Female Genital Mutilation: adoption, actors and framing
Course:
Topics in International Political Economy
Term:
Summer 2013
Taps Count:
8192
Page Count:
4
Rasmus Corlin Christensen
XXX
XXX
XXX
M.Sc. International Business and Politics
CBS
Deadline:
10 June 2013
12:00 noon
1
Introduction
Global governance deals with the capacity to enforce decisions on a global scale without a centralized
authority (Rosenau & Czempiel, 1992). Traditionally nation-states has been at heart of this process,
however the challenges confronting decision-makers today call for new and more inclusive
approaches to global governance (Strange, 1996). The proliferation of civil society organizations and
other non-state actors in global governance, which globalization has brought in its train, is a response
to that call (Avant et al. 2010). Professionals, professions and advocacy groups are important new
actors who have gained a footing in global governance. Consequently, a plethora of new topics, such
as female genital mutilation (FGM), have emerged on the global governance agenda, whilst other
issues have still not been adopted however significant they appear to be.
This puzzle has conveyed us to inquire why some issues, like FGM, are adopted to the global
agenda, while others are not, and just as crucial, how the issue is framed. We will examine this by
study the issue of FGM and addressing the following research question: “What reasoning explains the
adoption of FGM as a global issue, and how do the professions and organizations working on FGM
frame is the issue?”
Theory
To answer the research question stated above, the paper will apply two theories. The first will make
an assessment of why FGM is an adopted issue on the global agenda by analyzing the factors
determining issue adoption vs. non-adoption. This is done though the theories developed by
Carpenter (2007) and Tomaskovic-Devey et al. (2011), and will look at Transnational Actor Networks
(TANs) visualized through IssueCrawler. This is relevant to the FGM case since it often constitutes a
part of many organizations’ programs.
The second theory will focus on determining why the issue is framed differently by the main actors
involved, by looking at professionalism theories and with a primary focus on the writings of Evetts
(2012) and Faulconbridge and Muzio (2011). This will enable the paper to determine whether the
framing is due to occupational or organizational value. This is particularly interesting in relation to
FGM since the issue is carried by both a group of UN agencies and other IOs.
As such, the logic of the paper is to first analyze the TANs and then the professions involved,
before relating the findings to practical policy implications.
Methods
Figure 1 shows a social network on FGM. The network visualizes ties (hyperlinks) between websites
of organizations working on FGM, as identified by the Issuecrawler’s harvest, on the basis of an input
of fifteen key topic-specific FGM websites. It is a directed network (thus not assuming reciprocity),
and the node sizes accord to indegree, assuming that the more inlinks a node has, the more significant
it is. In order to present the data in a focused way, isolates, pendants and sites insignificant for the
analysis, e.g. social media and sites of organizations not working on FGM, were removed. It is
important to note that the harvest captures the “public ‘real’ – evinced in the making and displaying of
a hyperlink” (Rogers 2010:10).
2
Figure 1: FGM network
Transnational advocacy networks and issue adoption
Tomaskovic-Devey et al. (2011) empirically find four main factors contributing to the emergence of
an issue at the level of a TAN:
Factor
Issue attributes
Actor attributes
Network effects
Broader political context
Success likely if…
Issue is easily understandable, measurable, and fits with the existing
issue agenda
Promoted by issue entrepreneurs and insiders, coalitions between
powerful IOs, funding/resources available, perceived likelihood of
success
Fit with organizations’ existing agenda, influential alliances and
interpersonal networks
Economic upswing, issue is ripe, strong
government/lobbyist/donor/celebrity support
Table 1: Issue adoption factor
Issue attributes: FGM comprises “all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external
female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs” (WHO 2013a). The ritual has obvious
victims, young girls, and perpetrators, ritual leaders and (to a lesser extent) doctors, and as such is a
simple and emotionally moving issue. WHO and UNICEF provide data on the number of affected
girls and children and the cost of reducing/eliminating the practice. Importantly, FGM has been tied
to existing global agenda issues, e.g. human rights, reproductive health, women’s empowerment, and
economic contribution etc. The social network visualization above illustrates this, with the central
organizations in the network working largely on related issues.
3
Actor attributes: Coalitions between central UN agencies and donors are abundant, with UNFPA,
UNICEF, WHO, World Bank, UNDP, and the Gates Foundation particularly involved. UNFPA,
UNICEF and WHO all advance the possibility of ending FGM (a thousand-year practice) in one
generation, highlighting the chance for quick success, which is also helped by the 2012 UN General
Assembly Resolution banning FGM.
