Discussion Paper

No. 2018-61 | September 03, 2018
(Submitted as Global Solutions Paper)

Abstract

As a starting point, this paper recognizes the importance of gender equity for economic growth, societal well-being, and sustainable development. Moreover, the paper acknowledges that while women make up half of the world’s population, most policy, program and government initiatives affect women and men differently. To address gaps in policies, implementation and impacts the authors propose a strategic approach to gender mainstreaming that strengthens inclusive policy making by adding a gender lens and tools for assessing the impact of policies on women and other under-represented groups and targets the determinants of gender inequity, based on three pillars: systematic reviews of policies, laws and regulations that limit women’s economic activity; gender budgeting; and improving the quality of gender disaggregated data to support impact assessments, policy analyses, and advocacy. The commitment of the Argentine presidency to fostering a gender mainstreaming strategy across the whole G20 agenda and boosting “women's empowerment, the elimination of gender disparities in employment, science, technology and education, and protection from all forms of gender-based violence.” provides an opportunity for bringing this issue forward for the 2018 G20.

JEL Classification:

E61, H61

Assessment

  • Downloads: 134

Links

Cite As

Margo Thomas, Cesar Cordova Novión, Arjan de Haan, Gimena de León, Maxime Forest, and Sandhya S. Iyer (2018). Gender mainstreaming: a strategic approach. Economics Discussion Papers, No 2018-61, Kiel Institute for the World Economy. http://www.economics-ejournal.org/economics/discussionpapers/2018-61


Comments and Questions


Gerasimos Soldatos - Review
September 12, 2018 - 18:42

I do not see anything about SOCIAL welfare in the article. What good the proposed policies do to families and children?


Diganta Mukherjee - invited assessment
September 27, 2018 - 07:51

This paper deals with a very important issue and particularly the case studies (in the boxes and Annexure) are quite nice. But the article seems to written in a hurry, there are quite a few grammatical issues.
Also, some data reproduced from Stotsky (2016) and Stotsky and Zaman (2016) in ...[more]

... appropriate places would be very useful to make the article more self contained.