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 rights-

based 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

5

women. The economic framing has, nevertheless, persisted and even intensified in the

1990s and 2000s.

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.

6

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

equality discourses, because it implicitly assumes the possibility of a pure gender-

equality 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.

7

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.

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

8

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

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

9

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

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.

10

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

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

11

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

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 2006-

2010 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

12

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).

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

13

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

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 under-

14

representation 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).

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 post-

Lisbon 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

15

financial calculation and choosing between policy priorities in terms of their costs and

benefits (Rose, 1999: 151-152).

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

16

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

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

17

Roadmap, which also discusses violence against women and gender equality in

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.

18

The first EU-level studies on gender equality and economic growth questioned the

definitions of growth within mainstream economic thinking from a gender equality

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.

19

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

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

20

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

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

21

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

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

22

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

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

23

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

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

24

reached. Rather, the economic case has become a justification for having any EU-level

gender equality policy at all.

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.

25

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

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.

26

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.

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.

27

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.

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.

28

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.

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.

29

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.

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.

30

Kabeer N and Natali L (2013) Gender equality and economic growth.

Is there a win-win? 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.

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.

31

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.

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.

32

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.

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

%5CProgrammiPresidenzaConsiglio%5CSvedese.pdf

33

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.

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