Network effects: The fit to organizations’ existing agenda is illustrated above, having been taken up
and tied to the work of UNFPA, UNICEF, WHO and the World Bank. Furthermore, important
alliances like the UNICEF-UNFPA Joint Programme and the multi-stakeholder Donors Working
Group on FGM are present.
Broader political context: Anti-FGM originated in the 70s, and rose to importance during the 90s2000s, when also practical initiatives on human rights (an issue to which FGM has been tied) became
“hot” on the global agenda. Government (agencies) from the US (USAID), the UK (DFID) and
Norway (NORAD) etc. push the issue of FGM.
FGM, then, is an important and accepted global issue. Yet, the framing by IOs varies. In order to
understand these differences, we look at the professionalism dynamics at play in the anti-FGM arena.
Professionalism and discourse
Following the social network
above, we focus on the four most
central organizations working on
FGM: UNFPA, UNICEF, WHO
and WB). The organizations
based were chosen based on their
centrality ranking, unique profiles
and professions patterns. Here,
the HR practices of the
organizations are compared to
their FGM framing.
UNFPA
and
WHO
generally require staff to have
education
relevant
to
the
organization’s
mandate.
UNICEF’s educational requirements are slightly broader and more diverse, but staff must strictly
adhere to core values and competencies reflecting UNICEF’s culture. For all the UN agencies, the
recruiting pool is very diverse, nationally and culturally, and careers evolve mostly linear in the
organization from junior to senior to management (Simonsen, 2013). Framing-wise, the UNFPA
emphasize reproductive health, whilst WHO focuses on general health concerns and human rights,
and UNICEF’s discourse is on child rights. A joint program from UNFPA/UNICEF focuses on
reproductive health and equality. These diverse recruiting pools are homogenized through reliance
on uniform training and socialization through linear career paths (and core values), creating a
professional staff of “transnational, cosmopolitan professionals” (Faulconbridge & Muzio, 2011:23),
4
that reflects organizational values (respectively: reproduction, health and children) in the FGM
discourse.
The WB overwhelmingly employs economists, and career paths are mostly non-linear, with
seniors/management having largely left and come back (Kopperud, 2013). The WB FGM discourse
emphasizes victim’s diminished ability for economic contribution to society. With little formal
organizational socialization mechanism, the WB relies on professional occupational value – “a shared
identity based on competencies (produced by education, training and apprenticeship socialization)”
(Evetts, 2012) – to reproduce the consistent focus on economic contribution.
Policy Implications
As evident from the study above, each of the four selected IOs enjoy distinct organizational and
professional values. As such, their efforts to combat FGM are highly fragmented. By not pooling their
scarce resources and not utilizing from their aggregated pool of knowledge, a suboptimal output is
produced in terms of real-life improvements.
5
References
Avant, D., Finnemore, M. and Sell, S. (2010). Who Governs the Globe? Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Carpenter, R. C. (2007). Setting the Advocacy Agenda: Theorizing Issue Emergence and
Nonemergence in Transnational Advocacy Networks. International Studies Quarterly, 51: 99-120.
Evetts, J. (2012). Professionalism in Turbulent Times: Changes, Challenges and Opportunities.
Propel International Conference. Nottingham
Faulconbridge, J. R. and Muzio, D. (2011). Professions in a globalizing world: Towards a
transnational sociology of the professions, International Sociology 27(1) 136–152.
Rosenau, J. and Czempiel, E. (1992). Governance without Government: Order and Change in World
Politics. Cambridge University Press.
Kopperud, J. (2013). Leadership and Management in the World Bank. CMPOL_2RIP.XB_F13,
29th April, Copenhagen Business School, unpublished.
Platform for Action (2013). Towards the Abandonment of Female GenitalMutilation/Cutting
(FGM/C). Available online: http://www.fgmcdonor.org/publications/dwg_platform_action.pdf
[accessed 28th May, 2013]
Rogers, R. (2010). 'Mapping Public Web Space with the Issuecrawler', in: Claire Brossard and
Bernard Reber (eds.), Digital Cognitive Technologies: Epistemology and Knowledge Society.
London: Wiley.
Strange, S. (1996). The Retreat of the State: The Diffusion of Power in the World Economy.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Simonsen, J. (2013). Approaches to the Study of Not for Profit International Organizations. CMPOL_2RIP.XB_F13, 1st May, Copenhagen Business School, unpublished.
Tomaskovic-Devey, A., Carpenter, C. and Brownlie, K. (2011). Agenda-Setting in Transnational
Networks: Findings from Consultations with Human Security Practitioners. Available online:
http://people.umass.edu/charli/networks/CPPA_Report.pdf [accessed 28th May, 2013]
UNFPA
(2013).
Employment
Opportunities
at
http://web.unfpa.org/employment/ [accessed 28th May, 2013].
UNFPA.
Available
online:
UNFPA (2013). FGM/C is a sexual and reproductive health concern. Available online:
http://www.unfpa.org/topics/genderissues/fgm/strategicapproaches ”Sexual & reproductive health”
[accessed 28th May, 2013]
6
UNICEF
(2013).
Jobs.
Available
online:
/about/employ/index_qualifications.html [accessed 28th May, 2013]
http://www.unicef.org
UNICEF (2013). Child Protection: Child Protection from Violence, Exploitation and abuse.
Available online: http://www.unicef.org/protection/57929e58002.html [accessed 28th May, 2013]
UNICEF (2013). The dynamics of social change towards the abandonment of female genital
mutilation/cutting in five African countries. Available online: http://www.unicefirc.org/
publications/pdf/fgm_insight_eng.pdf [accessed 28th May, 2013]
World Bank (2013). Female Genital Cutting, Women’s Health, and Development: The Role of the
World Bank. Africa Human Development Series. Available online: https://openknowledge.
worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/6619/558320PUB0Wome1C0Disclosed071221101.pdf?sequ
ence=1 [accessed 28th May, 2013]
World Bank (2013). Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting in Somalia. Available online:
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTSOMALIA/Data%20and%20Reference/20316
684/FGM_Final_Report.pdf [accessed 28th May, 2013]
World Bank (2013). Jobs - What are my career opportunities. Available online:
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTJOBSNEW/0,,contentMDK:
2323081~menuPK:8453468~pagePK:8453902~piPK:8453359~theSitePK:8453353,00.html
[accessed 28th May, 2013]
World Bank (2005). Report of Seminar on Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting, A Call for EU Action.
The European Parliament, Brussels. Available online: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/
WBEU/Resources/3808221111486612454/Report OfFGMMeeting1June05.pdf [accessed 28th May,
2013]
World Health Organization (2013). Eliminating Female Genital Mutilation: An Interagency
Statement. Available online: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2008/9789241596442_eng.pdf
[accessed 28thMay, 2013]
World Health Organization (2013). Global strategy to stop health-care providers from performing
female genital mutilation. Available online: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2010/WHO_RHR_1
0.9_eng.pdf [accessed 28th May, 2013]
World
Health
Organization
(2013).
Required
qualifications.
Available
online:
http://www.who.int/employment/who_we_need/requirements/en/index.html [accessed 28 May, 2013]
World Health Organization (2013). What works and what does not: approaches for the
abandonment
of
female
genital
mutilation.
Available
online:
http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/topics/fgm/en/index.html[accessed 28th May]
7
Appendix 1
Name
OutDeg Indeg
Between Name
OutDeg Indeg
Between
unicef.org
46.000
40.000 1.343.576 unicef.org
46.000
40.000 1.343.576
World Bank Group
11.000
36.000 149.501 who.int
16.000
34.000 370.365
unfpa.org
17.000
35.000 342.815 unfpa.org
17.000
35.000 342.815
who.int
16.000
34.000 370.365 undp.org
18.000
31.000 261.503
undp.org
18.000
31.000 261.503 World Bank Group
11.000
36.000 149.501
unaids.org
7.000
30.000
82.368 unfoundation.org
16.000
11.000 107.579
wfp.org
15.000
19.000 103.286 wfp.org
15.000
19.000 103.286
unwomen.org
0
19.000
0 unhcr.org
14.000
17.000
99.222
ilo.org
9.000
18.000
57.475 unaids.org
7.000
30.000
82.368
unhcr.org
14.000
17.000
99.222 unhabitat.org
12.000
13.000
71.039
ohchr.org
10.000
14.000
46.605 ilo.org
9.000
18.000
57.475
unhabitat.org
12.000
13.000
71.039 ohchr.org
10.000
14.000
46.605
unfoundation.org
16.000
11.000 107.579 gatesfoundation.org
12.000
8.000
45.800
ifad.org
5.000
11.000
1.292 unocha.org
8.000
9.000
23.380
unocha.org
8.000
9.000
23.380 unifem.org
10.000
5.000
22.695
gatesfoundation.org
12.000
8.000
45.800 ifad.org
5.000
11.000
1.292
hrw.org
0
7.000
0 unwomen.org
0
19.000
0
unifem.org
10.000
5.000
22.695 hrw.org
0
7.000
0
8