The economic case for gender equality in the European Union: selling gender
equality to decision-makers and neoliberalism to women’s organizations
Dr Anna Elomäki
Postdoctoral researcher
Gender Studies
The Department of History, Philosophy, Culture and Art Studies
University of Helsinki
anna.elomaki@helsinki.fi
+358503199432
Keywords: economic case, European Union, gender equality policy, neoliberalism,
economic policy
Word count: 7000
1
Introduction
“Gender equality to boost economic growth by 15 % – 45 % of GDP” (EC, 2009a).
“More women in top jobs key to economic growth, says EU report” (EC, 2010).
“Progress in gender equality leads to economic growth” (EC, 2012a).
These three headlines from twenty-first century European Commission press releases
make the substantive claim that gender equality enhances economic growth and imply
that gender equality is worth public discussion because it contributes to economic
progress. There is nothing new about the economic framing of gender equality in the
policy discourse of the European Union (EU). Feminist scholars have consistently
pointed out that gender equality policies have been instrumental to the EU’s economic
priorities ever since gender equality entered the European agenda (e.g. Lewis, 2006;
Ostner, 2000; Stratigaki, 2004; Young, 2000). However, a close reading of EU gender
equality policy documents reveals a recent shift from merely subsuming gender
equality under the EU’s economic goals to explicit development and propagation of a
market-oriented gender equality discourse, the economic case for gender equality. This
shift, which I analyze in this article, is part of a global move whereby international
organizations and national women’s policy agencies have turned away from rightsbased approaches toward discourses focused on economic growth and efficiency. This
growing embrace of market mechanisms and values enhances the congruence of gender
2
equality policy with neoliberal policy agendas and forms of governance. (E.g. Eyben
and Napier-Moore, 2009; Kantola and Squires, 2012.)
This article contributes to the literature on European Union gender equality policies and
the emerging feminist research on EU economic governance by identifying the key
actors and processes behind the escalation of economic arguments for gender equality
at the EU level and making visible the gender-biased economic assumptions that
underpin EU gender equality policy documents. The research that has addressed the
economic framing of gender equality issues at the EU level has mainly been concerned
with its effects on the content and concepts of gender equality policy. I argue, that in
addition to asking how economic arguments shape gender equality goals and concepts,
it is important to inquire what the claims to gender equality say about the economy.
This requires an interdisciplinary approach, which combines a discursive analysis
focused on framings (e.g. Lombardo, Meier and Verloo, 2009) and an engagement with
feminist economics (e.g. Elson and Catagay, 2000; Maier 2011; Young, 2000).
I analyze the gender equality policy documents and the main economic and
employment policy documents of the European institutions from 1980 up until present,
focusing on passages that make a link between gender equality and the economy. I pay
attention to the type and frequency of the economic arguments for gender equality as
well as to the conceptualizations of the relationship between the economy and gender
3
equality. I complement the analysis of policy documents by examining the processes
and actors behind the construction of the economic case. To this end, I have identified
and analyzed preparatory documents, commissioned studies and other background
documents. I will begin by discussing the results and limitations of previous research
that has addressed the historic economic framing of EU gender equality policies. Based
on an analysis of policy documents and background documents, I trace how the
relationship between gender equality and economy has been conceptualized in EU
policy documents since the 1980s and how the economic case for gender equality was
developed during the first decade of the 2000’s. In the second section, I focus on the
framework implicit in the economic case and its effects on women’s organizations that
feel pressured to adopt the new discourse.
Economic framing of EU gender equality policy
Gender equality discourses both at the national and international levels have undergone
significant shifts in the past decades. In the field of international development, the
rhetoric of justice and rights, which was prominent after the adoption of the Beijing
Platform for Action in 1995, has been replaced by references to economic efficiency
and growth. This is partly due to the efforts of international financial organizations,
such as the World Bank and the World Economic Forum, to change the discourse on
gender equality by developing market-oriented ways to promote gender equality. These
4
discourses are compatible with neoliberal policy agendas focused on liberalization,
competitiveness and growth. (Chant, 2012; Elias, 2013; Elson, 2009; Eyben and
Napier-Moore, 2009.) The prevalence of economic gender equality discourses has been
facilitated by new governance technologies, which require translating activities into
financial calculation as part of good and efficient government and by the aspirations
towards evidence-based policy making (Kantola and Squires, 2012: 386–388).
The European Union gender policies have from the very beginning been subsumed
under the logic of the market (e.g., Kantola, 2010; Lewis, 2006; Ostner, 2000). The
manner in which equality between women and men entered the European agenda in
1957, when Article 119 on equal pay was included in the Treaty of Rome, is indicative
of the economic rationale that has guided the EU’s gender equality policies. The French
government, which had already introduced legislation on equal pay, was afraid that
countries using low-wage female labor might undermine the competitiveness of the
French industry (Kantola, 2010: 27–28). Since the 1950’s gender equality has changed
from being a market unifier to a fundamental right enshrined in EU treaties and the
scope of the EU’s gender equality policies has extended from employment to issues
such as decision-making, reconciliation of work and family life and violence against
women. The economic framing has, nevertheless, persisted and even intensified in the
1990s and 2000s.
