Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T08:59:23.122Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Policy paradigms, gender equality and translation: scales and disjuncture

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2020

Patricia Kennett*
Affiliation:
School for Policy Studies, University of Bristol, BristolBS8 1TZ, UK
Noemi Lendvai
Affiliation:
School for Policy Studies, University of Bristol, BristolBS8 1TZ, UK
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

Abstract

The growing influence of transnational process, institutions and policy communities has contributed to the emergence of a global public policy that is distinct (although not separate) from the national process of policy-making. In this context gender equality and gender mainstreaming have become dominant policy and political narratives for addressing gender injustice. The focus of this paper is on developing the conceptual and theoretical links between global policy paradigms and gender equality and incorporating multi-scalarity, translation and disjuncture into our understanding of the ways in which policies are made, processed and enacted. The discussion begins by extending Hall's concept of policy paradigm as a nationally bounded entity and highlighting the transnational processes and institutions contributing to the emergence of a global policy paradigm and global policy space. It then goes on to highlight the fluidity of policy paradigms and the importance of moving beyond the focus on techno-managerial “order” as the essence of the policy paradigm and indicators of change and instead to bring into sharper focus disjuncture and tensions.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © 2014 Taylor & Francis

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

ADBG. (2011, May). Mainstreaming gender equality: A road to results or a road to nowhere? An evaluation synthesis. Working Paper Operations Evaluation Department, African Development Bank Group.Google Scholar
Babb, S. (2013). The Washington consensus as transnational policy paradigm: Its origins, trajectory and likely successor. Review of International Political Economy, 20(2), 268297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Best, J. (2012). Ambiguity and uncertainty in international organizations: A history of debating IMF conditionality. International Studies Quarterly, 56(4), 674688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braithwaite, M. (1999, April). Mainstreaming equal opportunities into the structural funds: How regions in Germany, France and the United Kingdom are putting into practice the new approach. Final report of the survey of current practice and findings of the seminar at Gelsenkirchen, January 21–22, 1999. Report produced for the European Commission. DG XVI (Regional Policy and Cohesion).Google Scholar
Campbell, J. L. (1998). Institutional analysis and the role of ideas in political economy. Theory and Society, 27(3), 377409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CEDAW. (2009). Convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women, division for the advancement of women. Retrieved April 14, 2010, from http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/Google Scholar
Chandler, D. (2010). International statebuilding: The rise of post-liberal governance. Routledge: London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowen, R. (2009). The transfer, translation and transformation of educational processes: And their shape-shifting? Comparative Education, 45(3), 315327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeman, R. (2004). Research, practice and the idea of translation. Consultation paper. Retrieved from www.pol.ed.ac.uk/freemanGoogle Scholar
Freeman, R. (2009). What is translation? Evidence and Policy, 5(4), 429447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gebhardt, E. (1982). Introduction to part III: A critique of methodology. In Arato, A. & Gebhardt, E. (Eds.), The Essential Frankfurt school reader (pp. 8195). New York, NY: Continuum.Google Scholar
Gerber, A. (2011). Cultural categories of worth and polish gender policy in the context of EU accession. Social Politics, 18(4), 490514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glass, C., & Fodor, E. (2007). From public to private maternalism? Gender and welfare in Poland and Hungary after 1989. Social Politics, 14(3), 323350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, P. A. (1993). Policy paradigms, social learning, and the state: The case of economic policymaking in Britain. Comparative Politics, 25(3), 275296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jessop, B. (2013). Recovered imaginaries, imagined recoveries: A cultural political economy of crisis construals and crisis-management in the North Atlantic financial crisis. In Benner, M. (Ed.), Beyond the global economic crisis: Economics and politics for a post-crisis settlement (pp. 234254). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, B., & Hagstrom, B. (2005). The translation perspective as an alternative to the policy diffusion paradigm: The case of the Swedish methadone maintenance treatment. Journal of Social Policy, 34(4), 365388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennett, P. (2010). Global perspectives on governance. In Osborne, P. (Ed.), The new public governance? Emerging perspectives in the theory and practice of public governance (pp. 1935). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ladeur, K.-H. (Ed.). (2004). Public governance in the age of globalization. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Larner, W., & Higgins, W. (Eds.). (2010). Calculating the social. Routledge: London.Google Scholar
