Descripción de los escenarios de simulación

Definitions of mainstreaming vary; a commonly used definition is that given by the European Commission Directorate on Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities, which has defined mainstreaming as:

24

the integration of the gender perspective into every state of the policy process – design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation – with a view to

promoting equality between women and men’ (European Commission 2010) In Rees’ model of ‘tinkering, tailoring and transforming’ discussed above

mainstreaming is the strategy that can deliver transformation through considering ‘the ways in which systems and structures […] cause […] disadvantage in the first place’ and ‘embedding gender equality in systems, processes, policies and

institutions’ (Rees 2005 p558). For Rees and others this definition means that

mainstreaming represents a ‘transformatory’ approach to equality (Rees, 1998, 2002, 2005, Squires 2005, Benschop and Verloo 2011). Rees links mainstreaming to the ‘long agenda’ identified by Cockburn (1989, 1991, see below) which Rees argues aims to address the organisational cultures and practices which embed inequalities. This form of mainstreaming as a tool to tackle structural inequality can also be used to address the ways these different structures intersect, mainstreaming not only gender but other bases of inequality. However as several writers have pointed out, while mainstreaming can have transformatory potential in practice it can take many forms which can become technocratic (Daly 2005), privilege dominant groups (Verloo 2005) or be interpreted as a way of achieving existing policy goals rather than challenging those goals (Walby 2011). Some have argued that mainstreaming can lead to a loss of focus because if everyone in an organisation has responsibility for equality in practice this can mean no one is responsible (Symington 2004). And extending the focus of mainstreaming from gender to broader questions of diversity can lead to a loss of focus on gender as other issues take priority (Conley and Page 2015).

These divergent experiences of mainstreaming reflect a widespread variation in strategies and practices labelled as ‘mainstreaming’ (Beveridge and Nott 2002, Booth and Bennett 2002, Daly 2005, Walby 2011). Theoretical concepts of

mainstreaming as ‘transformation’ have developed alongside a widespread adoption of practices labelled mainstreaming within public bodies. Daly (2005) observes that while mainstreaming theory emerged from a desire to move beyond arguments about difference and sameness to address structures and systems, its adoption in the policy world was more a response to changing fashions, with countries adopting the term mainstreaming as the most ‘modern’ approach to equality. This has led to an

25

approach to mainstreaming that is conceptually vague: ‘everyone understands the general idea, but no one is sure what it requires in practice’ (Beveridge and Nott 2002 p299).

There have been various attempts to categorise different models of mainstreaming and those factors which might lead to its transformatory potential being realised. One distinction that is often made is between ‘integrationist’ and ‘agenda setting’

approaches (Jahan 1995, Lombardo 2005, Shaw 2002). Integrationist approaches to mainstreaming address gender within existing paradigms (Jahan 1995), presenting gender mainstreaming as a way of achieving existing policy goals more effectively. This has the advantage of making it easier to persuade policy makers to adopt a mainstreaming approach, but runs the risk that underlying inequalities remain unchallenged (Lombardo 2005). This approach is sometimes discussed in terms of ‘strategic framing’ (Hafner-Burton and Pollack 2000, Verloo 2005). Strategic framing refers to a process through which social actors ‘frame’ their goals in a way that resonates with the goals of the organisation or institution they wish to influence (Benford and Snow 2000). Hafner-Burton and Pollack argue that gender

mainstreaming has been ‘sold’ within the European Commission as a way of helping the Commission achieve its aims, rather than representing a challenge to them. This, they conclude results in an integrationist model of mainstreaming which threatens its transformative potential. Verloo agrees with these conclusions arguing that feminist goals have been ‘stretched’ to link them with the goals of the ‘mainstream’. Through this stretching the two sets of goals are presented as harmonious, leading to the argument that consideration of gender leads to better policy making, improved productivity and other benefits for the economy. This may have short term benefits in ensuring mainstreaming is adopted as a strategy but can lead to the watering down of feminist goals and the exclusion of radical or marginalised voices (Verloo 2005). In contrast ‘agenda setting’ requires the transformation and reorientation of the agenda (Jahan 1995). Rather than seeking to ‘frame’ feminist goals in terms of the priorities of the organisation or institution it would seek to shift the priorities of the organisation in line with feminist goals. This transformatory approach requires change in ‘decision making structures and processes, in articulation of objectives, in prioritisation of strategies, in the positioning of gender amidst competing, emerging concerns, and in building a mass base of support among men and women’ (Jahan

26

1995 p126). This avoids the danger that gender becomes subsumed within the mainstream, but, as discussed below, the people charged with leading work on equality are often marginalised within their organisations, meaning that in practice they may find it difficult to shift the priorities of these organisations.

Beveridge, Nott and Stephen identify a further distinction between ‘expert/ bureaucratic’ and ‘participatory/democratic’ approaches to mainstreaming (Beveridge, Nott and Stephen 2002). Expert/bureaucratic models are based on developing sophisticated mechanisms to analyse gender impact, and embedding these mechanisms within the bureaucratic processes of public organisations. An advantage of this model is that it ensures that the policy making process is informed by experts in gender impact, although this expertise must be shared through the organisation if impact is to be widespread (Woodward 2003). A key mechanism in expert/bureaucratic approaches is ‘gender impact assessments’, which aim to analyse policies for their potential, or actual gender impact. The aim of this is to ensure that gender impact is considered at every stage of policy making. This process may not always lead to transformatory outcomes as revealed by a study by Rubery and Fagan (2000) of impact assessments which showed that these tended to be limited to

