PETRA MEI ER AND KAREN CELI S

Sowing the Seeds of Its Own

Failure: Implementing the
Concept of Gender
Mainstreaming
Abstract
Despite initial optimism, gender mainstreaming often turns into a
formalistic exercise whilst losing sight of its broader goal of
promoting gender equality. This article suggests that a problem is
gender mainstreamings largely undened goal, combined with a
rational logic underpinning its implementation. We apply a typol-
ogy distinguishing substantive, procedural, and combined gender-
mainstreaming initiatives to analyze Belgian gender-mainstreaming
policies since 1995. Our ndings suggest an evolution from more
procedural to more combined mainstreaming policies. The ration-
alist perception underlying gender mainstreaming, in combination
with the absence of a gender equality policy objective, turns
gender mainstreaming into a formal exercise.
Introduction
The wide promotion notwithstanding (Beveridge and Nott
2001; Hafner-Burton and Pollack 2002a, 2002b; Mazey 2001; Rees
Winter 2011 Pages 469489 doi:10.1093/sp/jxr020
# The Author 2011. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.
For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com
Advance Access publication October 10, 2011
Social Politics 2011 Volume 18 Number 4

a
t

G
e
o
r
g
e
t
o
w
n

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
0
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
s
p
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

1998), after fteen years of gender mainstreaming it is not consid-
ered to be highly successful. Moreover, comparative research demon-
strates that, except in the case of Sweden (Daly 2005; Rubery et al.
2004), we are still a long way from a complete application of gender
mainstreaming in, for instance, the European Union (Mosesdottir
and Erlingsdottir 2005). There are multiple explanations for this
lack of success. They are predominantly sought in the legislative
context in which gender mainstreaming is implemented, and thought
to lie in a failure to meet certain political, nancial, or legislative
conditions (Rees 2005; Woodward 2003); resistance to the intrinsic
objectives of gender mainstreaming (Oldersma 2000; Stratigaki
2005); the high expectations evoked by gender mainstreaming
(Meier 2006); and the difculty to align the horizontal strategy with
a vertically structured policy context (Behning and Serrano Pascual
2001; Beveridge, Nott, and Stephen 2000; Lombardo and Meier
2006; Pollack and Hafner-Burton 2000). Our contribution focuses
on a somewhat different cause: the rational assumptions underpin-
ning gender mainstreaming.
Our question is how the concept of gender mainstreaming
accounts for the specic evolution of the gender-mainstreaming
strategy in Belgium since its introduction in 1995. Our hypothesis is
that gender mainstreaming is a concept that, because of the assump-
tions it carries about the intentionality and rationality of the policy
process, gives rise to policies that focus on procedural features,
thereby losing sight of their substantive policy aim, gender equality.
It is not our ambition to describe and explain in full detail Belgiums
output and outcome of gender-mainstreaming policies. Rather, we
focus on the way in which the concept of gender mainstreaming was
put into operation in policy initiatives, attempting to determine
whether this implementation resulted in gender-mainstreaming
policies focusing on policy substance or procedures and tools.
Our argument is developed in three sections. The rst discusses
two main assumptions underpinning the concept of gender main-
streaming, notably its assumption that policy processes and out-
comes are intentional and rational, and explains how these features
often lead to procedural equality policies. In the subsequent
section, we explain our distinction between procedural and substan-
tial policy types, and use this to classify Belgian gender-
mainstreaming policies implemented since 1995. Our main nding is
that, at least initially, policy-makers tended to focus on policy evalu-
ation and monitoring at the expense of substantive gender equality.
The concluding section collects the central ndings and reects on
what procedural policy initiatives can signify for the future of
gender mainstreaming.
470 V Meier and Celis

a
t

G
e
o
r
g
e
t
o
w
n

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
0
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
s
p
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

Gender Mainstreaming: A Rational and Intentional
Policy Process?
Our hypothesis that the intentionality and rationality of gender
mainstreaming that tends to result in procedural policies is embedded
in the specic historic evolution of gender equality policy-making. In
the initial stages, gender equality policies were often carried out by
femocrats, often installed at the request of, and with strong per-
sonal links to, feminist organizations. Their main aims were to estab-
lish equal rights for women through legal reformthe tinkering
phaseand to set up special projects and measures to erase group dis-
advantages and give women equal opportunitiesthe tailoring
phase (Rees 2005). The feminist intention behind these policiesfor
instance, equal rights for women on the labor market and positive
actions to increase the number of women in leading economic func-
tionswas presupposed, and in a way guaranteed, by the fact that
ministers for gender equality often had both a feminist prole and a
strong connection to the womens movement.
The introduction of gender mainstreamingthe transformation
phase (Rees 2005)implied a substantial change. First, the acti-
vist/feminist minister and her/his administration were no longer
exclusively in charge of gender equality policies. Second, the policy
actors in other policy domains received a great deal of autonomy in
dening the aim of the gender-mainstreaming strategy. Indeed, as we
will discuss in greater detail below, gender mainstreaming fails to
dene what gender equality would actually entail. It is however
less vague about the instruments to be used in implementing gender
mainstreaminge.g., data gathering, procedures of target setting,
monitoring, and evaluation. It is this which opens the door to a tech-
nocratic interpretation of the gender equality policy process that is
in marked contrast to the activist/feminist character of equality poli-
cies in the pre-gender-mainstreaming era (Facon, Hondeghem, and
Nelen 2004). These conceptual features of gender mainstreaming
the ambiguous nature of its goals and the precision with which it
describes the means of reaching themgave rise to skepticism about
gender mainstreaming as a strategy for achieving gender equality,
and to worries about the culture of procedurality it supports by
focusing on the production of data, monitoring, and evaluation.
Let us begin with the issue of gender mainstreaming and intention-
ality. At the outset, gender mainstreaming as a strategy clearly had
the intention of furthering gender equality. It does not, however, take
in the fact that there is no consensus on the concrete meaning of the
concept equality, not even amongst the bodies charged with pro-
moting gender-mainstreaming policies. The European Commission
Sowing the Seeds of Its Own Failure V 471

a
t

G
e
o
r
g
e
t
o
w
n

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
0
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
s
p
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

