Mainstreaming intersectional equality for older people? Exploring the impact of quasi-federalism in the UK

Abstract

Using an analytical framework based on European Commission directives and United Nations resolutions calling for a mainstreamed and intersectional approach to age equality, this paper examines the UK’s devolved administrations’ governance practices and territorially specific public policy on older people. The findings reveal mixed progress. Whilst a number of mainstreaming prerequisites have been secured and divergent, ‘regional’ equality rights and welfare entitlements established, shortcomings are also apparent including reliance on an intercategorical, additive approach to intersectionality, one that falls short of fully addressing the diverse needs and identities of older people.

Keywords

devolution equality intersectionality mainstreaming older people United Kingdom

Over recent decades, state restructuring has become a global phenomenon. In established federal systems there has been an attendant shift from central to regional authorities in the administration of policy and services for older people.¹ Caro and Morris (2003: 1) describe this as ‘the tendency of central governments to concentrate on a limited set of needs of older people, [and] shift some responsibilities to states’. They conclude that ‘devolution creates abundant opportunities for creativity in addressing local needs’. Using an analytical framework based on European Commission (EC) directives (COM (95) 423; COM (96) 67; COM 2000/43/EC)² and United Nations (UN) resolutions (RES 57/167, 2002; RES 2010/14, 2010)³ – as well as associated calls for intersectional approaches to age equality – the aim of this paper is to explore the implications of devolution in the UK with reference to the progress made against ‘regional’ governments’ espousal of intersectionality and mainstreaming equality – with reference to older people, public policy and social welfare. Here, intersectionality (alternatively alluded to as ‘cross-strand’ equality) refers to promoting equality of opportunity in a sophisticated manner; one that takes account of the multiple, simultaneous identities held by individuals (such as age and gender, or age and ethnicity; see Crenshaw et al., 1995; Crenshaw, 2000). It is a requirement set out in the United Nations Principles for Older Persons (UN Resolution 46/91, 1991, Principle 18)⁴ and it may be operationalized via mainstreaming techniques. These are founded on ‘the (re)organisation, improvement, development and evaluation of policy processes, so that an equality perspective is incorporated in all policies at all levels and at all stages, by the actors normally involved in policy-making’ (CoE, 2004, n.p.). Accordingly, the following discussion is structured as follows: initial attention is focused on the literature on intersectionality and mainstreaming. Following an outline of the research context and methodology, analysis centres on progress made in each territory in securing the institutional prerequisites necessary to mainstream intersectional equality for older people. Subsequently, the views of stakeholders are considered as part of the evaluation of recent developments.

Older people, intersectionality and mainstreaming

Age equality and tackling discrimination experienced by older people presents a unique case. In contrast to the ascriptive characteristics of gender, ethnicity, and so on, premature deaths aside, all citizens will grow into this equality group. The diversity of older people therefore presents a strong case for the application of intersectionality in equalities work, for, as UN policy outlines (UN, 2000: 9), three distinct types of intersectional discrimination can apply: targeted discrimination (this results from abuses specifically targeted at individuals identified by two or more characteristics, e.g. age and sexual orientation); compound discrimination (a process arising from the combination of social roles, characteristics and identities); and structural intersectional discrimination (‘where policies intersect with underlying structures to create a compounded burden for individuals and groups’). In response, there are three principal modes of promoting intersectionality: intracategorical, anticategorical and intercategorical. The latter strategically uses the ‘relationships of inequality among already constituted social groups, as imperfect and ever changing as they are, and takes those relationships as the centre of analysis’ (McCall, op cit, 2005: 1779; Squires, 2009). It thus focuses on inequality or discrimination issues in relation to one strand, subsequently adding on consideration of others in order to identify ‘compound discriminations’ (Yuval-Davis, 2006: 197). As a result it has inherent risks (Crenshaw, 1989, 1993), not least because ‘accommodations aimed at mitigating power inequalities between groups may end up reinforcing power hierarchies within them’ (Shachar, 2001: 4). It may also ‘obfuscate the differences within and between groups as well as fragment common bonds of citizenship’ (Squires, 2005: 60). In contrast, the intracategorical approach ‘acknowledges the stable and even durable relationships that social categories represent at any given point in time, though it also maintains a critical stance toward [such] categories… [it] tends to focus on particular social groups at neglected points of intersection… people whose identity crosses the boundaries of traditionally constructed groups’ (McCall, op cit, 2005: 1782). Lastly, anti-categorical approaches are founded on the deconstruction of analytical categories. These are seen as producing differences and inequalities. According to this perspective social life is viewed as too complex to be defined in relation to categories and fixed identities (which are viewed as a means of suppression, reduction and exclusion). Building on this framework, Weldon (2006: 247) proposes a hybrid approach. Dubbed ‘intersectionality-plus’, ‘it admits the possibility that the ways that social structures affect one another vary over space and time [and that…] some axes might be more salient or politicized in some contexts than in others’. As the following discussion reveals, policymakers have tended towards the less sophisticated intercategorical ‘additive’ version of intersectionality, evidenced in Great Britain by the discourse surrounding the creation of a single equalities commission (inter alia, it referred to intersectionality as ‘the additional, disadvantaging characteristics’ of groups and individuals’, DCLG, 2007: 64, emphasis added).