producing gender disaggregated statistics with little understanding of how gender equality is reproduced. It is not clear if this is a failure of the expert/bureaucratic model itself, or the fact that the bureaucrats charged with implementing it were not in fact that expert. Veitch has reported that a lack of expertise among government officials was a barrier to gender mainstreaming in the UK, which suggests that some forms of expertise are needed if mainstreaming is to be successful (Veitch 2005). However there does appear to be a tendency in ‘expert/bureaucratic’ models to develop an agenda driven by the needs of the bureaucracy rather than equality goals meaning that the terms of the debate remain unchanged (Kantola and Squires 2012). This can lead to a ‘preoccupation with the minutiae of procedures’ but little

consideration of issues of power and how ‘patterns of subordination are reproduced’ (Baden and Goetz 1997 p20). Furthermore ‘expert/bureaucratic’ models can allow little space for influence from external social movements, unless these groups can position themselves as expert (Alvarez 1999). These shortcomings can result in a form of mainstreaming which is technocratic rather than transformatory (Daly 2005).

27

In contrast participatory/democratic models are based on the inclusion and empowerment of disadvantaged groups at the heart of policy making. This could involve consultative or participatory agenda setting and decision making processes. Beveridge, Nott and Stephen consider that only the participatory/democratic model can be truly ‘agenda setting’ in Jahan’s formulation as an ‘expert/bureaucratic’ model is likely to become integrationist. They argue that participatory/democratic models, involving engagement with civil society can create space for groups that have previously been unheard in the policy making process, citing the involvement of Traveller communities in Irish mainstreaming models (Beveridge, Nott and Stephen 2000 p 278). However participatory models can have drawbacks. Donaghy and Kelly (2001) have identified the ways in which a seemingly

democratic/participatory approach can rely on small voluntary organisations to take part in repeated consultations without the resources to support such participation. Within civil society, hierarchies based on policy expertise and understanding of how structures of power work can exclude those who are already marginalised within society (Hoeft, et al 2014). Rather than opening up opportunities for previously excluded groups, consultation process can become a burden for them, or continue to exclude those who lack the time or resources to represent their interests. This can mean that only certain groups are able to make their voices heard. Squires suggests a way forward which draws on innovations such as citizens juries and deliberative opinion polls in order to ‘generate a model of mainstreaming that is deliberative rather than bureaucratic or consultative’ (Squires 2005 p383). This focus on processes of deliberation and democratic engagement, builds on work by Young (1990) and Phillips (1999), which emphasise the significance of democratic participation in theories of justice and equality. This goes beyond participation in elections and increasing the diversity of political representatives to processes of decision making which involve the participation of all those likely to be affected by policy in a process of discussion and reflection about the development and delivery of that policy (Phillips 1999 p113). Phillips argues that this allows greater

recognition of pluralism and difference. Such processes might involve arrangements that support Fraser’s proposal for ‘subaltern counter-publics’ where members of subordinate groups discuss their needs and priorities among themselves in order to ‘formulate oppositional counter discourses’ (Fraser 1997 p81) prior to taking part in wider deliberative processes.

28

Deliberative opinion polling is a process which gathers groups of citizens to develop policy responses to an issue through a process of group discussion over time with opportunities to examine research evidence and question policy experts in the area. The aim is to allow a fuller consideration of the issues and opportunities to

understand other perspectives that are not available in a survey or other standard consultation mechanism (Gray 2009). There have been examples of the successful use of deliberative polling and other innovative participatory policy making methods by local and national public bodies in the UK (Davidson and Elstub 2013). These have been described as part of a move from a command and control system of government to a focus on ‘governance’ where government acts as a co-ordinator or facilitator of processes to develop and implement policy involving a variety of state, private and civil society actors (Loughin 2000, Meehan 2003). As the discussion on reflexive/responsive regulation will show this approach to governance is central to some models of responsive regulation, suggesting a congruence between these forms of regulation and democratic/participatory models of mainstreaming. However the ‘lack of a facilitating institutional landscape’ has hampered the widespread use of deliberative polling and other participatory decision making methods in the UK to date (Davidson and Elstub 2013 p367).

Walby argues that mainstreaming practice is more complex than both the

integration/agenda setting and the expertise/democracy dichotomies suggest. She describes mainstreaming as a process of contestation and negotiation between visions of gender equality and the priorities of the mainstream, during which both change in response to each other and external pressures (Walby 2011 p84). Not only are feminist ideas ‘stretched’ to fit existing frames as Verloo suggests but the frames themselves are altered by contact with external pressure. Rather than seeing expertise and democracy as alternatives she suggests that they are in fact often intertwined. She points to the example of work on gender budgeting in the UK, where the Women’s Budget Group combined high levels of technical expertise with a broad membership of civil society groups, bringing about change through both expert arguments and democratic pressure. (Walby 2011 p94). Walby echoes both Woodward (2003) and Verloo (2005) in arguing that different approaches to

mainstreaming depend very much on context. Woodward argues that a combination of political commitment, understanding of the issues, internal and external pressure

29

in support of or resistance to work on gender equality and the presence of gender experts inside and outside the institution will all affect the form taken by a gender mainstreaming approach and its chances of success (Woodward 2003). Verloo reaches similar conclusions about the importance of context, emphasising the impact of political opportunity, mobilising networks and the extent to which the goals of gender equality can be matched to existing frames on the form that mainstreaming takes (Verloo 2005). This contextual approach calls for attention to be given to those involved in mainstreaming within state organisations, the particular situation in which they are operating and the role played by external actors. The next part therefore considers feminist conceptualisations of the state while subsequent parts consider those working inside and outside the state.