Oxfam GB

Evaluating Gender Mainstreaming in Development Projects

Author(s): Maretha de Waal
Source: Development in Practice, Vol. 16, No. 2 (Apr., 2006), pp. 209-214
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. on behalf of Oxfam GB
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4029881
Accessed: 01-05-2015 18:11 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. and Oxfam GB are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Development in
Practice.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Fri, 01 May 2015 18:11:51 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Developmentin Practice,Volume16, Number2, April2006

lTaor

~Group
Frni

Evaluating
gender
mainstreamingin
development projects
Mlarethade Waal
Introduction
Gendermainstreaming,adoptedat the FourthWorldConferencein Beijing and capturedin the
resultingBeijing Declarationand Platformfor Action (United Nations 1995), is a strategythat
involves the mainstreamingof the genderperspectivein all aspects of development.This means
going beyond a focus on increasingthe numbersof women in developmentprojectsto bringing
genderperspectivesto the fore in all aspects of developmentwork. This requires'assessing the
implicationsfor women and men of any plannedaction' in orderto make their respective concerns and experiences 'an integral dimension' of the entire project cycle 'so that women and
men benefit equally and inequality is not perpetuated.The ultimate goal is to achieve gender
equality by transformingthe mainstream'(United Nations 1997).
Gendermainstreamingis not an end in itself, but a means to the goal of genderequality.As a
strategy,gender mainstreamingrequiresattentionto genderperspectives,making them visible
and showing the links between genderconcerns and achievementof the goals of development.
Moser et al. (1995) illustratedthat indicatorsused to assess the gender impact of programmes
and projectstend to measureprogressin implementationratherthan the actual outcomes. The
outcome of gendermainstreamingcan be reflectedquantitatively(for example by the numberof
women participatingin or benefiting from the project relative to men) or qualitatively (for
example women benefiting equitably or being empowered to challenge gender imbalances
and promotethe transformationof gender relations).
This paper focuses on the evaluation of gender mainstreamingin the project cycle, arguing
that evaluationcriteriashouldbe consideredin relationto the objectives of gendermainstreaming. A frameworkfor evaluating gender mainstreamingin development projects is offered,
together with suggestions for how to collect relevant quantitative and qualitative data to
verify the evaluation.

Conceptualclarification
Gender equality differs from gender parity. The latter denotes equal numbersof women and
men participatingor benefiting from a project or intervention. Gender equality, however,
refersto women having the same opportunitiesin life as men, includingthe ability to participate
in the public sphere. It assumes that once the barriersto participationare removed, there is a
level playing field. This expresses a liberalfeminist idea thatremovingdiscriminationin opportunities for women allows them to achieve equal statusto men. In effect, progressin women's

This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Fri, 01 May 2015 18:11:51 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Marethade Waal

statusis measuredagainst a male norm (Reeves and Baden 2000:9). Formalequality,however,

does not necessarily demand or ensure equality of outcomes. The World Bank (2000:2-3)
defines gender equality in terms of equality under the law, equality of opportunity,rewards,
and resources, and equality of voice to influence and contributeto the development process.
It stops short of defining gender equality as equality of outcomes, citing various reasons for
caution in interpretinggender equality as equality of outcomes. These include the fact that
differentcultures and societies may follow differentpaths in their pursuitof gender equality;
and equality implies that women and men are free to choose different (or similar) outcomes
in accordancewith their preferencesand goals.
Genderequitydenotesthe equivalencein life outcomesfor women and men, recognisingtheir
differentneeds,preferences,andinterestsandrequiringa redistributionof powerandresources.It
recognisesthatthe achievementof equal outcomesmay necessitatedifferenttreatmentof women
and men. The goal of genderequity, also called substantiveequality,moves beyond equalityof
change.Empowermentplays an essentialrole in transopportunityby requiringtransformational
forminggenderpowerrelations,throughindividualsor groupsdevelopingawarenessof women's
subordinationand buildingtheircapacityto challenge it (Reeves and Baden 2000:9).
The gender-mainstreamingprojectchallenges the very notion of the fixed natureof 'gender
arrangements'(Connell 2002:54) of a society, or of the 'genderregimes' of an organisationreferringto the socially constructedpatternsof gender relations in any given setting. Gender
mainstreamingis based on the principle that the gender order of a society can be changed
throughdeliberateand focused interventionsat every level. Therefore,gender mainstreaming
can be describedas seeking to remedy patternsof gender inequalityas it focuses on the transformation of gender norms and values. Gender mainstreamingis the deliberate, planned,
intended strategy to transformthe gender order throughoutsociety, including organisations,
programmes,and projects.
Different approachesto gender mainstreaminghave been popularat differentperiods. Even
in the current 'post-developmentera' (Thomas 2000:20), there is more than one approachto
gender mainstreaming.

