Gender Budgeting

LIKE many rich-country governments, Britains prides itself on

pursuing policies that promote sexual equality. However, it fails
to live up to its word, argues the Womens Budget Group, a
feminist think-tank that has been scrutinising Britains economic
policy since 1989. A report in 2016 from the House of Commons
Library, an impartial research service, suggests that in 2010-15
women bore the cost of 85% of savings to the Treasury worth
23bn ($29bn) from austerity measures, specifically cuts in
welfare benefits and in direct taxes. Because women earn less,
rely more on benefits, and are much more likely than men to be
single parents, the cuts affected them disproportionately.

The government does not set out to discriminate, says Diane

Elson, the budget groups former chair. Rather, it overlooks its
own bias because it does not take the trouble to assess how
policies affect women. Government budgets are supposed to be
gender-neutral; in fact they are gender-ignorant. Ms Elson is
one of the originators of a technique called gender
budgetingin which governments analyse fiscal policy in
terms of its differing effects on men and women. Gender
budgeting identifies policies that are unequal as well as
opportunities to spend money on helping women and which
have a high return. Britain has declined to adopt the technique,
but countries from Sweden to South Korea have taken it up.
Ms Elson and her colleagues argue that, once you break down
public spending, the opportunities stand out. For instance, if the
British government diverted investment worth 2% of GDP from
construction to the care sector, it could create 1.5m jobs instead
of 750,000. Many governments treat spending on physical
infrastructure as an investment, but spending on social
infrastructure, such as child care, as a cost. Yet such spending
also increases productivity and growthpartly by increasing the
number of women in the workforce.

In poorer countries, the bias can be more explicit. When Uganda

first looked at its budget through a gender lens, it discovered that
little of the spending on agriculture was going to support women
farmers, though they did most of the work.

What may sound simply like feminism infiltrating fiscal policy

is thus also about efficiency. Gender budgeting is good
budgeting, argues Janet Stotsky, who led an IMF survey of such
efforts around the world. You dont have to be a feminist to
accept that investing in girls education or in womens labour-
force participation will generate a high return on investment.

Such a utilitarian approach appeals to finance ministries in a

way that pious talk of womens empowerment may not.
Ministries can fail to grasp how their budgets affect women and
girls. In developing countries, for instance, investment in clean
water and electricity eases housework, freeing time for mothers
to earn money and for girls to go to school. Cutting funding may
save money in the short term, but when women spend their days
fetching water, growth suffers.

There are plenty of examples of the idea in action. In Rwanda

spending aimed at keeping girls in schoolsuch as providing
basic sanitationhas led to higher enrolment. In India the use of
gender budgeting in a state is a better indicator of girls school
attendance than higher incomes. In South Korea a lack of child
care has forced women to choose between work and family.
Both female labour-force participation and fertility rates are low
a poor formula for growth in an ageing country. Gender
budgeting helped the government design programmes to reduce
the burden of care on women. Around the world, safer transport
systems can ease the vast, often unseen, burden of violence
against women and girlsin medical costs, and lost productivity
and labour, as they are prevented from working or learning.

Gender budgeting has won the backing of international financial

institutions. Ms Elson once took the IMF and the World Bank to
task for their bias, arguing that austerity forced on countries
seeking funds in the 1980s imposed heavy burdens on women.
Now the World Bank backs gender budgeting. The IMF used not
to see promoting sexual equality as its job, but Christine
Lagarde, its managing director, now wants gender-budgeting to
play a role in the advice it gives to member countries.

Not everything has gone well for gender budgeting, however.

Some initiatives have proved half-hearted, short-lived or prey to
party politics. Egypt introduced the concept in 2009, encouraged
by international donors; when the donors left, it petered out.
Australia was the first country to have gender budgeting. But
todays conservative government saw it as left-leaning and anti-
austerity and dropped it in 2014, the year after it took office.

Going by the numbers

Other countries have issued sexual-equality statements and

begun tracking data, but have not changed budget allocations.
Much of their reluctance can be put down to bureaucratic inertia
and the sheer difficulty of the process of tracking who gets
what. Fiscal policy is based on the market economy, which
generates cash, and ignores womens unpaid labour, and the
extent to which it limits their work in the market economy.
Rather than rethink the system, governments rely on equal-
opportunity laws to cut inequalitythough the evidence is that
they do not.

Professing loyalty to an idea is easier than acting on its

implications. Everyone is keen to take on gender equality if it
only means marginal changes, says Ms Elson. Root-and-
branch changes to thinking about how the fiscal system supports
gender equality are much more difficult.