (1992) Gendered States: Feminist (Re)Visions of International Rela-tions Theory, Boulder, CO: Lynne Reinner.

Pierson, P. (1998) The path to European integration: a historical-institutionalistanalysis, in W. Sandholtz and A. Stone Sweet (eds), European Integration andSupranational Governance, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 2758.

Preston, C. (1997) Enlargement and Integration in the European Union, London:Routledge.

Regulska, J. and Roseman, M.J. (1998) What is gender?, Transitions 5(1): 249.Renne, T. (1997) Anas Land: Sisterhood in Eastern Europe, Boulder, CO: Westview

Press.Reszke, I. (1995) How a positive image can have a negative impact: stereotypes of

unemployed women and men in liberated Poland, Womens Studies InternationalForum 18(1): 1317.

Rueschmeyer, M. (1998) Difculties and opportunities in the transition period, inM. Rueschmeyer (ed.), Women in the Politics of Post-Communist Eastern Europe,N Y k M E Sh 285 97



22/23

Smith, A., Holmes, P., Sedelmeier, U., Smith, E., Wallace, H. and Young, A. (1996)The European Union and Central and Eastern Europe: pre-accession strategies,Working Paper 15, University of Sussex, Sussex European Institute.

Steans, J. (1998) Gender and international Relations: An introduction, Cambridge:Polity Press.

Subhan, A. (1996) Central and Eastern European women: a portrait, Womens RightsSeries, W8, Brussels: European Parliament, Directorate-General for Research.Titkow, A. (1998) Polish women in politics, in M. Rueschmeyer (ed.), Women in the

Politics of Postcommunist Eastern Europe, New York: M.E. Sharpe, pp. 2432.United Nations (1995) Fourth World Conference on Women: Platform for Action,

Beijing.United Nations Childrens Fund (1994) Women and Gender in Countries in Transition:

A UNICEF Perspective, New York: UNICEF.United Nations Development Programme (1999) Human Development Report 1999,

Oxford: Oxford University Press.Womens Rights Center (1998a) Women on the Labor Market, Warsaw, http://free.

ngopl/temida/jobreport.htmWomens Rights Center (1998b) Position of Women in the Family: Law and Practice,

Warsaw, http://free/ngopl/temida/rapfam.htm

Final version accepted for publication 28/6/00



23/23

gender mainstreaming and eu enlargement

Documents