Approaches to gender mainstreaming

The focus on gendermainstreamingdeveloped over several decades, with variousdevelopment
approachespreceding it. The development of the Women in Development (WID) approach
called for greater attention to women in development policy and practice, and emphasised
the need to integrate women into the development process. This perspective evolved in the
early 1970s from a liberal feminist perspective (Reeves and Baden 2000:32). The so-called
welfare approachof the 1950s- 1970s focused on women's practical needs, and translated
into attemptsto meet women's materialneeds within the existing gender order based on the
sexual division of labour,resources,and rewards.The poverty approachof the 1970s perceived
underdevelopmentas the main issue, ratherthan gender subordination.It aimed to improve the
materialconditions of women throughwomen's participationin their own development, also
within the existing gender order.
In contrast, the Gender and Development (GAD) approach to development policy and
practice focused on the socially constructedbasis of differences between women and men
and emphasisedthe need to challenge existing gender roles and relations (Reeves and Baden
2000:32). The equity approach of 1975-1985 concentrated on women's strategic gender
needs, while the efficiency approachof the 1990s harnessedwomen's labour to make development more efficient. The empowerment approach became popular in the 1990s, with
a focus on strategic needs as identified by women themselves. The integration approach
210

Developmentin Practice, Volume16, Number2, April 2006

This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Fri, 01 May 2015 18:11:51 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Evaluatinggender mainstreamingin developmentprojects

developed in the 1990s and sought to integrate gender awareness and competence into
'mainstream'development.
The integrationapproachto gender and development differs in importantways from the
agenda-setting approach to women and development (Jahan 1997:311-329; Reeves and
Baden 2000:11). The former approachto mainstreamingseeks to transformthe development
agendaitself while prioritisingwomen's (gender)concerns. However, gender issues are identified and addressedwithin the existing development paradigms,strategies,and priorities;the
overall development agenda is not transformedbut each issue is adaptedto take into account
women as well as gender concerns. Hence, throughoutthe project cycle, gender concerns are
integratedwhere possible.
Reeves and Baden (2000:11) argue that a combined strategy of agenda-setting and integrationcan be particularlypowerful. Internationaldevelopment agencies, such as UNDP, the
EuropeanCommission, and the CommonwealthSecretariat,often follow the dual approach.
UNDP, for instance, defines gender mainstreamingin terms of transformationreflected in all
policy, programme,administrative,and financialactivities, andin its organisationalprocedures,
therebycontributingto organisationaltransformation.
The EuropeanCouncil defines gendermainstreamingin developmentcooperationas the systematicintegrationof the respective situations,priorities,and needs of women and men into all
policies, with a view to promotingequalitybetween women andmen; andmobilising all general
policies and measuresspecifically for the purposeof achieving equalityby actively and openly
takinginto account,at the planningstage, the respective situationsof women and men in implementingand monitoring(EuropeanCouncil Regulation(EC) No 2836/98, 22 December 1998).
The Commonwealth,throughits GenderManagementSystem (GMS) (CommonwealthSecretariat2002) adopts a stakeholderapproachto integratingthe genderperspectiveto transform
structuresthat create and perpetuategender inequalities throughgender mainstreaming.This
approachis based on the recognition that the state is not the only player in efforts to achieve
gender equality and equity, and must work in partnershipwith other social partnersor stakeholders.The key stakeholdersin a GMS aretheNationalWomen's Machinery,othergovernment
ministries and departments,inter-governmentalorganisationsand donor agencies, NGOs, the
media, academicinstitutions,professionalbodies, and women and men in the broadersociety.

Evaluating gender mainstreaming

The frameworksummarisedin Table 1 suggests an integratedway of evaluatingdevelopment
interventionsfrom a gender-mainstreamingperspective. The frameworkis based on squaring
gender mainstreamingindicators(parity,equality, equity, empowerment,and transformation)
Table 1: Frameworkfor gender mainstreamingevaluation
Gender mainstreaming objectives
Gender
Gender
Transformation
Empowerment
equity
equality

Project
evaluation
criteria

Gender
parity

Relevance

Verification

Efficiency
Effectiveness

andqualitativegenderanalysisto providesex-disaggregated
Quantitative
at differentlevels,includinginput(policyand
dataandinterpretation
andoutputvariables(projectoutcomes)
organisational)

Impact
Sustainability

Developmentin Practice, Volume16, Number2, April 2006

This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Fri, 01 May 2015 18:11:51 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