5
Research that has addressed the economic framing of EU gender equality policy has
mainly focused on the incorporation of equal opportunities into the European
Employment Strategy (EES) as one of its four pillars in the late 1990s. Scholars have
argued that the close connection to employment priorities has changed the goals of
gender equality policy, making it mainly preoccupied with women’s employment rates
(e.g., Leon, 2009; Lewis, 2006; Smith and Villa, 2010). This instrumental approach has
affected the discourse around gender equality. The meanings of originally feminist
concepts have been co-opted. For example, when the issue of reconciliation between
work and family was incorporated into the EU’s employment agenda, the concern with
changing gender relations within the family was replaced with the goal of increasing
women’s participation in the labor market through flexible forms of work (Stratigaki,
2004). In the words of Lombardo, Meier and Verloo (2009), the meaning of gender
equality has been bent or shrunk. Furthermore, some have argued that the economic
framing has had consequences for the very understanding of “gender”. According to
Rönnblom (2009), policy discourses that bend the meaning of gender equality towards
economic growth produce a de-politicized understanding of gender in where the
conflicting dimension of gender relations is pushed aside.
This literature has mainly been concerned with the effects of the economic framing on
the content and concepts of gender equality policy. In my view, this approach does not
fully address the stakes involved in the intensification of market-oriented gender
6
equality discourses, because it implicitly assumes the possibility of a pure genderequality discourse unaffected by economic concerns. It is crucial to acknowledge,
however, that gender equality and economic theories and policies are connected. This
connection works in two directions: claims to gender equality shape our understandings
of the economy and support certain economic policies, and economic theories and
policies embody certain understandings of gender and have impacts on gender equality.
First, Nancy Fraser (2013) has argued that feminist claims are fundamentally connected
to struggles over the place of the economy and markets in society. These claims are
ambivalent as regards both to neoliberalism and its opponents and may side with one or
another. Fraser warns that unawareness of feminist struggles being played on the same
field as struggles over the economy prevents feminists from seeing the unintended
consequences of their claims and renders their claims available for resignification by
neoliberal forces. Some feminist ideals have indeed unwittingly converged with
neoliberal goals, giving them legitimacy (Eisenstein, 2009; Fraser, 2009). Similarly
gender equality policies may implicitly or explicitly support neoliberal economic
thinking and policies.
Second, feminist economists have revealed the gender-bias of mainstream economic
thinking and policies. On the one hand, the neoclassical economic framework, which
underpins the EU’s economic policies, produces a simplified view of human behaviour.
7
The focus on autonomous individuals and rational choice leaves gendered power
relations out of view. Unpaid reproductive work is rarely discussed. (E.g., Berik, van
der Meulen Rodgers and Seguino, 2009; Braunstein, 2008; Elson, 2009.) On the other
hand, macroeconomic policies have major relevance for gender relations (Elson and
Catagay, 2000; Maier, 2011). For example, the prioritization of fiscal stability –
keeping public debt at bay and cutting public spending – that has been central to the
EU’s monetary policy may lead to cuts in public jobs, services and social spending.
These measures tend to affect women more than men, given that women constitute the
majority of public sector workers, use more public services and rely more on various
social benefits. Cuts in welfare and care services involve the additional risk of
reprivatization, because social reproduction and care may be transferred back to the
private sphere. (Young, 2000.)
In addition to asking how economic framings shape gender equality goals and
concepts, it is, therefore, important pay close attention to the implicit and explicit
references to the economy in gender policies and claims to gender equality. Although
market-logic has always offered the master-frame for the EU gender equality policies,
my analysis of EU policy documents reveals shifts as regards to how the relationship of
gender equality and the economy has been conceived.
From economic framing to the economic case
8
In the early 1980s, references to the economy in EU gender equality policy documents
were scarce, and different interpretations of the relationship between gender equality
and the economy coexisted. On the one hand, the economy was seen to discriminate
against women. The Commission’s first mid-term equal opportunities action
programme (1982–1985) emphasized “women’s right to participate in and contribute to
the economic life” (CEC, 1981: 4). On the other hand, policy documents of the era
reflected member states’ concern with the costs of equal opportunities policies (CEC,
1985: 3; van der Vleuten, 2007). The emergence in the 1980s of the now familiar
arguments about the full use of women’s human resources (Council, 1984: 4), women’s
labour market participation as a way to tackle demographic challenges (CEC, 1985: 4)
and women as a labour market resource (CEC, 1990: 2) can be seen as a way to
mitigate this concern.
