Mainstreaming Equality in the European Union

Teresa Rees

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2006
• Print ISBN: 9780415115346
• eBook ISBN: 9781134820924
• Topic: Medicine
• Subtopic: Health Care Delivery

Mainstreaming Equality in the European Union provides a critical overview and evaluation of the potential role of the EU in perpetuating or breaking down gender segregation in the EU labour force. Teresa Rees draws upon feminist theoretical frameworks in assessing Equal Opportunitues policies and the role of training in the labour market.
The same economic imperatives which put women's training on the agenda have heightened interest in designing training which attracts women into mainstream provision. Mainstreaming Equality in the European Union addresses the urgent need for academics, education and training providers, as well as policy makers to be aware of current thinking at EU level on training policy.

Chapter 1
Introduction

The principle of equal treatment for men and women was enshrined in the 1957 Treaty of Rome which set up the European Economic Community (EEC), long before the issue had become one of significance in many of its constituent Member States.¹ However, in the late 1990s, despite equality legislation, a greater awareness of the social justice argument for equal opportunities and the ‘business case’ being made by both sides of industry (CEC and Social Dialogue 1993), gender segregation remains one of the most entrenched characteristics of the labour force in the European Union (EU). While patterns of segregation may shift and change with the restructuring of the labour market, reflecting the demise of some occupations and sectors and the emergence of others, nevertheless men and women remain fixed in different workplaces and grades, with radically contrasting terms and conditions, levels of status, opportunities and rewards. Throughout all labour markets, those occupations and professions where women predominate are valued less, paid less and deemed less skilled.

Studies which seek to document and explain the persistence of gender segregation and its characteristics have mushroomed in recent years. They include manuals on how to measure segregation (Siltanen et al. 1994),² macro studies charting patterns in the EU (Rubery and Fagan 1993), theoretical works debating the merits of competing explanations (Walby 1990), analyses of the effects of EU legislation (Duncan 1996; Hoskyns 1996; Rossilli 1997) and empirical projects in individual Member States. In the UK, for example, there are quantitative studies incorporating a range of sectors and industries (MacEwan Scott 1994) and qualitative studies looking at the social processes whereby patterns of segregation are reproduced (Cockburn 1991; Collinson et al. 1990). This book seeks to contribute to our understanding of this all-pervasive and persistent feature of European labour markets, but focuses on what I would argue is a neglected aspect, the role of education and training policies and practice in the reproduction of gender segregation. It looks particularly at the development of policies at the European level, and charts the evolution of approaches to delivering equal opportunities (EO) to men and women.

Systems of training provision and their take-up tend to reinforce and solidify patterns of occupational segregation. This applies to both horizontal segregation (men and women working in different industries and occupations) and vertical segregation (men and women found at different levels of the hierarchy). But vocational education and training (VET) systems are as segregated as the labour market itself. Indeed, initial, further and continuing training manifest highly gendered patterns of participation which reinforce those of the workplace. Ports of entry to further and higher education and training are modelled upon male patterns of participation in economic life, that is full-time and uninterrupted from leaving full-time education until retirement. Employer-sponsored training is concentrated upon people established in technical and managerial positions, who tend to be male. But the androcentricity of VET systems stretches far beyond mere patterns of participation. It is reflected in assumptions underpinning curricular content, funding arrangements, contact hours, location and degree of attention paid to students’ and trainees’ family responsibilities. It is manifested too in the informal curriculum, and the gendering of hierarchical positions among VET providers and those who set the policy agenda.

The European Commission (EC) is a major source of funding of VET within Member States through the European Social Fund (ESF), a part of the Structural Funds which comprise a package of measures set up under the Treaty of Rome in 1957 to reallocate resources to those regions most in need of economic development (see Chapter 8). Training has been supported too, during the late 1980s and early 1990s, through a series of Community Action programmes targeting particular skill development needs in the EU, for example in the new technologies (see Chapter 7). However, since the 1992 Maastricht Treaty on European Union became effective in 1994, the EC now has the competence to develop policies in education and training at the European level, to ‘complement’ the actions of individual Member States (Council of the European Community and CEC 1992). The action programmes which have been designed to deliver this European level policy are known as LEONARDO DA VINCI (for training) and SOCRATES (for education). They incorporate many of the features of the programmes which preceded them. By providing an additional source of funding for VET provision, they can potentially wield some influence on the shape and nature of activities throughout the Member States (see Chapter 8).