Lendvai, N., & Stubbs, P. (2007). Policies as translation: Situating trans-national social policies. In Hodgson, S. & Irving, Z. (Eds.), Policy reconsidered: Meanings, politics and practices (pp. 173190). Bristol: The Policy Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D., & Mosse, D. (2006). Encountering order and disjuncture: Contemporary anthropological perspectives on the organization of development. Oxford Development Studies, 34(1), 113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowenhaupt Tsing, A. (2005). Friction: An ethnography of global connection. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacRae, H. (2006). Rescaling gender relations: The influence of European directives on the German gender regime. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State and Society, 13(4), 522550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacRae, H. (2010). The EU as a gender equal polity: Myths and realities. Journal of Common Market Studies, 48(1), 155174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mehrez, S. (2007). Translating gender. Journal of Middle East Womens Studies, 3(1), 106127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monaci, M., & Caselli, M. (2005). Blurred discourses: How market isomorphism constrains and enables collective action in civil society. Global Networks, 5(1), 4969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mosse, D. (2007, June 20–23). Notes on the ethnography of expertise and professionals in international development, Ethnografeast III: ‘Ethnography and the Public Sphere’. Lisbon. Retrieved January 31, 2014, from http://ceas.iscte.pt/ethnografeast/papers/david_mosse.pdfGoogle Scholar
Peck, J. (2002). Political economics of scale: Fast policy, interscalar relations, and neoliberal workfare. Economic Geography, 78(3), 331360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peet, R. (2001, October 12–14). Geographies of policy formation. Hegemony, discourse and the conquest of practicality. Paper presented at the Geographies of Global Economic Change Conference, Clark University, Worcester, MA, USA.Google Scholar
Perrons, D. (2005). Gender mainstreaming and gender equality in the new (market) economy: An analysis of contradictions. Social Politics, 12(3), 389411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sassen, S. (2004). De-nationalized state agendas and privatized norm-making. In Ladeur, K.-H. (Ed.), Public governance in the age of globalization (pp. 5170). Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Sauer, B., & Woell, S. (2010). Feminist perspectives on the internationalization of the state. Antipode, 43(1), 108128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shore, C., Wright, S., & Pero, D. (2011). Policy worlds. Anthropology and the analysis of contemporary power. New York: Berghahn Books.Google Scholar
Skogstad, G. (2011a). Constructing a transnational paradigm in the European Union: The case of GMO risk regulation. In Skogstad, G. (Ed.), Policy paradigms, transnationalism, and domestic politics (pp. 91118). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skogstad, G. (Ed.). (2011b). Policy paradigms, transnationalism, and domestic politics. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone, D. (2012). Transfer and translation of policy. Policy Studies, 33(4), 117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone, S. (2008). Global public policy, transnational policy communities, and their network. The Policy Studies Journal, 36(1), 1938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szikra, D. (forthcoming). Dismantling democracy and welfare: The social policy of the Orbán Government in Hungary since 2010. Journal of European Social Policy.Google Scholar
True, J., & Mintrom, M. (2001). Transnational networks and policy diffusion: The case of gender mainstreaming. International Studies Quarterly, 45, 2757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
UN. (2002). Gender mainstreaming. An overview. Office of the Special Adviser on gender issues and advancement of women. New York: UN.Google Scholar
UNDP. (2010). Power, voice and rights. A turning point for gender equality in Asia and the pacific human development report. United Nations Development Programme, India: Macmillan.Google Scholar
United Nations. (1997, September 18). Report of the economic and social council for 1997 A/52/3.Google Scholar
Vaughan, S., & Rafanell, I. (2012). Interaction, consensus and unpredictability in development policy ‘transfer’ and practice. Critical Policy Studies, 6(1), 6684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verloo, M. (2005). Mainstreaming gender equality in Europe. A critical frame analysis approach. The Greek Review of Social Research, 117, B11B34.Google Scholar
Widerberg, K. (1998). Translating gender. NORA: Nordic Journal of Womens Studies, 6(2), 133138.Google Scholar