The complexity associated with the co-existence of simultaneous identities suggests that a generic approach to mainstreaming equality maybe suited to operationalizing intersectionality. It is a conceptual framework designed to build equality considerations into policy making from the outset and is based upon a series of policy tools. A full account of its development is beyond the present purposes (cf. Chinkin and Butegwa, 2001); yet it should be noted that EC directives on gender mainstreaming have been instrumental in setting out the prerequisites and practices necessary for government to mainstream equality in public policy and services. They have been complemented by a separate technical literature disseminated by the UN, which asserts that the ‘fundamental justification for mainstreaming lies in the fact that older persons may have different issues and needs’ (UN, 2005: 12) – a point affirmed in a recent UN resolution (RES 2010/14, July 2010) that encourages governments to ‘include both ageing-specific policies and ageing mainstreaming efforts in their national strategies’. Overall, the necessary mainstreaming prerequisites and practices identified by the EC and UN are broad in scope and are here used to structure the following discussion of developments associated with the UK’s devolution programme. The salience of mainstreaming to public administration of policy and services for older people is that, in contrast to non-interventionist, neo-liberal thinking on the role of the state (cf. Hayek, 1970) it seeks to temper economic rationalism with interventionist measures to address established patterns and processes of inequality in welfare provision for older people (see for example, Gunnarsson, 2009; Sutton, 1997; Ward, 2000; Levenson, 2003).

Research context and methodology

Over the past quarter century the percentage of the UK population aged 65 years and over increased from 15 per cent in 1984 to 16 per cent in 2009, an increase of 1.7 million. This ageing of the population is projected to continue. By 2034, 23 per cent of the population is forecast to be aged 65 years and over. The swiftest population increase has been in the number of people aged 85 and over, the ‘oldest old’ (ONS, 2010). Significant differences exist in the percentage of the population aged 65+ years in each of the UK’s polities (figures in parentheses are estimates for 2025): England 18.6 (19.4), Scotland 19.1 (21.3), Wales 20.5 (22.2), and Northern Ireland 16.3 (18.1).⁵

It is against this background that the UK has adopted an asymmetrical model of devolution. Much of the devolved legislatures’ work is concerned with delivering social policy through the institutions of the welfare state. Yet aspects of income support, such as unemployment benefit, remain the responsibility of central government (Birrell, 2008).⁶ This is also the case with regard to setting the broader parameters of equality of opportunity law. However, the devolved legislatures have contrasting powers with respect to the promotion of equality in the exercise of devolved functions: the Scottish Parliament may advance ‘the encouragement of equal opportunities’, defined in relation to 10 protected characteristics (including age), and the Northern Ireland Act (1998, §75) places on government an active duty to promote equalities in respect of 9 protected grounds (also including age). In Wales an anticategorical approach applies, for the general equality duty in the Government of Wales Acts (1998, §120; 2006, §77)⁷ applies to ‘all people’ and all functions of government. In England, throughout the first decade of devolution, government and listed public bodies were required to promote equality on six protected grounds. A ban on age discrimination in the provision of goods, services and the exercise of public functions is not scheduled until 2012.⁸ For this reason the present discussion centres on the devolved polities and the way that, over the past decade, policy and law on older people has developed in the ‘new political spaces’ of the quasi-federal state.

In terms of methodology, the following analysis is based on secondary data sources, principally ‘devolved’ policy documents and enactments. A purposive sample of policies was constructed reflecting the breadth of the regional governments’ responsibilities (N = 163). Specifically, policies were analysed across 17 areas in the case of the Scottish government,⁹ 14 in the Welsh,¹⁰ and 12 in the case of the Northern Ireland Executive.¹¹ In each case ‘high-level’ policies were examined in relation to all cabinet portfolios (typically, over-arching strategies covering the main areas of government such as health and education), as well as subordinate policy documents concerned with secondary or associated policy initiatives. Care was taken to include strategies and policies on cross-cutting issues such as equalities and human rights. The sample was drawn from policy documents from the outset of devolved governance in 1998/9 to July 2011. The foregoing data sources were supplemented by a survey of the ‘grey’ literature (annual reports, newsletters, et cetera) of 12 older people’s NGOs (four in each polity).¹²

