Actors, Institutions, and the Making of EU Gender Equality Programs

Petra Ahrens

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2017
• Print ISBN: 9781137570598
• eBook ISBN: 9781137570604
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: European Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

This book is an actor-centred sociological study of the EU-level processes that produce gender equality policy. Based on interviews and documentary analysis, the study unpacks the process of the "Roadmap for Equality between Women and Men 2006-2010" to explain the different roles of actors in the making of EU gender equality policies. By analysing policy processes inside institutions and among institutions, the study focuses on the internal working logics in and between EU-level institutions. It highlights the shifting spaces, openings, and constraints for the development of gender equality policies. Concentrating on EU policy programmes helps shed light on the invisible aspects of EU gender equality policy-making and how this process changed regarding actors, structure and content in the late 2000s. This book will be of interest to students and scholars in the fields of EU politics, gender politics, and public policy, as well as to institutional and non-governmental actors in the area of gender politics in Europe and the working of EU politics.

© The Author(s) 2018

Petra AhrensActors, Institutions, and the Making of EU Gender Equality Programs Gender and Politicshttps://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-57060-4_1

Begin Abstract

1. Introduction: EU Gender Equality Policy-Making

Petra Ahrens¹

(1)

University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium

I miss the times when women’s issues, gender issues were a priority.

(Interview with NGO representative)

End Abstract

In December 2015 gender equality policy-making in the European Union experienced a major set-back when the European Commission published its ‘Strategic engagement for gender equality 2016–2019’ as a Commission staff working document. It meant the end of gender equality policy programmes as previously known. Until then gender equality policy programmes were published as a form of soft law which were approved by the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament, or at least as a Commission communication. Although the European Commission had generally changed its proposals from hard law to soft law in the last decade, abandoning the previously effective tool of EU gender equality policy came as a surprise. While new public management tools became commonplace (Héritier 2003), the Commission ‘softened its soft law’ even further—despite protests from the European Parliament and member states (Ahrens and Van der Vleuten 2017). It signalled a new quality in the retrenchment of EU gender equality policy.

The consequences of these recent developments are yet to be investigated. This book takes a close look at an earlier, but similarly significant change in the soft law instrument of the EU’s gender equality policy programmes: the ‘Roadmap for Equality between Women and Men 2006–2010’. The latest retrenchment of gender equality policy programmes is reflected in the policy-making processes which led to the Roadmap. This study highlights the changes and unintended consequences in the Roadmap process. The book also helps to understand the possible consequences of the new ‘strategy’ by illuminating the emergence of major changes in the gender equality policy and its actors.

Since the Roadmap, gender equality programmes have significantly changed in terms of content and involvement of supranational gender equality actors. The Roadmap did not have its own budget and, unlike the interventions of previous gender equality policy programmes, was not followed by actions that affected member states. The Roadmap was also the last programme which was developed by the Directorate General Employment (DG EMPL). By analysing the policy process that led to the Roadmap we can better understand the background of today’s changes. Why has the EU gender equality policy-making changed since 2010? What were the crucial reasons for moving the Gender Equality Unit of DG Employment to DG Justice? What caused the start of the European Institute for Gender Equality? The major policy developments behind the EU’s gender equality today were established by the Roadmap. It influenced which actors were involved or excluded and how. It also had an impact on the lack of resources and the topics it dealt with. The Roadmap was the first major retrenchment of policy programmes. This book demonstrates that there were alternative pathways—apart from the one leading to the Commission staff working document ‘Strategic engagement for gender equality 2016–2019’.

By exploring the making of the Roadmap ¹ this book provides an in-depth, actor-centred, sociological case study. We still lack an understanding of how actors participate in gender equality policy-making, in particular how they collaborate (or not) when adopting the EU’s main legislative tool, soft law. By analysing policy-making processes vertically (inside institutions) and horizontally (among institutions), this case study covers the whole spectrum of actors who are involved in this policy area.

This study shares the idea of European sociology that ‘studies should concentrate primarily on actors’ attitudes rather than on institutional structures’ (Saurugger 2014: 163). When studying EU affairs the sociological perspective allows the examination of policy-making arenas and actors beyond the core EU institutions. It is a perspective which has previously been associated with research on ‘advocacy coalitions’ (Sabatier 1998; Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith 1993), ‘epistemic communities’ (Cross 2011; Haas 1992), policy networks (Falkner 2000) or interest groups (Greenwood 2007). The professionalisation or expertisation of EU policy-making has recently become an area of research (Büttner et al. 2015) and Jacquot (2015) specified the way in which this trend transformed EU gender equality policy.

The turn of the century brought a number of fundamental changes in the EU’s gender equality policy: the enlargement to Central and Eastern Europe, the implications of the Treaty of Amsterdam and the Lisbon Treaty, and ultimately the reign of a centre-right EU Commission under José Manuel Barroso. At the same time the development of gender equality mechanisms, the number of actors and resources were larger than at any point in the EU’s history (Ahrens 2008). This study focuses on the consequences of these turning points in gender equality policy. It describes in detail the reasons for the relatively weak outcome of this period. Thus, this study is vital for understanding the state of gender equality policy in the EU today, as it provides the missing link between the present and the past.