211

Marethade Waal

with gender-sensitiveproject evaluation criteriaand the use of gender analysis tools and sexdisaggregated data to provide the required verification, as often included in the Logframe
projectmanagementtool, applicableto differentlevels (macro, meso and micro).
Objectives
In relation to its objectives, gender mainstreaming can be evaluated in terms of parity
(equal representationand participationof women and men); equality (equal access, control,
opportunities,rewards, and benefits for women and men); equity (the ratio of participation,
access, opportunities, rewards, and benefits according to needs/concerns of women and
men, women's empowermentand transformationof gender relations);empowerment(cognitive, behavioural, and affective changes to increase levels of equality and empowerment
of women in relation to men); and transformation(transformingthe gender order; changing
existing distributionof resources and responsibilitiesto create balanced gender relations).
Transformationinvolves meeting gendered needs in such a way as to challenge unequal
gender power relations and to contribute to empowerment of non-dominantindividuals or
groups of women and men. Transformedgender relations reflect parity, equality, equity, and
empowerment,benefitingboth men and women, or women and men separately.
Project evaluation criteria
The project evaluationcriteriaincluded in the frameworkare generic.
Relevance reflects on whether the project objectives with respect to the issues of gender
equality issues that have been identified are appropriateto the problems and to the physical
and social environmentwithin which the project operated.
Effectivenessincludes an assessment of the contributionmade by its results to the achievement of the project's purpose, and the way in which assumptionshave affected the project's
achievements.This also includes a specific assessmentof the benefits accruingto particularstakeholdersandtargetgroups(women and/or men; whetherthe plannedbenefitshave been delivered and received, as perceivedby all key stakeholders;whetherany shortcomingsat this level
were due to failure to take account of cross-cutting or overarching issues such as gender,
environment,and poverty duringimplementation).
Efficiencyaddressesthe questionof whetherprojectresultsfor women and/or men have been
achieved at a reasonablecost, and whetherthe benefits have costs and/or have been allocated
and received in an equitablemanner.
Impactrelatesto the broadsocial environment,and its contributionto wider genderpolicy or
sectoral gender objectives with reference to the project.
Sustainabilityrefers to the likelihood that achievementsrelevantto gender will be sustained
after the funding period, including ownershipby beneficiaries,the extent to which their strategic needs have been met through the project, and the extent to which capacity has been
built to sustain the impact of the project.
Verification
Evaluation requires the collection and analysis of informationon how far gender has been
addressedacross the entireprogramme,or to reflect quantitativeand/or qualitativeinformation
specific to each projectwithin a wider programmeaccordingto the chosen criteria.Information
should reflect gender initiatives, interventions, and/or outcomes at different levels. At the
macro level, it needs to reflect a gender analysis of the political and economic context,
policy, budgeting, strategy, structures,systems, and linkages with lower levels. At the meso/
212

Developmentin Practice, Volume16, Number2, April 2006

This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Fri, 01 May 2015 18:11:51 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Evaluating gender mainstreamingin developmentprojects

intermediatelevel, it must reflect a gender analysis of institutionalcapacity, humanand financial resources,managementsystems, and linkages with otherlevels. Finally, at the micro/field
level the data should reflect a gender analysis of project implementation, personal and
interpersonalexperiences, and linkages with other levels.
The datafor verificationcan be obtainedin a numberof ways. In the case of SouthAfrica, the
National Policy Frameworkfor Women's Empowermentand Gender Equality (OSW 2000)
provides useful guidelines for evaluatinggender mainstreamingin developmentprojects.

Evaluatinggender mainstreamingin South Africa

The South African National Gender Machineryhas adoptedthe CommonwealthSecretariat's
GMS as a holistic and system-wide approachto gender mainstreamingto be used by the
government in partnershipwith other stakeholders,including civil society and the private
sector. This approachis detailed in South Africa's National Policy Frameworkfor Women's
Empowermentand GenderEquality(OSW 2000). The GenderPolicy Framework(GPF) comprises guidelines for South Africa to take action to remedy the country's historical legacy. It
also attempts to ensure that the process of achieving gender equality is at the very centre
of the transformationprocess in South Africa and that it is embedded within all structures,
institutions,policies, procedures,practices, and programmesof government,its agencies and
para-statals,civil society, and the private sector.
National, regional, and internationalindicators guide the monitoring and evaluation of
gendermainstreamingin SouthAfrica. Nationalindicatorsare derivedfrom nationallegislation
and policy documents. At the global level, the Gender Development Index (GDI) and the
Gender EmpowermentMeasure (GEM), both developed by UNDP, are importantinternationally comparable indicators. In addition, the government has committed itself to the
implementation of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination
Against Women (CEDAW), as well as the Beijing Platform for Action, which has already
been translatedinto prioritiesfor nationalaction. South Africa must also reporton its progress
with regard to women's participation in political decision making; women's access to
professionalopportunities;and women's earningpower and participationin the economy.
Short-termmeasuresfor gendermainstreaming,derivedfromthe GPF,demonstratethe extent
to which the stateis incorporatinga genderperspectivewithin the process of internaltransformation.Among otherthings, this includesthe effectiveness of structuresput in place to coordinate
and monitorthe implementationof the nationalpolicy for genderequality;and the gender sensitivity of the policies, procedures,practices,and structuresof governmentas well as privateand
non-govemmentalinstitutions.Long-termmeasuresfor gendermainstreamingreflectthe degree
to which women have achieved equal access to the means of developing basic humancapabilities and also to basic needs and services; equality of opportunityto participatein all aspects of
economic, social, and political decision making;and equality of rewardsand benefits.
A furtherlevel of assessmentmeasureshow far women and men have changedthose cultural
beliefs, values, norms, and practices which subordinate,exclude, and prevent women from
defending their basic rights and realising their full potential.

