Discussion
Lucrèce Mattei
IPA – Cardiff
06/02/2016
The emergence of gender budgeting in Austria
Author :
Ulricke Marx
University of Innsbruck
ulrike.marx@uibk.ac.at
Discussant :
Lucrèce Mattei
Paris Dauphine University, DRM
lucrece.mattei@dauphine.fr
This working paper entitled “The emergence of gender budgeting” addresses the research
object “gender budgeting” in the specific context of Austrian gender equality policy. The aim
of your research is to describe the role of accounting within the field of gender equality in
policy in Austria, using the theories of governmentality.
The research is based on the following postulates:
-
Accounting techniques stated as neutral, de-politicizing the politics
Techniques also thought as a way of influencing human behaviors and transform
social relations
The contributions of the paper are to describe the role of accounting as not being neutral in the
implementation of gender equality policy. The article is also theoretically contributing to
gender and feminist studies but also for the literature regarding management accounting and
management devices. The originality of the paper is the combination of the two approaches in
an historical perspective (history of the present) and the analysis of the consequences of the
non-neutrality of accounting in the implementation of gender equality policy.
The subject is really echoing actual research on the instruments implemented in public and
private sectors for gender equality (Johnson, Lowe & Reckers, 2008; Kornberger, Carter &
Ross-Smith, 2010). And it is really echoing mine as my PhD work is dealing with gender
diversity programs in Big Four.
I would like to apologize in advance for not being a great expert on governmentality studies
but I will try my best to bring some insights for your subject. I hope my remarks will be
relevant to your work. I am well aware that your work is probably in progress and that some
elements of this discussion will be addressed as the paper evolves. Moreover, I have taken
the liberty of making some suggestions I hope you find relevant.
1) Structure of the paper
The plan of your working paper is:
-
Introduction
o Gender budgeting
Accounting and government
Methodology
o Policy context and case background
o Research method
Page 1 sur 4
Discussion
IPA – Cardiff
-
-
Lucrèce Mattei
06/02/2016
What’s the problem? – Feminist critique on budgeting
o Budgeting as technology of domination
o Budgeting as technocratic exercise
o ‘Expertocracy’ – budgeting as technology of exclusion
How to overcome the ills of budgeting
o Gender budgeting as technology of emancipation & empowerment
o Gender budgeting as technology to increase equality performance
o Democracy – gender budgeting as inclusive attempt
2) Introduction
The first paragraph of introduction is really well defined and ‘catchy’. Nonetheless, adding
the section “gender budgeting” in the introduction might not be necessary. I would suggest to
link your first paragraph with the case of gender budgeting justifying its relevancy for
research (theoretically and empirically) and then, setting out your research question. I think it
may provide more fluency to the writing.
I also think it could be interesting – for the comprehension of the purpose – to detail a little bit
more the example you gave about the study of the gender relations transformation through
budgetary policy because it could really anchor your topic in a relevant trend of research. It
can also give a better idea of what you are going to talk about.
On the problematization of the subject, perhaps you could to better problematize your subject
or at least, better highlight the interest of your research. Because as far as I am concerned, I
found your subject really interesting but everyone else outside the field might probably not
see your point. So maybe could you put more emphasis on the interest and originality of your
paper. I have made some suggestions about what are your contributions in the beginning of
the discussion.
Concerning gender budgeting, it would be much easier for comprehension if you could give
some concrete examples of what is gender budgeting - because I was not really able to
imagine– concretely – what it represents. You could for instance add in the additional an
example of concrete gender budgeting. Moreover, redefining your concept as a management
device and defining the scope of this device would allow you to better link your subject to the
studies of governmentality, which seems to be a really good concept to understand the role of
management accounting in rendering visible gender relations in the public sector and its nonneutrality in this process.
Finally, I would say that even if I understand the conflicting stance on accounting, the link
between what you’ve said before is not very clear. I think that this controversy on the
neutrality of accounting may represent the link between your object “gender budgeting” and
governmentality studies because gender budgeting renders visible the gender relations and can
help government to transform these relations.
3) Accounting and government
a) Concepts
You adopt an approach based on governmentality studies so in substance, you use five
concepts (from a book section written by Anne Pezet (2005)1 on Peter Miller) to represent
how management accounting and especially gender budgeting fulfill this role:
1
I am sorry but it is a French reference.