The idea about the macroeconomic benefits of gender equality, which forms the core of
the economic case for gender equality, appeared to EU policy documents in the early
1990s, coinciding with efforts to integrate equal opportunities policy more firmly to the
EU’s employment and social policy. The Commission’s third action programme on
equal opportunities (1991–1995) stressed that women’s skills and participation are
“indispensable for the economic development of Europe” and that equal opportunities
policy “forms an essential part of the strategy for Europe’s economic and social
9
cohesion” (CEC, 1990: 2). The Council explicitly pushed for stronger alignment of
equal opportunities policies with employment and growth policies and advised the
Commission to “take a fresh, closer look at the objective of equality between women
and men with an eye to an employment-intensive economic growth strategy” (Council,
1994: 6). The integration of equal opportunities in the European Employment Strategy,
launched in 1997, officially recognized gender equality as a matter of economic
interest, which also shows in policy documents. For example, the Commission’s first
annual report on equality between women and men from the same year described
women as a “key factor of growth” (CEC, 1997: 24).
The Commission and the Council began to study the economic benefits of gender
equality more closely in the late 1990s as part of the efforts to see social policy as a
“productive factor”. In this debate, which challenged the narrow understandings of the
economy that had guided the EU’s economic policy, economic, employment and social
policy were conceptualized as mutually reinforcing (Rubery, 2005: 5). In this context,
the Commission authorized a group of gender experts to gather evidence about the
benefits of gender equality to the economy as well as to the quality of life (Rubery et al.
1999). The links between gender equality, economic growth and social policy were
further explored in studies (Löfström 2001), conferences and a meeting of government
ministers during Sweden’s Presidency of the European Council in 2001. In order to
enhance gender mainstreaming, Sweden wanted gender equality “to be viewed as a
10
means of promoting growth and employment and not only from the perspective of the
individual” (Swedish Presidency, 2001: 4).
The outcomes of this early EU level discussion on gender equality and economic
growth were twofold. On the one hand, the issue of gender equality was translated into
the language of economic thinking through the introduction of the language of costs,
benefits, investments and productivity to the EU gender equality discourse. On the
other hand, the priorities and objectives of the prevailing economic policies were
questioned from a gender perspective. For example, Commission’s gender experts
emphasized that achieving gender equality required developing “new coherent systems
of social and economic organization in the interests of both men and women” and
extending the concern with “the narrow focus on growth” to a broader interest in the
quality of life and well-being (Rubery et al., 1999: 2-3, 1.)
The critical approach proposed by gender experts did not, however, catch on. Uncritical
references to the contribution of gender equality to economic growth proliferated in EU
gender equality policy documents in the early 2000s, following the adoption of the
Lisbon Strategy with its goals of sustainable economic growth, more and better jobs,
and greater social cohesion. The assumed connection between gender equality and
economic growth had also benefited gender equality policy: the Lisbon Strategy
included targets for female employment and childcare. In 2004, the growth-enhancing
11
potential of gender equality was spelled out at the highest political level, when the
leaders of the EU member states acknowledged that gender equality policies were
“instruments of social cohesion as well as of growth” (Council, 2004: 8). Affirmations
of the intrinsic value of gender equality were from then on dutifully complemented
with references to the Lisbon Strategy, in particular to the goal of economic growth.
For example, the Commission’s Roadmap for equality between women and men 20062010 stressed that “gender equality is a fundamental right, a common value of the EU
and a necessary condition for the achievement of the EU objectives of growth,
employment and social cohesion” (CEC, 2006: 2).
The European pact for gender equality, adopted by the member states in 2006, went
further in portraying gender equality as a factor in economic growth. The Council
expressed the rationale behind the Pact solely in economic terms: “Acknowledging that
gender equality policies are vital to economic growth, prosperity and competitiveness,
the European Council stresses that it is time to make a firm commitment at the
European level to implement policies to promote women’s employment and to promote
a better work life balance” (Council, 2006: 12). This formulation omits the idea present
in the Roadmap that gender equality is valuable in its own right and eliminates
references to the social dimension. It reflects the reorganization of the EU’s main
policy priorities around the goals of growth and jobs that took place in the middle of
the first decade of the 2000s (Hermans, 2005).
12
The focus on growth increased the pressures to reframe gender equality policy. The
explicit development of a new, market-oriented gender equality discourse began in
2008. The rationale of the new discourse was outlined in an analysis note The economic
case for gender equality (Smith and Bettio, 2008) that the Commission requested from
its gender experts: “By shifting the discourse around gender equality from a socially
worthwhile aim, yet potentially expensive, to an economically productive investment, it
is possible to see the equal treatment of women as contributing to economic success”
(ibid,: 2). The Swedish Presidency of the Council participated in the development of
the new discourse. It commissioned an empirical study on the impact of gender equality
on employment and economic growth in the EU (Löfström, 2009) and drafted Council
Conclusions (Council, 2009a) on the topic.
The economic case immediately became the backbone of the gender equality policy
documents of the EU institutions. In 2009 the Commission argued in its annual report
on equality between women and men that “increased participation by women in the
labour market offers both a guarantee of their economic independence and a substantial
contribution to economic development and the sustainability of social protection
systems. ... Reconciliation policies are key responses to long-term economic and
demographic challenges, and should therefore be reinforced to stimulate growth. (EC,
2009b: 4, 8.) Also the European Parliament adopted the new rhetoric and argued in a
resolution on gender equality in the EU that “equality between women and men has a
13
positive impact on productivity and economic growth and helps to increase female
participation in the labour market, which in turn has many social and economic
benefits" (EP, 2011: 67).
The novelty of the economic case is to systemically emphasize the macroeconomic
benefits of gender equality, in particular its positive impact on economic growth. It
brings together the arguments about women as a labour market reserve, women’s
unused human capital and women’s participation as the solution to the demographic
challenge, that have been present in the EU’s gender equality policy documents since
the 1980s. The economic case turns these long-standing, yet previously sporadic
arguments into a consistent, market-oriented approach to gender equality. In addition,
the economic case has broadened the scope of gender equality issues justified in
economic terms. For example, the Commission has emphasized “the advantage of
tackling the gender pay gap at the EU level, both for economic growth and meeting
poverty targets” and “the human and economic costs of violence” (EC, 2012b: 3). The
absence of women from corporate boards, previously a question of women’s underrepresentation in economic decision-making, has been re-described as an issue of the
under-utilization of women’s skills, which creates barriers to growth, competitiveness
and productivity (EC, 2012c).
14
The shift from a rights-based gender equality discourse to the market-oriented
economic case has been intentional. The Commission and the Council have been the
driving force behind this move, and the European Parliament has followed their lead.
As I have demonstrated above, the shift has been dictated by the necessity to frame
gender equality as part of the EU’s increasingly growth-oriented political agenda. But
strategic thinking has also been involved. The Commission’s gender equality unit has
used the economic case to push the member states to integrate a gender dimension in
economic and employment policies (EC, 2009b: 11). The Swedish Presidency 2009
pursued the discussion on gender equality and growth in order to increase the visibility
of gender equality issues, particularly in view of the negotiations over the EU’s postLisbon economic strategy (Council, 2009b: 3). The economic case also has a close
connection to the neoliberal governance reforms and the norms of new public
management. The model of European governance, which was developed in the early
2000, emphasizes, in line with NPM, efficiency, effectiveness, better policy-making
and knowledge and expertise. (Shore, 2011: 301-302). The efforts by EU civil servants
to point out the economic benefits of gender equality can be read as conformity to the
new norms of good governance, which also include translating activities into terms of
financial calculation and choosing between policy priorities in terms of their costs and
benefits (Rose, 1999: 151-152).
15
Although the economic case for gender equality repackages old arguments, it
represents a significant shift in the EU gender equality discourse with regard to how the
relationship between gender equality and the economy is conceived. The idea of
women’s right to participate in economic life without discrimination, prominent in
policy documents in the 1980s and visible still in the 1990s, has been replaced with the
idea that women’s participation is a macroeconomic necessity. Whereas earlier
documents referred to women as agents of economic progress, recent policy documents
tend to represent women as objects, whose potential should be “tapped on,” “used” or
even “exploited.” The main shift, the implications of which I will discuss in the next
section, is the move from the feminist critique of economic policies to reinforcing the
goals and content of current economic policies.
An inefficient, yet risky strategy
The stated goal behind developing the economic case was to sell gender equality to
decision-makers with persuasive arguments about costs and benefits. However, the
strategic goals behind the launch of the economic case, namely, securing visibility for
gender equality in times of crisis and integrating gender equality into the EU’s new
growth strategy, were not attained. Unlike the Lisbon Strategy, the Europe 2020
Strategy has no gender-specific targets, and gender mainstreaming is only superficially
addressed (Villa and Smith, 2010: 531). Gender equality policies are still seen as too
16
expensive. The improved maternity leave directive, adopted by the European
Parliament in 2010, has been blocked by a number of member states, which consider it
too costly. The best example of the economic case in action is the adoption of the draft
directive on gender balance on corporate boards in 2012 (EC, 2012c), which was
framed as a contribution to the EU’s economic goals. The directive was adopted thanks
to the support of (male) Commissioners with economic portfolios. However, many
member states have refused to endorse the directive.