Conclusions and research recommendations

The gender-mainstreamingevaluation frameworkpresentedin this paper offers an integrated
framework for the project staff charged with putting development policy into practice. It
seeks to enable them to move beyond the convenient 'head counting' of the women and men

Developmentin Practice,Volume16, Number2, April2006

This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Fri, 01 May 2015 18:11:51 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

213

Marethade Waal

participatingin a given activity, and to increase the depth and breadthof the integrationof a
gender perspectivein developmentprojects.
While numericaltargetsprovide focus and indicate priorities,they can also hide as much as
they reveal. A more differentiatedapproach(as opposed to women as a designated group and
men as the norm) involves distinguishingneeds and interests, as well as access, benefits, and
rewardsbetween sub-groupsof women and men in relation to researchand capacity building
in orderto inform the process of selecting monitoringand evaluation tools and mechanisms.
Projectevaluatorsshould be encouragedto include methodologies that elicit more information
about beneficiary categories and outcomes rather than just putting a tick in a box. This
would deepen the type of informationgathered, which would eventually inform subsequent
programmingcycles and gender mainstreamingin developmentprojects.

Acknowledgements
The projecton gendermainstreamingon which this paperis based is being undertakenunderthe
auspices of the Institutefor Women's and GenderStudies of the University of Pretoria.

References
Commonwealth Secretariat (2002) Gender Mainstreamingin the Health Sector, London: Commonwealth Secretariat.
Connell, R.W. (2002) Gender, Cambridge:Polity.
European Commission of the European Communities (2001) Communicationfrom the Commissionto
the Council and the EuropeanParliament,Brussels, 21 June, COM 295 (final).
European Commission of the European Communities (2003) South Africa - European Community
CountryStrategyPaper and Multi-IndicativeProgrammefor the period 2003-2005, Brussels:European
Commission.
European Council/Europeaid (2004) Project cycle managementguidelines, Brussels: EC.
European Council Regulation (1998) (EC) No 2836/98, 22 December, Brussels: EC.
Jahan, R. (1997) 'Mainstreamingwomen in development:four agency approaches',in K. Staudt (ed.)
Women,International Development, and Politics: The Bureaucratic Mire, Philadelphia, PA: Temple
University Press.
Moser, C.O.N., A. Binnendijk, and J. Murphy (1995) 'Evaluatinggenderimpacts', in R. Picciotto and
R.C. Rist (eds.) Evaluationand development:proceedings of 1994 WorldBank Conference,Washington,
DC: World Bank.
Office on the Status of Women (OSW) (2000) 'South Africa's NationalPolicy Frameworkfor women's
Empowermentand GenderEquality', Pretoria:Governmentof South Africa.
Reeves, H. and S. Baden (2000) Genderand development:conceptsand definitions,Bridge ReportNo 55,
Brighton:Institutefor Development Studies.
Thomas, A. (2000) 'Povertyandthe 'end of development", in T. Allen andA. Thomas (eds.) Povertyand
Development:Into the 21st Century,Oxford:OUP.
United Nations (1996) The Beijing Declaration and Platformfor Action, adoptedby the FourthWorld
Conferenceon Women, Beijing 4-15 September1995, New York, NY: United Nations.
United Nations (1997) Report of the Economic and Social Councilfor 1997, General Assembly: Fiftysecond session 18 September1997, New York, NY: United Nations.
World Bank (2001) EngenderingDevelopment,New York, NY: OUP.

The author
Maretha de Waal coordinates degree programmes in Gender Studies at the University of Pretoria.
Contact details: Departmentof Sociology, University of Pretoria,Lynwood Road, Pretoria0001, South
Africa. <mdewaal @postino.up.ac.za>

214

Developmentin Practice, Volume16, Number2, April 2006

This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Fri, 01 May 2015 18:11:51 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions