Towards gender neutral policy-making.

In this qualitative research the aim is to find out what the hindering and fostering factors of the implementation of Gender Mainstreaming (GM) were, when it was first introduced as a concept in the ESF in the funding period 2000-2006. The reason for this is to learn lessons from the positive and the negative aspects and to use this knowledge in the future within ESF agencies. The research question is: "What factors promote and hinder the implementation of Gender Mainstreaming in the European Social Fund" A conceptual analysis of GM points out that GM is above all a complicated process. The confusion around the exact meaning of the concept can cause problems in the implementation process. I define GM in policy making as follows: “Verifying how men and women are affected differently by policy and if needed revising policy in order to create a more equal outcome”. Implementation theories have been researched from different approaches; organizational, sociological and political. The influencing factors which were drawn from these theories were put in a list of twelve fostering factors. Each of these factors were under one of the phases: Organizing, Learning, Assessing, Redesigning (OLAR) in the implementation process in order to put it them in a context. This created the OLAR checklist for GM There is little research on how to measure whether GM is implemented. In order to measure GM in the cases; Brandenburg, the Netherlands and Ireland, I developed a list of nine implementation indicators.The GM indicators showed that in Ireland, as for the Operational Programme (OP) and the evaluation, GM is well-integrated; there is attention for explaining the concepts as well as a strategy on how to implement the concept. In Brandenburg, the consideration of the gender mainstream approach in the programme implementation and monitoring as well as in the authorization of grants is only rudimentarily achieved. The Netherlands did not commit itself to the concept on paper nor in practice and the conclusion is that GM is not implemented at all in this ESF agency. In practice, only according to the Irish ESF policy-maker and gender expert and project leader, GM is implemented. According to the all three Dutch interviewed actors, it is not implemented at all and according to the policy maker in Brandenburg the concept is not-well implemented throughout the organization. The most fostering factors for the implementation of GM are; National and Regional political support, a specific description of activity, broad participation of actors and a broad responsibility for GM, pressure and support from the European Commission, the creation of new unit to handle GM, communicating the win-win strategy was considered a big fostering factor in all agencies although only Ireland really communicated it. Everybody but the Irish policy maker and project leader have suggested to rename the concept. Another hindering factor which was mentioned Brandenburg and the Netherlands was the lack of measurable goals and the consequences to come with it. Additional fostering factors which came up were; Top down management, both Brandenburg and the Netherlands mentioned that the lack of a strong top-down management and commitment hindered the implementation of GM. The Dutch project leader stated that development of new policy structures is a fostering factor. The most important conclusion that can be drawn from this research is that the concept of Gender Mainstreaming is very complex and difficult to implement. This conclusion shows that GM in its current form is not the perfect instrument to solve gender inequalities as some scholars and institutions claim it is. There is a gap between on the one hand, what the European Commission considers the progress is and on the other hand, what it is in reality, as can be seen from the case selection and its expected progress. I argue that it would be good idea to revise the concept of GM and make it a more practical and accessible instrument to achieve equal outcomes and perhaps rename it in a way that the concept explains itself, as for example, gender proof.