It seems, then, that the economic case is not working, at least not, when achieving
gender equality requires changes in gendered power structures or is considered costly
for governments or businesses. Instead of encouraging the EU institutions and
governments to do more for gender equality, the economic case has become a
justification for doing anything at all as well as a criterion for determining what is to be
done. This implies the risk that the many gender equality goals without an immediate
connection to economic progress will be side-lined. The differences in scope between
the Commission’s Roadmap for equality between women and men (CEC, 2006), which
considered gender equality both as a value in itself and a contribution to growth, and
the European pact for gender equality (Council, 2006: 27–28), which viewed gender
equality mainly as a factor in economic growth, illustrate this concern. Unlike the
Roadmap, which also discusses violence against women and gender equality in
17
decision-making, the Pact only focuses on issues directly linked to the EU’s economic
goals: employment and reconciliation.
The economic case is a risky strategy for strengthening gender equality policy for other
reasons as well. The discursive and policy level risks, such as the shifting policy goals
and bending gender equality concepts, have already been thoroughly discussed by other
scholars (e.g. Ostner, 2000; Stratigaki, 2004). In my view, however, the core of the
problem is not what the economic case implies for EU gender equality policies and the
concept of gender equality – the focus of most research on the economic framing of EU
gender equality policy. Rather, we must ask what kinds of economic theories and
gendered understandings underpin the economic case, and what the economic case
means for feminists’ ability to criticize the EU’s economic policies from a gender
perspective.
The Commission’s economic case for gender equality and the research on which it is
based are located within the framework of neoclassical economics criticized by
feminist economists. The impact of this framework is particularly visible in the way the
key argument of the economic case – that gender equality contributes to economic
growth – reifies growth as an unquestionable political goal.
The first EU-level studies on gender equality and economic growth questioned the
definitions of growth within mainstream economic thinking from a gender equality
18
perspective (Rubery et al., 1999) or emphasized the goals of social well-being and
smoothly functioning social infrastructures (Löfström, 2001). In contrast, the
background studies that develop the economic case (Löfström, 2009; Smith and Bettio,
2008) and the policy documents that rely on it (e.g. Council, 2009a; EC, 2009b; EC,
2012b) present the goal of economic growth, measured through GDP, as fixed and
unquestionable. The economic case for gender equality thus promotes a narrow view of
well-being and the purpose of economic activity.
Furthermore, the economic case shows little understanding of economic growth as a
gendered process, in which some old forms of gender inequality may be weakened, but
new forms of gender inequality may emerge. Recent studies and policy documents
either side-line the question of the impact of economic growth and growth policies on
gender equality, or assume this relationship to be unproblematic. However, feminist
economists have consistently shown that there are potential tensions between the goals
of economic growth and gender equality (e.g., Kabeer and Natali, 2013; Elson, 2009,
42-43; Braunstein, 2008). For example, Stephanie Seguino (2005) has pointed out that
certain kinds of gender inequalities can enhance growth and competitiveness.
The gender-bias of the neoclassical framework is visible in the claim that gender
equality can increase the GDP of EU member states in average 27% (EC, 2009a). This
figure, which comes from a study commissioned by the Swedish Presidency 2009, is
19
based on the assumption that gender gaps in employment, part-time employment and
pay would be closed and women’s working patterns would be similar to those of men.
The gender pay gap is interpreted as a sign of difference in productivity. (Löfström,
2009: 25.) This calculation reduces gender equality to employment-related issues and
defines it narrowly as equal amount of work and equal productivity. In addition, it
uncritically makes the male worker the norm. The calculation is flawed also because it
does not take into account that women’s lower employment rate and higher part-time
rate are related to higher share of unpaid work, in particular care work. The envisioned
increase in GDP could only be attained through public investment to childcare.
In addition to relying on gender-biased economic analysis, the economic case for
gender equality legitimizes the EU’s current economic priorities and policies, many of
which have a negative impact on gender equality. When gender equality policy
documents present gender equality as a contribution to growth, jobs and
competitiveness, they reaffirm these as the EU’s main goals. The policy documents see
no contradiction between the goal of gender equality and the employment and
economic policies already in place. However, economic policies often have unintended
gendered consequences. Research on how EU-level macro-economic policies influence
gender relations in member states reveals that privatization, liberalization and
deregulation have in some cases had negative impacts on gender equality (e.g.
Tseveenbolor, 2011; Zachorowska-Mazurkiewicz, 2010). In Austria EU-level fiscal
20
policy rules have led to structural reforms and expenditure cuts that have reinforced the
prevailing gender roles, and social services are increasingly performed less by the
public sector and more by women in families (Klatzer and Schlager, 2011).
In short, the economic case for gender equality is an example of a gender equality
discourse that lends its support to gender-biased economic theory and prevailing
economic policies instead of challenging them from a gender perspective. It is hardly
surprising that the EU gender equality policy documents embrace the EU’s economic
priorities. Women’s policy agencies, including those of the European institutions, are
often too embedded in the ongoing neoliberal reforms in governance practices and
policy priorities to take a critical stance (Kantola and Squires, 2012: 383). It is all the
more important, therefore, that scholars and gender equality advocates remain cautious
about the economic case and continue asking questions about the impact of the EU’s
economic policies on women, gender equality and the society as a whole.