What were the key factors in the development of gender equality in the EU? Major changes evolved by limiting the creation of EU gender equality policy to the Commission, reducing the responsibility of member states and ending the close collaboration with civil society and gender equality actors in the European Parliament. The Roadmap process had dramatic consequences for the constellation of actors in EU gender equality policy and thereby led to more devastating effects when the policy area was transferred to DG Justice.

The examination of the Roadmap process reveals the complex interactions of actors and the creative use of formal and informal rules. An inside look at policy programme making provides a better understanding of EU gender equality policy and provides explanations for the shifts in the use of legislative instruments and limitations in the policy content. Moreover, the book focuses on the time after the enlargement to Central and Eastern Europe. This is a period which has not yet been adequately addressed in research literature.

From the start gender equality policy ² has been part of the supranational policy project: the European Union. ³ However, it took political actors some decades to recognize the connection between the EU and gender equality and establish an on-going discourse. Nowadays a European Union without a gender equality policy seems unthinkable, even though the issues in this policy area continue to trigger support as well as critique. To be able to understanding how EU gender equality policy changes over time we need to find out how much room for manoeuver the actors actually have.

Explaining the ups and downs of gender equality policy across time and space has always been of particular interest to feminist scholars (Jacquot 2015; Kantola 2010; Klatzer and Schlager 2014; Krizsan et al. 2012; Van der Vleuten 2007). As one of the latest emerging institutional and geopolitical arenas, the European Union (EU) has served as a focus for studying the changes and particular features over time (Abels and Mushaben 2012; Kantola and Nousiainen 2012; Lombardo and Forest 2012).

Gender equality policy is nothing new at the supranational level of the European Union; quite the opposite. EU gender equality developed ‘in a piecemeal, somewhat organic fashion, reflecting broader concerns about the commitment of the EU to social policy more generally, the turn in EU politics towards a concept of citizenship, (…)’ (Beveridge and Velluti 2008: 2). The piecemeal, organic fashion started with a small article on equal pay for equal work in the Treaty of Rome. This was subsequently extended by a number of directives and supplemented by measures in employment policy. This has been followed by gender equality policy programmes ⁴ since the beginning of the 1980s and most recently, by gender mainstreaming in the mid-1990s. While research has paid much attention to hard law, ⁵ gender perspectives in policy areas and to the implementation of gender mainstreaming, surprisingly little attention has been devoted to gender equality policy programmes, apart from Hoskyns (2000) and Jacquot (2015).

EU policy programmes are a common supranational measure. They reflect one element of soft law ⁶ and were often written as communications by the European Commission. ⁷ When equipped with more outreach and impact they were adopted as decisions by the Council of Ministers, ⁸ sometimes in collaboration with the European Parliament. ⁹ Using soft law as a steering mechanism of EU integration has become the rule, rather than the exception of EU policy-making (Héritier 2003). The Open Method of Coordination (OMC) is one of the most prominent examples (Beveridge and Velluti 2008; Büchs 2007; Tholoniat 2010). Soft law tools, like benchmarking and best practice, together with the emphasis on subsidiarity, define what can be proposed by the European Commission and what will be accepted by member states. Gender equality with its policy programmes and strategy gender mainstreaming fits perfectly into this scheme (Ahrens and van der Vleuten 2017; Jacquot 2015). These programmes are a specific feature and specific soft law tool in gender equality policy. Understanding the making of soft law policy programmes is of great value for understanding the main processes of EU integration and policy-making.

From the beginning EU gender equality policy programmes initiated networking among member states and involved Social Partners, non-governmental organisations ¹⁰ and member state bodies. They promoted gender equality on topics that were unusual to most member states at the time, such as supporting female employment in technical areas (Abels and Mushaben 2012). In addition to directives and gender mainstreaming, gender equality policy programmes need to be understood as the third tool of the European Commission’s promotion of gender equality.

When investigating gender equality policy at a supranational EU level, it is crucial to analyse Commission communications as the standard policy instrument of the EU. In terms of their direct supranational impact on member states, EU gender equality policy programmes rank particularly high on the list of measures, although they are rarely acknowledged as such. The EU shapes the gender equality discourse, gender relations and gender regimes in member states through hard and soft law. It sets benchmarks and, last but not least, defines g...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Frontmatter
• 1. Introduction: EU Gender Equality Policy-Making
• 2. Opening the Black Box: The Adoption of the Roadmap over Time
• 3. (Re)constructing Policy-Making Processes: The Actors’ Perspective
• 4. Deconstructing Network Voices and Governance Characteristics
• 5. Roadmap to Nowhere: Institutional Erosion and a Collapsing Network
• 6. Conclusion
• Backmatter