Why has gender equality not been a fundamental concern of ‘good governance’? How can this be remedied? This chapter from a report by the United Nations Research Institute for Social Development examines the main components of the good governance agenda in relation to gender equality. It argues that the narrow market focus of governance reforms has led to the neglect of gender equality concerns.
Critics of the good governance agenda suggest that it has a narrow preoccupation with reforms primarily to expand market activity and its supporting institutions. Reforms often involve the imposition of alien, ‘one-size-fits-all’ institutions, based on Western experience. Also, the narrow focus on capacity leads to a technocratic approach, which seeks to avoid interference from ‘messy’ political debate, thus entrenching the power of technocratic elites. This can mean that reforms are unlikely to have strong gender concerns, even though there are gender-specific capacity failures in all institutions targeted for reform.
This is exhibited in several of the main reform focuses of the good governance agenda. Important points include:
- Accountability institutions are expected to act in an impartial way, but often reproduce gender biases. Although there are informal accountability mechanisms, the informal power of civilian groups is limited.
- Civil service reform: The impact of restructuring on gender balance of staff at all levels, and of changes to incentive systems on interactions between state agencies and women, need to be considered.
- Public sector reforms that reduce the proportion of women workers also affect the equitable distribution of resources, as under certain conditions women staff show greater responsiveness to women’s problems.
- Rule of law: Feminists are critical of legal universalism. Informal justice systems often reinforce gender hierarchies in their rulings, especially in inheritance and other marital property issues.
- Feminists are also critical of legal modernism: The principle intention of rule of law reforms is to insulate private property and the market from public regulation. This limits the extent to which gender can be dealt with in the formal justice system.
- Dedicated institutions can represent women’s needs, although they have often been starved of resources and access to decision making.
The report makes a number of recommendations for gender-sensitive governance reforms:
- Reforms to accountability institutions should enable women to secure representation within such bodies, and to ensure that those in power are held accountable for promoting gender equality.
- Gender sensitive public sector reforms can proceed through: Recruitment quotas; introduction of gender equity concerns in performance measurement; and consultation with women clients of public services.
- Distribution of resources can be monitored using gender budgets. They have been highly effective in some places in exposing gaps between commitments and actual spending.
- Informal justice systems can be opened up to constitutional oversight, and space for women’s rights in these systems should be expanded. Reforms should increase women’s representation in the staffing of informal systems.
- Many dedicated policy bodies for women lack formal oversight powers and so rely on women’s associations as ‘whistle blowers’, even granting them formal status. The establishment of commissions to defend women’s interests will undoubtedly continue, and sustained social mobilisation is needed to obtain better accountability to women.