Feminism, neoliberalism and the economic case
Feminist movements took part in formulating the rights-based gender equality
discourse developed in the context of the UN World Conferences on Women in the
1980s and 1990s. In contrast, the new market-oriented discourses have been developed
by international financial institutions known for their neoliberal policies, without
proper participation of the feminist movement (see Chant 2012 for consultations in the
21
World Bank). These institutions are propagating their discourses to women’s
organizations and wider public. The goal to develop and promote the “smart
economics” approach to gender equality has been part of the World Bank’s gender
equality actions plans (WB, 2006: 3, 16–17). As a result, the Bank’s slogan “gender
equality is smart economics” has been broadly adopted within the international
development community and beyond (Chant, 2012: 201–202). The European
Commission has also actively promoted the economic case for gender equality. Policy
documents represent the economic case as a new, innovative strategy for advancing
gender equality in times of crisis, and press releases have ensured media coverage to
the economic case and brought it to the attention of the wider public.
What do market-oriented gender equality discourses, developed in a non-transparent
manner by international institutions championing neoliberal policies and then marketed
to women’s organizations, mean for feminist struggles, in particular as regards their
relationship to neoliberalism? The rhetoric that gender equality should be endorsed
because it is good for economic growth illustrates that feminist claims and neoliberal
goals may indeed converge (e.g. Eisenstein, 2009; Fraser, 2009, 2013), but it also
signals a new phase in the alleged and dangerous liaison between feminism and
neoliberalism. Fraser describes how long-standing feminist claims made in the 1970s
and 1980s were re-appropriated by neoliberalism. For example, she argues that claims
to women’s entitlement to paid work and the critique of family wage have been used to
22
legitimize capitalism’s valorization of paid labour and women’s entry to low paid jobs
(Fraser, 2009: 108–110). However, as Nanette Funk has pointed out, feminists
themselves never legitimized women’s low paid jobs in neoliberal terms. The affinity
between feminism and neoliberalism has been one-way. (Funk, 2013: 188–189.) In
contrast, the new, market-oriented gender equality discourses are products of neoliberal
institutions and governance. These discourses encourage gender equality advocates to
make claims, which explicitly embrace neoliberal goals and policies. In other words,
the economic case for gender equality and other similar discourses are not concerned
with re-signifying feminist claims for neoliberal purposes. Rather, they aim at changing
the content and premises of feminist claims in order to align them with neoliberal
policy goals.
On the one hand, the economic case for gender equality is an effort to legitimize
neoliberal policies. It harnesses the voices of those who work for gender justice within,
but also outside, the European institutions to support the goals of growth and
competitiveness and existing economic policies. On the other hand, the economic case
serves to reintegrate feminist goals into the capitalist project. In the aftermath of the
economic crisis, feminists and other groups struggling for social justice and equality in
Europe have been calling on the European Union to strengthen the regulation of
financial and other markets and come up with a new, egalitarian political vision based
on a broad notion of well-being. The time when the European Commission began to
23
propagate the economic case for gender equality coincides with the time when feminist
organisations at the EU-level and in member states strengthened their critique of
economic policies. If adopted by feminist advocates, the economic case may tame the
emerging feminist criticism and tie feminist claims to the prevalent economic
framework. If feminists make the economic case for gender equality without
questioning the origins and premises of their arguments, they may unwittingly reinforce
a vision of the future in which economic growth matters more than social well-being,
and, in doing so, may give their silent approval to the EU’s current growth and stability
policies.
Conclusion
I have argued that the European Commission and the Council are intentionally
changing the discourse on gender equality in the EU. They are developing and
propagating a market-oriented discourse, the economic case for gender equality, which
emphasizes the macroeconomic benefits of gender equality. The stated goal behind
developing the economic case was to sell gender equality to decision-makers in order
to improve the visibility of gender equality on the EU agenda. This goal has not been
reached. Rather, the economic case has become a justification for having any EU-level
gender equality policy at all.
24
At the same time, the Commission promotes this line of thinking to policy makers,
women’s organisations and wider public as an effective way to promote gender
equality in times of crisis. However, the economic case poses a dilemma to progressive
feminism. I have argued that the economic case reaffirms the gender-biased
assumptions and the narrow worldview of neoclassical economic theory and legitimizes
the EU’s current economic priorities and policies, many of which are detrimental to
gender equality. Implicitly, the economic case sells neoliberal values and policies to
gender equality advocates.
The European Commission’s efforts to propagate the economic case might have been
met with more enthusiasm than the efforts to use it to convince EU and national-level
decision-makers of the importance of gender equality. The take-up and use of the
economic case in the discourse of European women’s organisations must be carefully
analyzed. If gender equality advocates make the economic case without questioning the
origins and premises of the arguments they use, they may legitimize economic
priorities and policies that reinforce old gender inequalities and create new ones. The
use of the economic case may prevent them from criticizing current economic policies
precisely at the moment when a critical feminist engagement is most urgently needed.
However, rejecting market-oriented discourses in defence of a “pure” gender equality
discourse is not a viable political strategy. I have emphasized throughout this article
25
that the emergence of discourses like the economic case calls for more, not less
feminist engagement with economic theories, discourses and policies. It is important
for both scholars and activists to be aware that gender equality discourses are part of
debates about economic priorities and policies even when this is not their explicit
intention. Scrutinizing the assumptions about gender implied in EU economic policies
as well as their gendered impact, challenging the underlying neoliberal norms and
values and moving these policies into a more just and redistributive direction must be
among the priorities of activists and scholars working on gender in the European
Union.
References
Berik G, Van Der Meulen Rodgers Y and Seguino S (2009) Feminist economics of
inequality, development, and growth. Feminist Economics 15(3): 1–33.
Braunstein E (2008) Feminist political economy in a rent-seeking society: an
investigation of gender inequality and economic growth. Journal of Economic Issues
42(4): 959–979.
Chant S (2012) The disappearing of “smart economics”? The World Development
Report 2012 on gender equality: Some concerns about preparatory process and
prospects for paradigm change. Global Social Policy 12(2): 198–218.
26
Commission of the European Communities (1981) A new community action
programme on the promotion of equal opportunities for women 1982–1985. COM (81)
758 final.
Commission of the European Communities (1985) Equal opportunities for women medium term community programme. 1986–1990.
Commission of the European Communities (1990) Equal opportunities between women
and men. The third medium-term community action programme 1991–1995. COM (90)
449 final.
Commission of the European Communities (1997) Annual report on equal
opportunities for women and men in the European Union 1996. COM (96) 650 final.
Commission of the European Communities (2006) A roadmap for equality between
women and men 2006–2010. COM (2006) 92 final.
Council of the European Communities (1984) Council recommendation of 13
December 1984 on the promotion of positive action for women. Official Journal of the
European Communities L 331/34.
Council of the European Communities (1994) Resolution on equal participation by
women in an employment-intensive economic growth strategy within the European
Union. Official Journal of the European Communities C 386/02.
27
Council of the European Union (2004) Conclusions of the Brussels European Council
25 and 26 March 2004 (9048/04).
Council of the European Union (2006) Presidency conclusions of the Brussels
European Council 23 and 23 March 2006 (7775/1/06 REV 1).
Council of the European Union (2009a) Council conclusions on gender equality:
Strengthening growth and employment – Input to the post-2010 Lisbon Strategy. 2980th
Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council meeting, Brussels,
30 November 2009.
Council of the European Union (2009b) Note from Presidency to the working party on
social questions. Gender equality: Strengthening growth and employment – Draft
Council conclusions = Gender key messages. Brussels, 16 September 2009. 13217/09.
Eisenstein H (2009) Feminism Seduced. How Global Elites Use Women’s Labor and
Ideas to Exploit the World. London: Paradigm Publishers.
Elias J (2013) Davos woman to the rescue of global capitalism: Postfeminist politics
and competitiveness promotion at the World Economic Forum. International Political
Sociology 7(2): 152-169.
Elson D (2009) Gender equality and economic growth in the World Bank World
Development Report 2006. Feminist Economics 15(3): 35–59.
28
Elson D and Catagay N (2000) The social content of macroeconomic policies. World
Development 28(7): 1347–1364.
European Commission (2009a) Gender equality to boost economic growth by 15 % –
45 % of GDP. Press release. IP/09/1527. Brussels, 15 October 2009.
European Commission (2009b) Equality between women and men – 2009. COM
(2009) 77 final.
European Commission (2010) More women in top jobs key to economic growth, says
EU report. Press release. IP/10/362. Brussels, 25 March 2010.
European Commission (2012a) Progress in gender equality leads to economic growth.
Press release. IP/12/317. Brussels, 16 April 2012.
European Commission (2012b) Progress on equality between women and men in 2011.
Commission staff working document. SWD (2012) 85 final.
European Commission (2012c) Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and
of the Council on improving the gender balance among non-executive directors of
companies listed on stock exchanges and related measures. COM (2012) 614 final.
European Parliament (2011) European Parliament resolution of 8 March 2011 on
equality between women and men in the European Union – 2010 (2010/2138(INI)).
Official Journal of the European Union C 199 E, 7.7.2012.
29
Eyben R and Napier-Moore R (2009) Choosing words with care? Shifting meanings of
women’s empowerment in international development. Third World Quarterly 30(2):
285–300.