and the Beijing Platform for Action both adopt relatively noncommit-
tal denitions, remaining at the level of equal opportunities, and a
reference to a gender perspective. The Council of Europe, however,
emphasizes the centrality of gender equality, which, strictly speak-
ing, is a much stronger and more result-oriented term than equal
opportunities. The Council offers the most comprehensive denition
of gender mainstreaming that has been articulated by the Council of
Europe: Gender mainstreaming is the (re)organization, improve-
ment, development and evaluation of policy processes so that a
gender equality perspective is incorporated in all policies at all levels
and at all stages, by the actors normally involved in policy-making
(Council of Europe 1998, 15).
Some feminist literature claims that gender mainstreaming encom-
passes a structural conception of actual gender equality that also calls
the masculine norm into question. According to this literature, the
goal of gender mainstreaming is gender equality. The focus, in other
words, is not on women but on gender: on women and men, and
their respective power relations (Mazey 2001). Gender mainstreaming
is intended to counter the impact of gender bias on the (re)production
of inequality (Liebert 2002; Verloo 2001). Although not everyone
agrees with this far-reaching denition of equality as the goal of
gender mainstreaming (cf. Booth and Bennett 2002) and though the
concept is somewhat elastic, there is a consensus amongst feminist
scholars that gender mainstreaming must call into question androcen-
tric standards or traditional roles (Squires 2005, 2007).
Gender mainstreaming involves implementation in the regular
policy processes across a range of policy domains. In other words, a
horizontal or cross-disciplinary gender-mainstreaming strategy needs
to be put into operation in various policy sectors. The absence of an
explicit formulation of its goal in the denitions of the European
Commission, the Beijing Platform for Action, and the Council of
Europe, however, could hamper its use as a strategy for achieving
real gender equality. As a result, the denition is left to the policy
actors in the various policy domains. Such autonomy could have
considerable advantages, such as the ability to adapt the concrete
policy objective to the policy domain in which it takes shape and the
development of issue ownership. Nevertheless, policy actors can
also be unwilling or unable to dene gender equality and how to
reach it. This reluctance may be due to an absence of political will,
but it might also be caused by ideological and political diversity. In
such a setting, the best option may be not to act at all or to leave
denitions at the stage of polysemy (Jespen and Serrano Pascual
2007). It is precisely the unspecied intention of gender mainstream-
ing, which assumes that the gender-mainstreaming strategy will
472 V Meier and Celis

a
t

G
e
o
r
g
e
t
o
w
n

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
0
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
s
p
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

adopt substantive aims when implemented by regular policy actors,
that opens the door for policies with limited ambitions that do not
aim at gender equality as dened, for instance, by feminist scholars.
The rationality assumptions of such gender-mainstreaming
strategies in turn open the possibility that they will become purely
procedural policies. A rst level of rationality underlying gender
mainstreaming presupposes that intentions can be translated into
practice by measuring, organizing, reorganizing, improving, develop-
ing, and evaluating the policy process. It regards policy-making as a
process in which the progress and ultimate results can be evaluated
and safeguarded, a requisite for gender mainstreaming. Due to the
strategys emphasis on specic tools and procedures that measure,
monitor, and evaluate policy, and minimalist denitions of the sub-
stantive aims, there is a risk that gender mainstreaming will be
reduced to a means of producing specic output through the use of
these instruments, instead of forming an integral part of a global
policy strategy aimed at realizing gender equality (Beveridge and Nott
2002; Daly 2005; Lombardo and Meier 2006; Plantenga, Remery,
and Rubery 2007; Squires 2007).
The reason why procedural outcomes can be expected also lies in
the transversal and horizontal character of gender mainstreaming,
which involves policy actors that possibly have little experience of,
and limited afnity with, gender equality. In order to give these
actors something to hold on to, emphasis is placed on procedures
that must be followed to arrive at the desired result. Actually, inte-
grating these policy procedures and instruments into the framework
of gender mainstreaming with a view to achieving gender equality
requires a certain amount of gender expertise. This expertise cannot
be supplied by the procedures and instruments themselves but must
already be present in order to guarantee their successful application.
In practice, the transfer and internalization of gender expertise has
proven to be no easy matter. The lack of a sufcient degree of
knowledge on gender issues can thus lead to the application of pro-
cedures and instruments simply to satisfy minimum requirements,
detached from a striving toward genuine gender equality.
A nal reason to expect gender mainstreaming to be limited to
policy monitoring and evaluation can be traced to the division
between the actors responsible for formulating the broad lines of
public policies and those responsible for executing them. Due to
the cross-disciplinary nature of gender mainstreaming, responsibil-
ity for policy formulation lies with different people and depart-
ments than those in charge of the policies actual implementation.
Moreover, there is often no clear hierarchical relationship between
these two sets of actors. As a result, the establishment of
Sowing the Seeds of Its Own Failure V 473

a
t

G
e
o
r
g
e
t
o
w
n

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
0
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
s
p
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

procedures and requirement to use certain policy instruments may
be motivated by a desire of those designing the policies to main-
tain some control over both the executing actors and the progress
of the project. Again, as the policy objective lacks sufciently
broad foundations, minimum compliance with these procedures
may become the maximum effort provided by the policy actors
executing them, and thus a goal in itself.
A second level of rationality has to do with the connection between
means (gender-mainstreaming tools) and ends (less inequality and
more equality). The strategy (implicitly) contends that those policy
instruments will realize equality, without specifying further condi-
tions for a successful implementation. Implementation, however,
often lacks certain elements that could forge a connection between
cause, objective, and means. This can arise when the problem and the
objective are ill-dened or ill-aligned, when there is no link between
the denition of the problem/objective and the target group of the
policy, or when the right resources to achieve the goal are not
assigned (Lombardo, Meier, and Verloo 2009; cf. also Verloo 2007).
This lack of rationality can reect a conscious decision to develop
gender equality policies within the bounds of the politically feasible.
The lack of a logical, rational connection between cause, means, and
objective can also be ascribed to the fact that policies contain unin-
tentional elements, as has been underlined by discursive analyses of
gender equality policies (cf. Lombardo, Meier, and Verloo 2009).
Public policies all contain explicit norms, values, and presuppositions
about how society should evolve but they also contain implicit
norms, values, and presuppositions, which may, for instance, take the
form of stereotypes about particular social groups. Policy actors are
not necessarily aware of these norms and values underlying public
policies (Bacchi 1999), which increases the subtle inuence of these
implicit norms and introduces an unintentional bias into the process.
The presence of multiple (conicting) rationalities at different
stages in the policy process can further inhibit success. The inten-
tions of the actors involved in agenda setting, policy preparation,
and decision-making do not necessarily match those of the actors
who implement them. This could cause the latter to minimize or
delay the execution of a policy. For instance, the gender-
mainstreaming strategy calls for statistics categorized by sex which
can lead to a focus on statistics to arrive at concrete policy decisions.
Where such data are missing, the execution of a gender-
mainstreaming policy can get stuck at the preparatory stage of data
collection. The absence of rationalitye.g., when the policy goals
do not respond to social problems, or when the means to achieve
the goals are inadequately set, or not followed throughagain
474 V Meier and Celis

