Abstract

The paper makes the case that GB in practice is endangered to not fulfil the achievements promised in theory. This is called “the paradox of Gender Budgeting”: At the one hand GB can be an effective strategy and at the same time in the practical implementation GB can lead to contradicting side effects. The paper brings together practical experiences in consulting administration in Germany and elsewhere for effectively implementing GB as a strategy. At the other hand it encompasses a theoretical perspective on Gender – a concept that was controversially discussed and also accused to lead to problematic impacts on social relations when used in a flawed way. Taking the example of Berlin (see also the paper of Prof. Faerber) the paper elaborates achievements and dangers of GB in practice. With the help of different tools of GB many interesting and necessary facts and figures on gender disparities and state funds allocation have been collected to date. These facts can serve as a good starting point for taking consequences and adjusting policies for more gender‐justice. However, GB was methodologically limited to an analysis of expenditure allocation and it started with a bias on so called “soft” policy fields, whereas fields like infrastructure remained mainly gender blind. Other above stated side effects could hardly be avoided because GB needs to be practical and manageable for administration bodies. In addition, because of Berlin being a highly indebted state the room of manoeuvre for reallocating the budget is limited. This shows that GB at least needs standards to minimise possible contradicting effects. A set of standards will be proposed (goals, range of tools, qualitative approach). Also preconditions for achieving standards will be discussed. In this context it will also be necessary to pose the question which synergies between gender mainstreaming and GB are possible. Contact: frey@gender.de Gender Budgeting (GB) has become a known strategy for achieving gender equality. Originally coming from an international critique on structural adjustment programmes in the poor countries of the South, it has been adopted by many European activists as well as governments to promote gender equality. The advantages of GB as a strategy seem to be obvious: when it comes to the allocation of resources, gender equality policy (a so called “soft” policy-field) has to be taken more serious by decision makers. Gender equality politics have reached the core of policy making, when administration staff and politicians normally dealing with budget policy start thinking about the effects of their decisions on gender equality. In Germany GB has also become a known strategy on every policy level: The federal government has recently published a feasibility study on how to implement GB (see discussion paper by Prof. Faerber), on states-level, several governments have begun or are in the middle of GB processes. Also on communal level there are several examples of steps being taken. Berlin (which is a “Länder” government comprising several local governments) can be seen as the pilot government in Germany when it comes to concretely promoting and implementing GB and Gender Mainstreaming. The case of Berlin will be introduced and analysed in this paper (see also discussion paper by Prof. Faerber). It serves as an example to show the biases of GB in the second part of the paper. This paper draws together practical experiences in advisory services to the administration in Berlin and elsewhere in implementing GB as a strategy. Being involved in GB practice and also doing lobby work for the implementation of GB on the federal level in Germany, I see the need to make GB applicable and not overburden it with theoretical demands. However, I hold that GB may have paradox effects if implemented in an incomplete and fragmented way and if the concept “Gender” is used in an oversimplified way. The practice of GB should recognise the history of feminist theory behind it and use Gender in a way that is informed by a theoretical perspective. Since the late 1980ies, there is an ongoing debate on the ambivalence of Gender, which is hardly taken up by practitioners – often because they find it to abstract. In this paper, I would like to invite everyone working on the implementation of GB to have a look at the subtext behind “Gender” and the implications a certain use of the term Gender may have. This kind of reflections on GB should be taken as an effort to further qualify GB as a useful strategy to change the unjust gender-order in our societies. Therefore, the main thesis of this paper is: GB in practice is at risk not to fulfil the achievements promised in theory. I will call this the paradox of GB: At the one hand, GB can be an effective strategy and at the same time in the practical implementation, GB can lead to contradicting “side effects”. I will explain these R. Frey, Paradoxes of Gender Budgeting p. 1 side effects by showing that the practical implementation of GB is biased in four dimensions. First, there is a “soft policy-bias”. The second bias can be called the “expenditure-bias”. The third bias I will call the “micro-bias” and a last and important bias will be called the “duality-bias”. My first step will be to introduce the GB process in Berlin (A), which will serve as an example for the side effects mentioned above (B). This also includes a short excursion into the history of GB in the countries of the South. I will conclude with raising questions that can be useful to establish minimal standards for the practical implementation of GB (C). A) Gender Budgeting in Berlin In 2001, a coalition government of social democrats and socialists came into power and introduced Gender Budgeting in Berlin. The government passed a law for the implementation of Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Budgeting in 2002. This was a solid basis for the process to come, since it included concrete steps to be taken, fixed responsibilities and gave a timeframe. A Gender Mainstreaming focal point was set up, who coordinates the process as well as documents and communicates the implementation of Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Budgeting. A website was launched which entails a wide range of information on Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Budgeting in general, as well as on the Berlin implementation process. A high-level commission with executives of ministries, communal and NGO representatives was set up as the responsible institution to make Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Budgeting work. From the beginning onwards the commission was endowed with a working group on Gender Budgeting and another working group on gender disaggregated data. In a pilot phase starting in 2003, twelve administrations on the level of the “Land” Berlin and on a communal level (“Bezirk”) started to implement Gender Budgeting, by assessing sex aggregated data and conducting users’ analyses in various fields of public expenditure. All ministries of the State of Berlin and all of the 12 “Bezirke” had to use sex-disaggregated data to prepare the 2006 budget. They carried out users’ analyses of selected products and titles. The council of mayors firstly determined six products for the communal representatives: borrowing of books in libraries, courses in adult education centres, promotion of fine arts, general promotion of children and youth, integrative educational counselling and counselling of families as well as the individual counselling of 1 Germany has 16 states, Berlin being one of them, Berlin has 12 “Bezirke”. R. Frey, Paradoxes of Gender Budgeting p. 2 disabled and ill people. In 2006, the list of products for the users’ analysis was enlarged to 56 products. The trend to analyse products in the so-called “soft” areas of policy being continued. From the beginning, the selection of products was driven by two criteria: On the one hand, the funds should be liable to be redistributed by local administrations, meaning that the areas of analysis should not be restricted by legal regulations limiting the room of manoeuvre for the local staff in charge. On the other hand, the question of feasibility was important. Therefore, the users’ analysis was undertaken in areas, which allowed counting expenditure per head. A gender analysis of the impacts of the allocation of resources in fields like road construction or planning would have been more complex and thereby comparatively costly and time-consuming. This means the process was very much geared to the question of feasibility. Because of the hesitant acceptance of Gender Budgeting in many administrations, this is a reasonable approach: In the beginning of the process, the practicability of Gender Budgeting had to be demonstrated. However, this approach does imply a twofold reduction: On the one hand, the so-called users’ analysis (which is a variation of a gender-disaggregated public expenditure incidence analysis) is represented as the sole method of Gender Budgeting and on the other hand – as already described – the selection of areas is restricted. However, Gender Budgeting offers a whole range of tools, highlighting topics like unpaid work, state income and shifting from analysis to setting goals and policy making. This will be dealt with and further elaborated below. However, in the second report of the administration, more instruments of Gender Budgeting are named and the applied users’ analysis is called “a first pragmatic step“. A publication recently published by the GM focal point provides support on how to broaden the users’ analysis to an institutional analysis: Organisations receiving state funds will be included in the GB analysis in Berlin in future. To put it briefly: Berlin is the leading city in Germany, when it comes to the implementation of Gender Budgeting today. Many interesting facts have been achieved to date. However, challenges remain: Gender Budgeting was methodologically limited to a users’ analysis and it started with a strong