The EU, and the EEC before it, have acted as a catalyst to the development of EO awareness through legislation and as a result of decisions of the European Court of Justice. Some progress has certainly been made, but there have been retrogressive steps too. While there has been some convergence on EO, the situation in different Member States remains quite varied, from Denmark and Sweden which have the most advanced policies through to Greece at the other end of the spectrum. There have been instances of EU policies leading to a levelling down in some Member States; in other words the effect of EU legislation has in some cases worsened women’s position. EO has proved to be an enormously difficult objective to define, let alone deliver, and the complexity of the concept has become ever more apparent. The experiences of the Member States has thrown the inadequacies of the European instruments of EO into sharp relief.

The limitations of the legalistic approach towards securing equal treatment have been recognised and therefore complemented in the last decade by a series of positive action measures, known as the Medium Term Action Programmes on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men (see Chapter 4; CEC 1990; 1991a; 1997; Rees 1994a). These have produced examples of good practice in the field of women and work, facilitated the development of expert networks, and enabled the exchange of information. However, again, their impact falls well short of the challenge of delivering equality, largely because they focus exclusively on aspects of women’s role in the labour market rather than taking a broader approach to human rights.

More recently, the idea of ‘mainstreaming’ equality has been the subject of debate in Brussels, prompted in part by the Fourth United Nations World Conference on the Status of Women, held in Beijing in 1995, which advocates this approach to EO in its National Agenda for Action (Women’s National Commission et al. 1996). Mainstreaming involves the incorporation of EO issues into all actions, programmes and policies from the outset. It moves beyond equal treatment and positive action approaches to EO. The EC issued a potentially highly significant Communication to the Council of Ministers on incorporating EO into all Community policies and activities in 1996, a document known as the ‘mainstreaming’ Communication (CEC 1996). Mainstreaming involves gender monitoring and regular review of performance using gender indicators, and hence, in 1996, the Commission published its first annual report on EO: this starts to make performance in this area much more transparent than it has been in the past.

This book considers these three approaches to EO—equal treatment, positive action, and mainstreaming—within the context of the EC’s policies with regard to education and training. It explores the models of EO which underpin the various policy approaches, and argues that the degree of inadequacy of the model inevitably feeds back into the effectiveness or otherwise of the approach. The book presents the argument that, while the legal framework for EO is essential, it is inevitably limited in its effectiveness. Positive action projects, while creating spaces for women and being laboratories for the development of good practice, appear to be precariously funded, provision is ad hoc, and there are few linkages to mainstream providers. It is mainstreaming which is likely to have the most significant impact on developing women’s skills and the rigidities of gender segregation in the labour market. It also has the potential capacity to move beyond gender into other dimension of equality, such as race and disability.

EU policies on education and training and those on EO can be seen as coming together in the future due to current concerns about economic competitiveness, unemployment, social exclusion and skill shortages. Three highly significant White Papers have been produced which provide the framework for policies and action at the European level for the foreseeable future on economic, social and education and training policy at that level. While a commitment to EO is given in each of the papers, the extent to which EO informs the analysis of the problems faced, and the policies designed to address them, differs considerably. The White Papers, which are discussed in some detail in Chapter 9, are briefly introduced here in turn.

In 1994, in the context of the creation of a Single Market, an ageing workforce and chronic skill shortages, the EC published the first of the White Papers under consideration: Growth, Competitiveness, Employment: The Challenges and Ways Forward into the 21st Century (EC 1994a). This advocates a strategy of developing human resources to enhance competitiveness, as opposed to seeking to compete on wages. While the White Paper nods in the direction of EO, it is silent on the issue of women’s training. Nevertheless, it is women who are the majority of the economically inactive and the low skilled. Women also have higher rates of unemployment and longterm unemployment in the EU. It is clearly women’s skills that are most in need of developing.

In the same year, the EC produced the second White Paper, on social policy, European Social Policy: A Way Forward for The Union (EC 1994b). This expresses deep concern about ‘social exclusion’ within the EU, a concept defined largely in terms of exclusion from the labour market (see Levitas 1996). It seeks to halt processes of social and economic polarisation and identifies training as a key tool for promoting social cohesion. Women (and their children) are clearly identified in this Paper as being most at risk of poverty and social exclusion. The enhancement of women’s skills is therefore seen as part of the ‘way forward’, and an integral component of the EU’s social policy.

Training can be interpreted both as an economic policy, where the focus is on fostering the acquisition of job-related skills to develop the economy, and as a social policy, by assisting the disadvantaged to improve their occupational lifechances. It could be argued, then, that for both social and economic reasons, particularly given the focus of the policies outlined in these White Papers, the processes whereby patterns of gender segregation are perpetuated deserve intense scrutiny. Moreover, it is reasonable to expect that the social justice dimension of EO may well be emphasised rather more in the future, partly through a growing concern with human rights and partly because of the influence of Sweden (which joined the EU in 1995), given its long years of progressive policies in this field.

It is particularly timely to be considering the role of the EC in its support of VET systems and its approach to EO, given the EC’s additional competencies in the field of VET conferred by the Maastricht Treaty. This has resulted in the third significant White Paper to form the backcloth to this book, this one on the subject of education and training itself: Teaching and Learning: Towards the Learning Society (EC 1996b). This brings together the two main arguments for upskilling the EU’s workforce outlined in the economic and social White Papers (to develop economic competitiveness and to avoid social exclusion), but locates them in the context of a ‘knowledge-based society’. Given the demographic structure of the Member States, with low birthrates, an ageing population and no upturn in the numbers of young recruits to the labour force anticipated until the next century (with the exception of Ireland), the shift in emphasis in training has moved from young entrants to focus upon the existing workforce, whose members will need to continue to acquire new skills throughout their working lives. The concept of ‘lifelong learning’ is now clearly identified in EU documentation and activities as crucial to the EU’s future. The year 1996 not only saw the publication of the third White Paper but was also the European Year of Lifelong Learning, underlining the perceived increase in significance of continuing training for the development of human resources.

The book draws on research I have conducted as a consultant to the EC on EO and training policy over the last five years (see Rees 1992a; 1994a; 1994b; 1995a; 1995b; 1995c). It poses the question, to what extent do (or could) EC policies challenge the androcentricity of mainstream VET provision and related gendered patterns of segregation within the labour market of the Single Market? And is the idea of mainstreaming equality in all EU legislation and actions on VET a realistic or viable prospect? Hence, the purpose of the book is threefold. It seeks in the first instance to provide an accessible account of the role of the EU on the issue of developing EO, especially in the field of VET. Second, it offers an analysis and critique of European policy, informed by the contribution made by feminist scholars to our understanding of male dominance in culture and institutions. Finally, it engages with debates on the role of the EU in promoting economic growth, avoiding social exclusion and developing lifelong learning, the focus of the three White Papers from a gendered perspective.

The book analyses these current developments in EU policies and programmes in terms of competing concepts of EO. It seeks to trace the development of equality policies from the early days of ‘equal treatment’, and then ‘positive action’ and ‘positive discrimination’ through to the current discourse of ‘mainstreaming equality’, that is, developing a set of programmes and policies which are based on a recognition of diversity and the politics of difference. I have called these three approaches ‘tinkering’, ‘tailoring’ and ‘transforming’. While equal treatment and positive action programmes have been developing over a long period, main-streaming is a relatively new approach: competing understandings of what it entails co-exist. In the final chapter, I explore these and advocate a particular version, but, while there is growing interest in and research on mainstreaming, as yet it remains underdeveloped and largely untested.

In exploring the extent to which the EC both can and is likely to use its resources to seek to mainstream equality, the book offers both a top-down and a bottom-up analysis. In the first instance, it provides an account and critique of EO in the EC’s training policies, drawing on various statistical sources, studies and documentation. In so doing it seeks to demystify the operation of the EC in this field. At the level of practice, it also draws upon the experiences of participants in EC-funded transnational projects. The clear consensus which emerges from such projects is that, while funding for individual positive action projects is welcome, the similarities in the problems faced (albeit in different regions, cultures and sectors), illustrate the need to change mainstream provision and practice. The book brings these two strands of policy and practice together in advocating a more strategic approach to training for women.

OUTLINE OF THE BOOK

The next three chapters provide a context for the more detailed empirical chapters which follow. Chapter 2 briefly outlines the industrial and socio-economic background to the book, including an account of recent patterns of gender segregation in the EU. It also provides a brief overview of the EC’s education, training and equal opportunities policies. Chapter 3 focuses on deconstructing the concept of EO and outlines the conceptual framework upon which the rest of the book is based. Chapter 4 provides a history of the EC in fostering equal opportunities for men and women in the EU. This chapter (and the book itself) presumes some prior knowledge of the EU and its institutions (for good general overviews see Archer and Butler 1996; Dinan 1994; Nicholl and Salmon 1994; and Nugent 1994). The most relevant institutions and the instruments are described in the text.³

The next pair of chapters takes a more detailed look at the impact of training policies in one Member State, and on a particular skill shortage in the EU, that of new information technologies. Chapter 5, then, looks at gender segregation and training policy in the UK. Wales is highlighted as a European ‘region’ to illustrate some key issues. The skill shortages in new information technologies in the EU are discussed in Chapter 6, together with the barriers within VET systems to women filling those shortages due to the ‘masculinisation of technologies’.