a
t

G
e
o
r
g
e
t
o
w
n

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
0
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
s
p
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

contributes to procedural rather than substantive policies of gender
mainstreaming.
Procedural versus Substantive Gender Mainstreaming
1
The concern that organizations and governments have adopted
gender-mainstreaming tools in the absence of an overall gender
framework is widely shared, but the evaluations of the effects of
gender mainstreaming are not designed to answer the larger ques-
tions about social transformation (Squires 2007, 70). The impact
of gender mainstreaming tends to be judged by the degree to which
mainstreaming practices are embedded within organizational practi-
ces, through the adoption of mainstreaming structures and instru-
ments such as mainstreaming units, gender disaggregated statistics
and gender impact assessments (Squires 2007, 69, referring to
Elgstro m 2000; Pollack and Hafner-Burton 2000; Verloo 2000).
According to Squires, it is too early to judge the effect of gender
mainstreaming on broader social change.
We agree with Squires that measuring the impact of gender main-
streaming requires a long-term perspective. Nevertheless, we think
that there are ways to move beyond the description of the bodies and
tools adopted to conduct gender mainstreaming and take the content
of the policy into account. We do so by developing a set of criteria
that allow us to tell whether policy initiatives focus on policy sub-
stance or policy procedures and tools. These criteria enable us to dis-
tinguish substantive and procedural gender-mainstreaming policies.
Such an analysis does not tell us what the output and outcome of
gender-mainstreaming policies is but our analysis does allow us to say
something about the content of gender-mainstreaming policy initia-
tives. In particular, it enables us to assess the extent to which gender-
mainstreaming policy initiatives are limited to a procedural mode and
thereby lose track of the substance.
To identify a gender-mainstreaming policy as substantive or
procedural, we combined two kinds of policy evaluation instru-
ments used to screen (equality) policies: gender impact assessment
tools, more specically the Dutch and Flemish Emancipatie Effect
Rapportage (EER; gender impact assessment), and Critical Frame
Analysis (CFA).
EER is a form of ex ante policy evaluation, which evaluates the
predicted effects of a draft policy on gender relations (Verloo and
Roggeband 1996; Woodward and Meier 1997). Hidden or uninten-
tional forms of discrimination are identied via a dissection of the
draft policy. The results of this assessment provide the basis for the
rejection or revision of a draft policy. The analysis focuses on ve
Sowing the Seeds of Its Own Failure V 475

a
t

G
e
o
r
g
e
t
o
w
n

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
0
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
s
p
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

elements: the policy context and its problems, the policy goals put
forward, the target groups dened, as well as the policy measures
and resources. The rst three deal with policy content; they refer to
society, the policy problem to be solved, and the target group it
would concern/benet. The latter two aspects are of a more proce-
dural nature in that they refer to steps to be taken by policy actors
and their resources to do so (e.g., personnel, budget, infrastructure).
CFA is used to analyze policy documents to reveal their underly-
ing policy frames and the meanings they attribute to gender and
gender equality. A policy frame is an organising principle that
transforms fragmentary or incidental information into a structured
and meaningful problem, in which a solution is implicitly or explic-
itly included (Verloo 2005, 20). A list of sensitizing questions is
used to identify the problem denition and solution put forward in a
policy document. The presence of a well-elaborated diagnosisi.e.,
explicit identication of the problem, its causes, the actors that
cause it, and those it impacts negativelyand some aspects of the
prognosis (the policy goal put forward) can be seen as features of a
substantive policy, i.e., one designed to achieve gender equality.
Other aspects of the prognosisi.e., who has to act, which steps
need to be takenare the mark of procedural policies.
Based on the policy components analyzed by EER and CFA, we
distinguish between procedural and substantial policy as follows.
Policy initiatives qualify as procedural if they focus on the policy
form, its tools, rules, procedures, and/or policy processes, and do
not frame these as instruments in ghting gender inequality or estab-
lishing gender equality. The aim of the policy in these cases is of a
procedural nature. Substantive policy initiatives focus on the sub-
stance of policies, the substantive aim of the policy (i.e., gender
equality), offering an analysis of the inequality problem, and/or
dening the policys ambitions to establish gender equality. Purely,
substantive policy initiatives, however, do not provide for tools,
rules, processes, or procedures. Finally, policy initiatives can aim at
implementing procedures in order to reach a substantive aim. Such
policy initiatives, which simultaneously pay attention to substance
and procedure, are labelled combined policies. In this type, the
procedural aim serves the substantive one. Notwithstanding that in
theory both procedural and substantive policy initiatives can be
effective in specic contexts, it seems legitimate to expect combined
policies to have a greater chance at realizing social change. Our
assumption is that for gender-mainstreaming policies to become
effective in the long run, they need to be committed to gender equal-
ity in the implementation phasethey need to be more than
procedural.
476 V Meier and Celis

a
t

G
e
o
r
g
e
t
o
w
n

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
0
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
s
p
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