Funk N (2013) Contra Fraser on feminism and neoliberalism. Hypatia 28(1): 179–196.
Fraser N (2009) Feminism, capitalism, and the cunning of History. New Left Review 56
(March-April 2009): 97–117.
Fraser N (2013) The Fortunes of Feminism. From State-Managed Capitalism to
Neoliberal Crisis. London: Verso.
Hermans S (2005) The social agenda of the European Union and the modernization of
the European social model. Collegium 33 (Winter 2005): 5–26.
Kabeer N and Natali L (2013) Gender equality and economic growth. Is there a winwin? Institute of Development Studies working paper 417.
Kantola J (2010) Gender and the European Union. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kantola J and Squires J (2012) From state feminism to market feminism? International
Political Science Review 33(4): 382–400.
30
Klatzer E and Schlager C (2011) EU macroeconomic governance and gender orders. In:
Young B et al. (eds) Questioning Financial Governance from a Feminist Perspective.
London: Routledge, pp.51–73.
Leon M (2009) Gender equality and the European Employment Strategy: The
work/family balance debate. Social Policy & Society 8(2): 197–209.
Lewis J (2006) Work/family reconciliation, equal opportunities, and social policies: the
interpretation of policy trajectories at the EU Level and the meaning of gender equality.
Journal of European Public Policy 13(3): 420-437.
Lombardo E, Meier P and Verloo M (2009) Stretching and bending gender equality: A
discursive politics approach? In: Lombardo E et al. (eds) The Discursive Politics of
Gender Equality: Stretching, Bending, and Policymaking. London: Routledge, pp.1–18.
Löfström Å (2001) A report on gender equality and economic growth. Report for the
Regieringskansliet. Stockholm: Regieringskansliet.
Löfström Å (2009) Gender equality, economic growth and employment. Report for the
Swedish Ministry of Integration and Gender Equality.
Maier F (2011) Macroeconomic regimes in OECD countries and the interrelation with
gender orders. In: Young B et al. (eds) Questioning Financial Governance from a
Feminist Perspective. London: Routledge, pp.11–37.
31
Ostner I (2000) From equal pay to equal employability: Four decades of European
gender policies. In: Rossilli M (ed) Gender Policies in the European Union. Frankfurt
& New York: Peter Lang, pp.25–42.
Rönnblom M (2009) Bending towards growth: Discursive constructions of gender
equality in an era of governance and neoliberalism. In Lombardo E et al. (eds) The
Discursive Politics of Gender Equality: Stretching, Bending, and Policymaking.
London: Routledge, pp.105–120.
Rose N (1999) Powers of Freedom. Reframing Political Thought. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Rubery J et al. 1999. Equal opportunities as a productive factor. Study for the Policy
and Perspective Group of DG Employment and Social Affairs. European Commission.
Rubery J (2005) Reflections on gender mainstreaming: An example of feminist
economics in action? Feminist Economics 11(3): 1–26.
Seguino S (2005) All Kinds of Inequality are not Created Equal: Divergent Impacts of
Inequality on Economic Growth. The Levy Economics Institute of Bard College
Working Paper No. 422.
Shore C (2011) European governance or governmentality? The European Commission
and the future of democratic government. European Law Journal 17(3): 287–303.
32
Smith M and Bettio F (2008) Analysis note: The economic case for gender equality.
Prepared for the European Commission, Directorate General for Employment, Social
Affairs, and Equal Opportunities.
Smith M and Villa P (2010) The ever-declining role of gender equality in the European
Employment Strategy. Industrial Relations Journal 41(6): 526–543.
Stratigaki M (2004) The co-optation of gender concepts in EU policies: the case of
reconciliation of work and family. Social Politics (11)1: 30–56.
Swedish Presidency of the European Council (2001) Programme of the Swedish
Presidency of the European Union. Unofficial translation. Retrieved from
http://www.europafacile.net/formulari%5CDOCUMENTI_ISTITUZIONALI%5CProg
rammiPresidenzaConsiglio%5CSvedese.pdf
Tseveenbolor D (2011) Gender inequality and economic liberalization in posttransition
Hungary. PhD thesis. University of Utah, US.
Van der Vleuten A (2007) The Price of Gender Equality. Member States and
Governance in the European Union. Hampshire: Ashgate.
World Bank (2006) Gender equality as smart economics: A World Bank Group gender
action plan (fiscal years 2007-10). September 2006.
33
Young B (2000) Disciplinary neoliberalism in the European Union and gender politics.
New Political Economy 5(1): 77-98.
Zachorowska-Mazurkiewitcz A (2009) Role of macroeconomic policy in reinforcing
gender inequality: a case study of Poland in the European Union. Journal of Economic
Issues 43(2): 503-511.
34