English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Well-being gender budgeting (WBGB) experiences use a multidimensional approach for planning and budgeting combining the Capability Approach along with gender responsive budgeting, which entails a feminist approach. However, what happens to the other well-being budgeting initiatives that do not explicitly include this «gender focus» in their conceptualization? Based on the central question expressed by Carol Bacchi –«What is the problem represented to be?»–, this article explores the gender bias that can be found in well-being budgeting that does not fit into the category of WBGB and the difficulties of integrating a gender perspective in these practices. It is based on the review of the documentation of the main well-being domains, political priorities and tools used from 2019-2020 in Bhutan and New Zealand. The article concludes with some insights and recommendations to merge GRB practices into well-being budgeting approaches.

How to integrate a gender perspective into well-being budgeting practices: Insights from a comparative case study between Bhutan and New Zealand