Page 2 sur 4
Discussion
IPA – Cardiff
-
Lucrèce Mattei
06/02/2016
The problematization is, in this context, gender inequality due to gender relations
resulting in a differentiated treatment for men and women
The programs (which are ideal schemas to solve problems linked to some specific
aspects of economic and social life) is in your case, gender quotas
The technologies (devices used to intervene in an area delimited by the
problematization and programs) are gender budgeting in public sector.
You have phenomenon of translation between gender equality policy and public sector
through gender budgeting.
Finally, you have a phenomenon of action from a distance between states and people.
I do not know if you will mobilize all these concepts but from my point of view, you may
need to a) apply your concepts to your case and b) make the connections between your
concepts so that the reader can know what you are willing to show and how. And if you do
not intend to use all of them or in a different way, mentioning it car underscore your
originality compared to these theories.
b) Structure
Your review of literature lacks problematization. In fact, it seems to me that what you call
“policy context and case background” is your review of literature and should be placed before
your part on “accounting and government”, because it sets up the context of your case.
Therefore, governmentality studies would be your framework and would shed light on gender
budgeting – that you would have defined in the previous paragraph – and on its non-neutrality
you have stated in your introduction.
4) Research method
Concerning methodology, I think that you may quote some authors on the relevancy of your
methodology regarding your research object and framework. Indeed, it seems to me that
governmentality studies use the “method” of “genealogy” inspired from Foucault’s work and
whose aim is at interrogating contemporary notions by demonstrating their historical
emergence. If your method is different from what is done in most of governmentality studies,
you have to explain why.
I was also surprised that the number of interviews and sources and their origin were not
mentioned in your paper or how you have reached a saturation point, which is quite important
to justify the scientific validity of your research. Moreover, it appears that only one document
is quoted in your results, so that I conclude that your work on results was in progress. Mayve
you could mention it because you could be criticized for having used a single document in the
majority of the paper used to draw conclusions.
I am also a bit confused about the role of feminist political debates in your framework. If I
understand well, those feminist political debates about the ills of budgetary policy represent
the problematization, meaning the emergence of a problem which is, in your context, the
awareness of gender inequality in and the urge to answer it by reforming budgetary policy.
You may then consider introduce this element long before, for example in the presentation of
your framework.
Finally, you address in a second part the solution brought by gender budgeting to this
problematization. I was quite surprise because governmentality studies identify three levels of
analysis (problematization, programs and technologies) and you seem to analyze only two of
them. I am really not a specialist so maybe that this remark is irrelevant. But I think that you
Page 3 sur 4
Discussion
Lucrèce Mattei
IPA – Cardiff
06/02/2016
really need to clarify your framework and the levels of analysis so that the structure of the
results seems consistent and obvious to answer your research question.
5) Discussion
The discussion seems not to be finished yet certainly due to the preliminary stages of the
paper. Nonetheless, it clarifies the purpose of the paper. Yet you might need to go on further
details about the connection between the gender budgeting as a critique and governmentality.
In my opinion, governmentality studies intend to explain the emergence of contemporary
accounting concepts which does not seem to carry a critical perspective. I am not saying that
the perspectives are not compatible but maybe should you explicit more what is the objective
of the paper.
You could maybe also give other references to discuss with and enhance the limits of your
research or give some leads for future research.
6) Some elements on the form
The title is not very attractive. I think you are doing more than just describing the emergence
of gender budgeting in Austria so that your title must reflect how original your paper is.
7) Bibliography
Johnson, E.N., Lowe, D.J., & Reckers, P.M.J. (2008). Alternative work arrangements and
perceived career success : Current evidence from the big four firms in the US. Accounting,
Organizations and Society Vol. 33, pp. 48-72.
Kornberger, M., Carter, C., & Ross-Smith, A. (2010). Changing gender domination in a Big
Four accounting firm: Flexibility, performance and client service in practice. Accounting,
Organizations and Society 35, 775-791.
Pezet, A. (2005). Peter Miller. In C.c.d. Mondeville, Les Grands Auteurs en Contrôle de
Gestion.
Page 4 sur 4