The final set of chapters looks at the EC and training for women in the 1990s from the macro perspective of EC training programmes. Chapter 7 draws upon primary research to provide a detailed account of the position of women in the late 1980s and early 1990s in the Community Action Programmes of the EC’s Task Force Human Resources, Education, Training and Youth (TFHR, now DGXXII). These were known as ERASMUS, PETRA, LINGUA, TEMPUS, EUROTECNET, YOUTH FOR EUROPE, FORCE and COMETT. The chapter shows that the laissez faire approach to EO adopted in these programmes reproduced the status quo in terms of gender segregation. A similar story is revealed in Chapter 8, which examines the position of women in the European Social Fund and LEONARDO DA VINCI, the successor to the action programmes described in Chapter 7. The conclusion is reached that more proactive policies are needed if the EC is not simply to reinforce, or indeed further polarise, patterns of gender segregation in level and type of skills acquired.

The final part of the book addresses the future directions of EC policies in VET and EO. Chapter 9 provides a feminist critique of the three White Papers introduced earlier in this chapter and argues that there are some contradictions between an approach which seeks to develop human capital by ensuring equal treatment of men and women on an individual approach, and policies seeking to combat social exclusion, conceived of as groups unable to compete effectively. The concluding chapter explores the conceptual, political and practical issues and agendas involved in attempts to ‘feminise the mainstream’.

CONCLUSION

Despite the burgeoning literature on gender segregation in the labour market and on gender in the sociology of education, the field of training and its relationship to the reproduction of gender segregation remains relatively under-theorised. In writing this book I have attempted to bring together insights from academic literature, particularly feminist scholarship, and those from policy debates at the European level to address this issue. At the same time I seek to deconstruct some of the concepts operationalised in current thinking on the subject and demystify some of the workings of European machinery and its effects on women’s training at the regional level.

Central to the book is an attempt to evaluate the effect of three different models of EO, equal treatment, positive action and mainstreaming, in education, training and labour market policy, with the emphasis on training. VET systems more appropriate to the needs of women cannot alone produce changes in the gendering of the labour market. However, a mainstreaming approach, which integrates EO into all policies, would have the potential to challenge gender segregation, by tackling the basis of the gender contract underpinned by welfare, taxation and other areas of policy as well as education, training and the labour market. The book is intended both for those interested in EO and gender studies, particularly in the context of the EU, and for those in the business of policy development and implementation.

Chapter 2
The context

The purpose of this chapter is to provide a multi-faceted context for the analysis of equal opportunities (EO) and women’s training policy in the European Union (EU) which follows. The first section reviews both patterns of industrial change and continuity in the EU. The second looks at the broad picture of gender segregation in the labour force which, it is argued, training systems and structures underpin. The third section provides a brief overview of the EC’s training policies, highlighting special initiatives for women. This is especially aimed at those unfamiliar with the EC’s instruments for training. Much fuller accounts of these policies and analyses of their impact are provided in later chapters. The final substantive section summarises...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• List of Tables
• Preface
• Abbreviations and Acronyms
• Chapter 1: Introduction
• Chapter 2: The Context
• Chapter 3: Conceptualising Equal Opportunities
• Chapter 4: The European Union and Equal Opportunities
• Chapter 5: Key Issues in Women’s Education and Training in the UK
• Chapter 6: Skill Shortages, Women, and Training for the New Information Technologies
• Chapter 7: EC community Action Programmes on Education and Training
• Chapter 8: The European Social Fund and Leonardo Da Vinci
• Chapter 9: Competitiveness, Social Exclusion and the Learning Society
• Chapter 10: Mainstreaming Equality?
• Appendix I: Directorates-General of the European Commission
• Appendix II: National Vocational Qualifications
• Appendix III: Commission of the European Communities
• Appendix IV: Equal Treatment and Positive Action in Leonardo Da Vinci
• Appendix V: Examples of Equal Treatment, Positive Action and Mainstreaming in Leonardo Da Vinci Projects
• Notes
• Bibliography