This typology can be used as a tool for the analysis of the acts or
policy documents that implement the gender-mainstreaming strategy
(see Annex 1 for an overview of the policy documents). Such analysis
involves determining whether the policy document aims at enacting
tools, rules, processes, or procedures, and/or whether it explicitly
aims at generating greater gender equality and, in case of a procedural
aim, if it is connected to the substantive aim. Whenever an evaluation
of the output is available, we use this information to complement the
textual analysis and to generate a more general assessment of the
extent to which the policy aims at social change. However, the analy-
sis of the output is not the primary aim of this article.
The Implementation of Gender-mainstreaming in Belgium
Since Belgium is a federal state, gender-mainstreaming initiatives
have been undertaken at the federal and at the subnational level
(i.e., Flanders, Brussels, the French-speaking community, and the
Walloon region).
2
The gender equality policies at these plural policy
levels in Belgium have many features in common (Celis and Meier,
2011). First, all prioritize the position of women in (political)
decision-making, womens participation in the labor market (includ-
ing the reconciliation of paid work and care), and the reduction of
gender violence. Second, with the exception of the Flemish commun-
ity, the various equality policies mainly focus on women, even
though most agencies policies have ostensibly broadened their focus
to men. The Flemish womens policy agency is the only one that
explicitly targets diverse groups aside from women and men, includ-
ing children, migrants, lesbians and gays, disabled and elderly
people. Third, a certain similarity can be found in the tools and
instruments used. Gender quotas for advisory boards and electoral
lists, awareness-raising campaigns, information on the position of
women and on gender relations (including statistics and data segre-
gated by sex), subsidies to womens movements, research or projects
meant to foster equality are used by womens policy agencies across
the Belgian board in pursuit of their policy goals and issues. The
federal womens policy agency also relies on legal action against sex
discrimination. Fourth, the various equality policies have all devel-
oped a gender-mainstreaming approach.
During the fteen years that gender-mainstreaming policy has
been practiced at the different Belgian policy levels, different
approaches have been developed, beginning with the so-called
Beijing reports on efforts to reach gender equality in plural policy
domains and a gender mainstreaming pilot project, then moving to a
gender mainstreaming act obliging gender impact assessment and
Sowing the Seeds of Its Own Failure V 477

a
t

G
e
o
r
g
e
t
o
w
n

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
0
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
s
p
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

gender budgeting and the open method of coordination (OMC).
Our analysis takes these rather disparate gender-mainstreaming ini-
tiatives into account. The common feature of these policy initiatives
is their horizontal or transversal approach, conceiving equality as an
issue that needs to be dealt with in all policy domains.
The Beijing Reports
The Belgian federal government took its rst step in 1996, when
the federal parliament approved a bill on the application of the UN
Beijing Platform for Action. The so-called Beijing Act requires the
government to issue an annual report to parliament outlining prog-
ress made in applying the resolutions of the Beijing Platform for
Action. The Flemish government made Beijing Reports compulsory
in 1997, followed by the Walloon government and French-speaking
community in 2002 and Brussels in 2006.
The federal and Flemish Beijing Reports and their respective
requirements, however, limit obligations to reporting on the progress
made. The act, thus, only contains technical and organizational
reporting requirements. There is no reference to gender equality, to
the underlying problems and goals to be achieved, or to target
groups. Furthermore, the actions and measures mentioned were rarely
assigned the necessary resources. The federal act and the Flemish
decree were often employed as a means to justify existing policy ini-
tiatives rather than to develop new ones. In practice, the application
of the resolutions of the Beijing Platform for Action was thus limited
to reporting and even that progressed with difculty. This leads us to
conclude that this policy tool was procedural: the evaluation of the
policy was an end in itself rather than a means to arriving at a policy
that would impact social relations.
In contrast, the Walloon government, the French-speaking com-
munity, and the Brussels reporting requirement imply a greater level
of commitment. Ministers of the respective governments are required
to provide information about the strategic objectives of their depart-
ments regarding the Beijing strategies, the nancial resources assigned
to them, the execution of the objectives and their evaluation, as well
as the contact person responsible for the matter within the cabinet or
department. Government ministers of the French-speaking commun-
ity and the Brussels Capital Region are also explicitly asked to
include any difculties they encountered in realizing their objectives
and their prospects for overcoming these difculties. These Beijing
reports thus feature a combined focus on both substance (the focus on
strategic objectives) and procedures. For this reason, they can be seen
as the combined policy type.
478 V Meier and Celis

a
t

G
e
o
r
g
e
t
o
w
n

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
0
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
s
p
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

Over the years, however, it has become clear that these tools were
no more rmly established within a policy process aimed at the
actual realization of gender equality than those of the Flemish or
federal governments (Cortier et al. 2008). In practice, they also led
mainly to reporting on the actual situation rather than to developing
policies based on a thorough analysis of the problem of gender
inequality and how to remedy it. As these reports only featured
weak problem and content analysis and were still accepted by the
responsible ministers/secretary of state, even here, compliance with
the procedural obligations was the central concern.
The Flemish Gender Impact Assessment Tool and OMC
One of the rst projects commissioned in 1996 by Equal
Opportunities Flanders concerned the development of EER. In con-
trast to the Flemish Beijing Decree, this gender impact assessment
tool comprises explicit objectives on improving gender equality. As
this policy evaluation instrument does not fall into the trap of reduc-
ing the goal to one of diagnosis or evaluation, we conclude that this
policy tool ts the combined policy type.
The Flemish gender impact assessment tool is, however, not anch-
ored in the policy cycle of the Flemish government. There is no obli-
gation to subject a draft policy to an assessment. Consequently, the
instrument has remained largely unused. It is regarded as too dif-
cult and time-consuming, and the same applies to the revised 2000
version (Meier et al. 2000). In particular, the qualitative criteria of
gender equality by which draft policies are evaluated particularly
demand a high level of gender expertise.
In 2005, the Flemish gender-mainstreaming strategy was given
added impulse with the introduction of the OMC, inspired by the
use of this modus operandi by the European Community in the
European Employment Strategy (Beveridge and Velluti 2008, 3;
Celis and Cortier 2008). As a result, the minister for equality poli-
cies has been assigned a coordinating role, making it primarily his/
her task to stimulate and support gender equality initiatives by col-
leagues in other policy areas. Concretely, the OMC implies that the
members of the Flemish government agree to common objectives,
after which actors in the respective policy areas determine how they
are to achieve those objectives. Monitoring, evaluation, and peer
review occur on a regular basis, enabling the respective partners to
learn from and stimulate one another. This method is seen as a
learning process with the central goal of exchanging best practices
(Mertens and Steegmans 2006). The OMC was given a solid basis in
the 2008 decree on Flemish gender equality policies. The decree
requires the Flemish government to dene strategic and operational
Sowing the Seeds of Its Own Failure V 479

a
t

G
e
o
r
g
e
t
o
w
n

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
0
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
s
p
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

objectives for the entire legislature within nine months after its
appointment. It then has a further six months to translate these
objectives into an action plan comprising a context analysis, con-
crete actions, timing, indicators, budgets, and instruments. These
action plans must be revised at least every two years.
According to the ofcer in charge of the OMC,
3
this process
constitutes a considerable improvement over the Beijing Reports. Its
educational and sensitizing effect has meant that policy actors gradu-
ally move toward more substantive gender equality policy actions in
their elds. The policy evaluation is seen as an opportunity to learn to
formulate improved objectives and action plans. The reports format
provides genuine assistance in that the results achieved must be listed
alongside the original intentions of the action plan. Any mismatch
between the goals dened at the outset and the achieved results
requires justication. The translation of major policy goals into con-
crete indicators makes evaluations even less permissive. In addition,
the regular meetings of the various policy actors involved require a
commitment that goes beyond written output and make it difcult to
only produce empty procedures. The Flemish OMC thus ts the com-
bined policy type. Nevertheless, soft policy tools like OMC involve
no sanctions. The success of the strategy also depends on resources
made available by the respective ministers. In sum, much depends on
the will and determination of the various policy actors, both the
initiators of the OMC and the policy actors in the other policy elds.
The Federal Gender Mainstreaming Pilot Project and the Gender
Mainstreaming Act
During the 1990s, the federal minister for gender equality was
largely against a multi-sector, transversal approach to gender equal-
ity policies but her successor, appointed in 1999, took a different
position on this issue. Toward the end of 2000, the ministerial
cabinet decided that every minister was to formulate at least one
gender equality objective. These were subsequently translated into
concrete policy measures to be executed with the help of an eight-
step procedure (Gender Mainstreaming Unit 2003). A Gender
Mainstreaming Unit, composed of academics, was to provide
gender-mainstreaming expertise to members of the cabinets and the
public administrations in charge of the strategic objectives. A sepa-
rate component of the pilot project was devoted to gender budgeting
and consisted of training, action enquiries, and awareness-raising
campaigns (Holvoet 2007).
The pilot project had an initial term of one year, which was
doubled once it became obvious that the strategic objectives would
not be met in that time span. Yet even with this extension, a large
480 V Meier and Celis

a
t

G
e
o
r
g
e
t
o
w
n

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
0
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
s
p
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

number of objectives were still not met. As federal elections were to
take place in 2003, the project was not renewed and most of the ini-
tiatives were halted at a time when concrete actions had yet to be
put into place. There was also no real follow-up, nor any evaluation
of their impact (Gender Mainstreaming Unit 2003). There are three
reasons for this lack of implementation. First, the strategic objectives
were, in most cases, formulated before the Gender Mainstreaming
Unit was established. The logic of some strategic objectives displayed
elements more characteristic of positive action than of gender main-
streaming; other objectives were limited to formulating conditions
for a gender-mainstreaming policy to be implemented at a later
stage. In addition, in the majority of cases, the strategic objectives
were not adapted to the projects time scale, while adjusting the stra-
tegic objectives was fraught with political difculties. Finally, the
Gender Mainstreaming Units eight-step approach was highly ration-
alistic, aiming at the policy process and not at its content. In other
words, as the plan did little to guide the objectives in the right direc-
tion, that task was implicitly assigned to the members of the unit
themselves. A second obstacle to the implementation concerns the
division of labor between, and the position of, those effectively
responsible for the project. Within the respective cabinets and
administrations, no additional resources were made available for the
pilot project, and the academic experts were seen as welcome addi-
tional help. The expectations, however, far exceeded the experts
formal mandate, and their knowledge of the various policy depart-
ments was often also limited. Members of the cabinets and adminis-
trations charged with the project were furthermore accountable to
the minister and often also the cabinet chief, which made it difcult
to take the necessary steps, particularly in cases where there was
little cooperation from the upper echelons. A third reason was the
lack of resources, such as nancing, needed to bring the strategic
objectives to a sound conclusion.
The pilot projects explicit aim was to go beyond a mere
pro forma formulation of objectives, given that the necessary resour-
ces were to be made available and the process was expected to result
in an evaluation of the policys impact. It is thus indeed the objective
of the policy to realize greater gender equality. However, this was
but a pilot project without the formal obligation to commit to it
later or any consequences linked to the evaluation of results. Hence,
the projects gender-mainstreaming initiative remained predomi-
nantly formalistic, aimed at the policy process rather than its
achievements. Notwithstanding initial ambitions, the practical
implementation of gender mainstreaming stressed procedures and
processes and thus can be seen as procedural.
Sowing the Seeds of Its Own Failure V 481

a
t

G
e
o
r
g
e
t
o
w
n

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
0
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
s
p
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

The federal government took another step toward the implemen-
tation of gender mainstreaming with the adoption of the gender
mainstreaming act of 12 January 2007. This act provides the legal
basis for compulsory identication of government funds earmarked
for the promotion of gender equality and therefore lays the founda-
tions for gender-sensitive budgeting. It also imposes a gender test on
every new policy measure and compels the federal government to
dene strategic objectives with respect to gender equality at the
beginning of the legislature for every policy area under its remit. The
act also provides for the follow-up and evaluation of these actions.
Inspired by the pilot project, ministers now have to dene gender
indicators, which make it possible to measure the success of the stra-
tegic objectives. Ministers also have to submit annual reports on the
actions, measures, and projects designed to realize these strategic
objectives.
4
Any potential bottlenecks in the realization of the strate-
gic objectives (as well as potential remedies for these bottlenecks)
are to be included in the interim evaluations. Finally, overall prog-
ress has to be measured at the end of the legislature such that the
societal position of men and women has to be compared with that
at the beginning of the legislature.
Contrary to the 1996 Beijing Act, the new act offers two openings
for more substantive gender-mainstreaming policymaking. First,
there are concrete objectives and clear avenues for measures designed
to achieve these. The new act not only provides for a follow-up of
the Beijing Platform for Action objectives but also for an integra-
tion of the gender dimension across all policy lines, measures,
budget preparations and campaigns and this with a view to avoiding
or correcting potential inequalities between women and men (art.
2, 1). However, it is all dependent on the formulation of the strate-
gic objectives. The question is the degree to which the Institute for
the Equality of Women and Men, the federal gender institute in
charge of providing guidance and support for the integration of a
gender dimension, will succeed in its task (Celis and Meier 2006).
The ministers of the governing coalition taking over after the 2007
federal elections did not dene any strategic objectives. Furthermore,
every minister must approve indicators in order to measure the inte-
gration of a gender dimension and the realization of the strategic
objectives. Again, these have not been dened. Also, everything
depends on these indicators. A gender impact assessment tool
(gender test) is to be put in place, but the model for this gender test
is yet to be determined by Royal Decree and no decision has been
taken on the consequences to be attached to a negative assessment.
A second opening stems from the fact that the 2007 Act devotes
attention to the question of resources. Gender-sensitive budgeting is
482 V Meier and Celis

a
t

G
e
o
r
g
e
t
o
w
n

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
0
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
s
p
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

an important aspect of, and success factor for, gender mainstreaming
(Holvoet 2007; Sharp and Broomhill 2002). The funds earmarked for
the realization of the strategic objectives are summed up in a gender
memorandum appended to the draft of the general budget. However,
the question arises to what extent the analysis, which will primarily
be conducted by civil servants, is capable of being critical of the gov-
ernment and calling into question certain macroeconomic assump-
tions with regard to gender. Moreover, there is no provision for the
consequences of a negative assessment. Finally, the 2007 Act encour-
ages the various ministers to ensure that statistics are split by sex.
Generating data segregated by sex should, however, not become a
goal in itself and the future will only tell to what extent the collected
data are used to create a more egalitarian society.
Given the focus on strategic objectives to reach gender equality
and their connection to procedures and processes, we believe that
the 2007 federal gender-mainstreaming law ts the combined policy
type. Yet, like the Beijing reports of Brussels, the Walloon region,
and the French-speaking community, this initiative might slip down
to the procedural type in the future.
Conclusion: Can Gender Mainstreaming Help Realize
Gender Equality?
Belgiums gender-mainstreaming initiatives were in some cases
reduced to a formalistic exercise of measurement and evaluation, and
in other cases have more of a combined nature. The chronological
ordering of these ndings, however, suggests an overall evolution
from predominantly procedural to more combined gender-
mainstreaming policies. Between 1995 and 2005, some gender-
mainstreaming initiatives were clearly of a procedural nature (federal
and Flemish Beijing reports and the federal pilot project gender main-
streaming); others also contained substantive elements but were not
implemented (EER) or only in order to comply with the rules and
obligations (Beijing reports in Wallonia, Brussels, and the
French-speaking community) (gure 1).
The Flemish OMC implemented since 2005 appears to avoid these
pitfalls for the moment, but it is too early to claim that policy evalua-
tion and monitoring will indeed result in policies that lead to gender
equality. It is also too early for a thorough evaluation of the federal
gender mainstreaming act of 2007. The central question is whether
the strictly phased approach and the evaluation mechanisms will in
fact amend public policies to make gender equality both the goal and
the end product. The experience with gender-mainstreaming instru-
ments, such as the Beijing Reports and the Gender Mainstreaming
Sowing the Seeds of Its Own Failure V 483

a
t

G
e
o
r
g
e
t
o
w
n

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
0
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
s
p
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

Unit pilot project, suggests that the gender mainstreaming act of 2007
might simply multiply the occasions at which policy actors are
required to demonstrate compliance with formal requirements.
Nevertheless, our attention is drawn to the positive evolution over
time. The rst procedural phase in which policy evaluation and
monitoring were goals in themselves formed the basis for the launch-
ing of more effective forms of gender mainstreaming. For instance,
while the lack of political will might stall gender mainstreaming at a
data-gathering stage, the data do make gender inequality visible and
might in the long run turn out to be a fruitful basis for substantive
equality policies. Perhaps, these more recent initiatives will in turn
provide the impetus for an implementation of gender-mainstreaming
measures more strongly centered on pursuing gender equality. In any
event, time offers the opportunity to acquire gender expertise, which
as we have stated is an important condition for setting up gender-
mainstreaming procedures and instruments in the framework of a
gender equality policy aimed at a genuine social impact.
These ndings support our hypothesis that the way gender main-
streaming is conceived allows for a focus on procedures rather than
content. Gender mainstreaming, therefore, at least partly sows the
seeds of its own failure. That is not to say that gender mainstream-
ing is condemned to become an introspective policy process focused
on meeting certain formalistic requirements. Nevertheless, it suggests
that the policy context in which it is conceptualized (and imple-
mented) can andat least in the Belgian casedoes push it in that
direction. The OMC is a clear example of this. Installing procedural
policies is not the aim of the gender-mainstreaming strategy, but the
rationalist assumptions contained within the gender-mainstreaming
strategy do indeed contribute to this state of affairs.
The rationalist perception of the policy process and of public poli-
cies does not in itself explain the procedural and formalistic nature
Figure 1. Timeline of the Belgian Gender-mainstreaming Initiatives, Classied
as a Substantive, Procedural, or Combined Policy Initiative.
484 V Meier and Celis

a
t

G
e
o
r
g
e
t
o
w
n

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
0
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
s
p
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

of the instruments. As long as there is a consensus that gender equal-
ity is the policy objective, such instruments can structure a process
and lead to an effective policy aimed at realizing gender equality
(Bustelo and Verloo 2009). That was, after all, the initial intention
behind their inception. Yet if one or both are missing, then these
instruments lack of content becomes manifest. They, therefore, offer
an easy way around the actual goal of gender mainstreaming. In
order to avoid this, it might be useful to make debates on gender
mainstreaming focus more strongly on its aim, and to bring (back)
in the political dimension of this aim.
NOTES
Petra Meier is Associate Professor in Politics at the Department of
Political Science, University of Antwerp, Sint Jacobstraat 2, B 2000
Antwerp, Belgium. Tel: 32 3 265 55 93; E-mail: petra.meier@ua.ac.be.
Her research interests comprise theories on democracy and representation,
electoral system design and mechanisms on group representation, gender
approaches to public policies and state feminism.
Karen Celis is Senior Research Fellow at Politics Department of the Vrije
Universiteit Brussel, Pleinlaan 5, B 1050 Brussel, Belgium. Tel: 32 2
6148113; E-mail: Karen.Celis@vub.ac.be.
1. This section is based on research conducted and nanced in the
framework of the programme Society and Future of the Federal depart-
ment of science policy. The title of the research project is Benet or
Burden? How EU Social Policies Shape Belgian Gender Equality Policies
(EQUALITY). See also Cortier and Martens (2010a, 2010b).
2. Notwithstanding their equal status to the French-speaking and
Flemish communities, the German-speaking community does not have
equality policies.
3. Personal communication with Agna Smisdom, OMC supervisor of
the equality policies unit of the Ministry of the Flemish Community on 8
July 2008.
4. The former follow-up of the resolutions of the Beijing Platform for
Action has been reduced to biennial reports.
Appendix 1
Annex 1: Acts, Decrees, and Policy Documents Used
for Text Analysis
Federal Beijing reporting: Act of 6 March 1996 covering checks
of the application of the resolutions of the World Conference on
Women, which took place in Beijing from 4 to 14 September 1995
(Belgisch Staatsblad 31 October 1996).
Sowing the Seeds of Its Own Failure V 485

a
t

G
e
o
r
g
e
t
o
w
n

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
0
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
s
p
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

Flemish community Beijing reporting: Decree of 13 May 1997 com-
prising the follow-up of the resolutions of the World Conference on
Women, which took place in Beijing from 4 to 14 September 1995.
Walloon region Beijing reporting: Decree of 28 November 2002
comprising the follow-up of the resolutions of the World Conference
on Women of the United Nations, which took place in Beijing.
French-speaking community Beijing reporting: Decree of 19
December 2002 comprising the follow-up of the resolutions of the
United Nations conference on Women in Beijing.
Brussels Capital Region Beijing reporting: Ordinance of 20 April 2006
regarding the establishment, by the Government, of an annual evaluation
report on its policy regarding equality between men and women.
Flemish gender impact assessment tool: Meier et al. 2000. De eer
van ons beleid: Emancipatie-Effectrapportage. Een instrument ter
bevordering van gelijke kansen op alle beleidsterreinen. Brussels:
Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap.
Flemish OMC: Decree of 2 July 2008 comprising the framework
for the Flemish equal opportunity and equal treatment policy.
Federal gender mainstreaming pilot project: Cellule Gender
Mainstreaming. 2002. Rapport nal projet Cellule Gender
Mainstreaming. Brussels: Ministe`re fede ral de lEmploi et du
Travail, charge de lEgalite des Chances.
Federal gender mainstreaming act: Act of 12 January 2007 com-
prising checks of the application of the resolutions of the World
Conference on Women which took place in Beijing in September
1995 and the integration of the gender dimension in all federal
policy lines (Belgisch Staatsblad 13 February 2007).
REFERENCES
Bacchi, C. 1999. Women, Politics and Policies. The Construction of Policy
Problems. London: Sage.
Behning, U., and A. Serrano Pascual. 2001. Gender Mainstreaming in the
European Employment Strategy. Brussels: ETUI.
Beveridge, F., and S. Nott. 2002. Mainstreaming: A Case for Optimism
and Cynicism. Feminist Legal Studies, 3: 299331.
Beveridge, F., S. Nott, and K. Stephen. 2000. Mainstreaming and the
Engendering of Policy-making: A Means to an End. Journal of
European Public Policy, 7: 385405.
Beveridge, F., and S. Velluti (eds). 2008. Gender and the Open Method of
Coordination. Dartmouth: Ashgate.
Booth, C., and C. Bennett. 2002. Gender Mainstreaming in the European
Union. Towards a New Conception and Practice of Equal
Opportunities? European Journal of Womens Studies, 9: 43046.
486 V Meier and Celis

a
t

G
e
o
r
g
e
t
o
w
n

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
0
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
s
p
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

Bustelo, M., and M. Verloo. 2009. Grounding Policy Evaluation in a
Discursive Understanding of Politics. In The Discursive Politics
of Gender Equality. Stretching, Bending and Policy-making, eds.
E. Lombardo, P. Meier, and M. Verloo. New York: Routledge.
Celis, K., and E. Cortier. 2008. De implementatie van gender mainstream-
ing. Implementatie in Belgie, buitenlandse best practices en een checklist
van stimulerende en remmende factoren voor de implementatie van
gender mainstreaming. Unpublished research report. Brussels: Ministry
of the Brussels Capital Region.
Celis, K., and P. Meier. 2006. De macht van het geslacht. Gender, politiek
en beleid. Leuven: Acco.
. 2011. Convergence and Divergence: The Federalization of
Belgian Equality Policies. Regional and Federal Studies, 21: 5571.
Cortier, E., and S. Martens. 2010a. Substantieel of procedureel beleid? Op
zoek naar een instrument om gelijkekansenbeleid te klasseren. Burger,
Bestuur en Beleid, 6: 23140.
. 2010b. Substantieel of procedureel beleid? Op zoek naar een
instrument om gelijkekansenbeleid te klasseren. In Sophia,
Genderstudies: een genre apart?/Savoirs de genre: quel genre apart? Een
stand van zaken/Etat des lieux des etudes de genre, Colloquium 2009,
42135.
Cortier, E., and K. Celis. 2008. De implementatie van gender mainstream-
ing. Screening van de institutionele en administratieve mechanismen in
het Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Gewest. Unpublished research report.
Brussels: Ministry of the Brussels Capital Region.
Council of Europe. 1998. Gender Mainstreaming. Conceptual Framework,
Methodology and Presentation of Good Practice. Strasbourg: Council of
Europe.
Daly, M. 2005. Gender Mainstreaming in Theory and Practice. Social
Politics, 3: 43350.
Elgstro m, O. 2000. Norm Negotiations. The Construction of New Norms
regarding Gender and Development in EU Foreign Aid Policy. Journal
of European Public Policy, 7: 45776.
Facon, P., A. Hondeghem, and S. Nelen. 2004. Gelijkekansenbeleid onder-
weg: een international vergelijkend onderzoek. Brugge: Die Keure.
Gender Mainstreaming Unit. 2003. Eindrapport en evaluatie van de door
de federale regering opgerichte cel Gender Mainstreaming. Brussels:
FOD Werkgelegenheid, Arbeid en Sociaal Overleg.
Hafner-Burton, E., and M. Pollack. 2002a. Mainstreaming Gender in
Global Governance. European Journal of International Relations, 3:
33973.
. 2002b. Gender Mainstreaming and Global Governance.
Feminist Legal Studies, 3: 28598.
Holvoet, N. 2007. Gender Budgeting in Belgium: Findings from a Pilot
Project. European Societies, 9: 275300.
Jespen, M., and A. Serrano Pascual. 2007. Unwrapping the European
Social Model. Bristol: The Policy Press.
Sowing the Seeds of Its Own Failure V 487

a
t

G
e
o
r
g
e
t
o
w
n

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
0
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
s
p
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

Liebert, U. 2002. Europeanising Gender Mainstreaming: Constraints and
Opportunities in the Multilevel Euro-Polity. Feminist Legal Studies, 10:
24156.
Lombardo, E., and P. Meier. 2006. Gender Mainstreaming in the EU:
Incorporating a Feminist Reading? European Journal of Womens
Studies, 2: 15166.
Lombardo, E., P. Meier, and M. Verloo (eds). 2009. The Discursive
Politics of Gender Equality. Stretching, Bending and Policy-making.
New York: Routledge.
Mazey, S. 2001. Gender Mainstreaming in the EU: Principles and Practice.
London: Kogan Page Publishers.
Meier, P. 2006. Implementing Gender Equality: Gender Mainstreaming or
the Gap between Theory and Practice. In Womens Citizenship and
Political Rights, eds. S. K. Hellsten, A. M. Holli, and K. Daskalova.
New York: Palgrave.
Meier, P., N. De Bleeckere, M. Franken, K. Bruggeman, and L. Leemans.
2000. De eer van ons beleid: Emancipatie-Effectrapportage. Een instru-
ment ter bevordering van gelijke kansen op alle beleidsterreinen.
Brussels: Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap.
Mertens, T., and N. Steegmans. 2006. M/V United. Genderjaarboek 2006.
Deel 3 MV United in beleid. Antwerpen/Brussels: Steunpunt
Gelijkekansenbeleid/ESF Agentschap Vlaanderen.
Mosesdottir, L., and R. G. Erlingsdottir. 2005. Spreading the Word across
Europe. Gender Mainstreaming as a Political and Policy Project.
International Feminist Journal of Politics, 4: 51331.
Oldersma, J. 2000. Het moderne feminisme en het sociaal kapitaal van
Nederland. In Sociaal kapitaal en democratie, verenigingsleven, sociaal
kapitaal en politieke cultuur, ed. M. Hooghe. Leuven: Acco.
Plantenga, J., C. Remery, and J. Rubery. 2007. Gender Mainstreaming of
Employment Policies: A Comparative Review of Thirty European
Countries. EU expert group on Gender, Social Inclusion and Employment
(EGGSIE) Report for the European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/
employment_social/gender_equality/docs/2007/gend_mainstr07_en.pdf.
Pollack, M., and E. Hafner-Burton. 2000. Mainstreaming Gender in the
European Union. Journal of European Public Policy, 3: 43256.
Rees, T. 1998. Mainstreaming Equality in the European Union: Education,
Training, and Labour Market Policies. New York: Routledge.
. 2005. Reections on the Uneven Development of Gender
Mainstreaming in Europe. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 4:
55574.
Rubery, J., H. Figueiredo, M. J. Smith, and D. Grimshaw. 2004. The Ups
and Downs of European Gender Equality Policy. Industrial Relations
Journal, 6: 60328.
Sharp, R., and R. Broomhill. 2002. Budgeting for Equality: The
Australian Experience. Feminist Economics, 1: 2547.
488 V Meier and Celis

a
t

G
e
o
r
g
e
t
o
w
n

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
0
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
s
p
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

Squires, J. 2005. Is Mainstreaming Transformative? Theorising
Mainstreaming in the Context of Diversity and Deliberation. Social
Politics, 3: 36688.
. 2007. The New Politics of Gender Equality. Basingstoke:
Palgrave.
Stratigaki, M. 2005. Gender Mainstreaming versus Positive Action: An
On-going Conict in EU Gender Equality Policy. European Journal of
Womens Studies, 12: 16586.
Verloo, M. 2000. Gender Mainstreaming: Practice and Prospects. Report
prepared for the Council of Europe. EG (99)13.
2001. Another Velvet Revolution? Gender Mainstreaming and
the Politics of Implementation. IWM Working Paper No. 5/2001.
Vienna: IWM.
Verloo, M. 2005. Mainstreaming Gender Equality in Europe. A Critical
Frame Analysis Approach. The Greek Review of Social Research, 117:
1134.
Verloo, M. (ed.). 2007. Multiple Meanings of Gender Equality. A Critical
Frame Analysis of Gender Policies in Europe. Budapest: CEU Press.
Verloo, M., and C. Roggeband. 1996. Gender Impact Assessment: The
Development of a New Instrument in the Netherlands. Impact
Assessment, 14: 321.
Woodward, A. 2003. European Gender Mainstreaming: Promises and
Pitfalls of Transformative Policy. Review of Policy Research, 20:
6588.
Woodward, A., and P. Meier. 1997. De Emancipatie-EffectRapportage:
Een instrument ter bevordering van gelijke kansen op alle beleidsterrei-
nen. Brussels: Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap.
Sowing the Seeds of Its Own Failure V 489

a
t

G
e
o
r
g
e
t
o
w
n

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1
0
,

2
0
1
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
s
p
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m