Overall, the present approach relates ‘the observed use of policy tools, repertoires and capabilities to governance contexts’ (Howlett and Lindquist, 2004: 226). The various source documents were examined by using policy discourse analysis (DeLeon, 1998). Themes (e.g. revised monitoring and enforcement frameworks) were identified by coding electronic versions of the documents using appropriate software.¹³ This allowed on-screen manipulation of text, comparison of different sources and reflection on ideas and meanings. As such, it was part of a post-empiricist,¹⁴ interpretative approach that places an emphasis on the language of policy instruments in order that ‘ideas thus move to the centre of policy evaluation’ (Fischer, 2003: 223). As noted, in order to assess developments across polities an analytical framework has been developed from the institutional prerequisites and practices listed in the European Commission directives covering gender mainstreaming (EC, 1995, 1996) and the literature associated with UN resolutions on the rights of older people (UN, 2002, 2005, 2008). Foremost amongst the latter is the Madrid International Plan of Action on Ageing that asserts unequivocally, ‘a necessary first step in the successful implementation of the Plan is to mainstream ageing and the concerns of older persons’ (UN, 2002: 3/52). In adopting this method the analysis reflects the core dimensions of equalities theory as identified by Fraser (1997): ‘rights’ (enforceable mechanisms of redress – and standards to which state parties should adhere, as set out in UN treaties and anti-discrimination law); ‘recognition’ (inter alia, acknowledgement of practices and processes of oppression as well as cognizance of plural social identities); and ‘redistribution’ (the [re-]allocation of material and socio-cultural resources necessary to achieve equality). The foregoing techniques allowed an holistic examination of the elements necessary for effective mainstreaming practices in policy and law. Each of these is now considered in turn.

Progress in securing intersectional mainstreaming practices and prerequisites

Political will/high-level commitment

The EC (2007: 15) describes ‘increasing governmental commitment to mainstreaming and tackling multiple forms of discrimination across Europe’. There is also some evidence of this in the UK’s devolved polities (Chaney, 2011), as in the case of the Scottish Executive’s first equality strategy (Scottish Executive, 2000: 14). This affirmed a commitment to mainstreaming equality. More recently the Scottish Government (2011: 90) has stated, ‘we remain aware of the importance of understanding intersectionality… for some people the combination of discrimination experienced as a result can mean they encounter particular barriers to opportunity, and to achieving their potential’. In Northern Ireland, the executive observes that ‘through all of our various initiatives we are acutely aware of intersectionality… we are cognisant of multiple identities’ (OFMDFM, 2011: 17). In Wales, government has asserted that ‘mainstreaming age equality requires the commitment of all policy makers at every level of government to recognise and promote age equality in all policy areas’ (WAG, 2007: 18); thus, ‘our departments form action plans… in developing these, departments have considered cross-strand issues’ (WAG, 2007: 5). Whilst indicators of political will, as the following discussion reveals, such statements alluding to government ‘awareness’ and ‘consideration’ of intersectionality do not, as yet, equate to its systematic application to policy work.

Equality impact assessments

Equality impact assessments (EIAs) are policy tools that predict, measure and adjust for the likely impact of policies on different groups and identities. Thus, Diamond et al. (2007: 154) assert that in addressing ‘intersections between the equality strands that shape the patterns of discrimination, work should draw upon EIAs and equality performance management [… these] are integral for mainstreaming in public services’. In a similar vein, EC guidance (EC, 2007: 7) states that ‘multiple-discrimination must be factored into all equality mainstreaming and impact assessment tools’. However, across polities, the first years of devolution were characterised by a failure to use EIAs in all policy work, resulting in a ‘disconnect’ between equalities rhetoric and policy outcomes. More recently there is some evidence of improvement. For example, in Scotland 143 were undertaken between January 2009 and July 2011, typified by the EIA on the government’s Energy Assistance Package (EAP) to tackle fuel poverty. This details: the evidence (‘around half of pensioner households in private homes were estimated to be fuel poor’); anticipated policy impact (‘to alleviate fuel poverty the EAP will… be offered to all pensioners’; relevance to age equality (‘high’); and, details of consultation (‘the Cabinet Secretary re-established the Scottish Fuel Poverty Forum’ – composed of older people’s organisations; Scottish Government, 2009b). In Wales there has been a similar shift. EIAs are also becoming an established part of the policy process; 44 were conducted between April 2009 and March 2010 (WAG, 2010: 25), typified by the EIA on the government’s Homelessness Plan (WAG, 2009: 14). EIAs are also gradually becoming embedded in Northern Ireland (NIE, 2006), as in the case of the EIA on the Rural Development Plan 2007-13 (NIE, 2007). It remains the case, however, that in all territories the depth of analysis of older people’s issues in EIAs remains uneven. Moreover, limited attention is paid to intersectional issues. This raises questions about the effectiveness of current institutional oversight of equality impact assessment techniques.

Equality budgeting

Equality budgeting (EB) is a technique that aims to secure the equitable allocation of public spending in conditions of social diversity by considering the differential impact on groups and identities targeted by equality of opportunity initiatives (cf. Sharp and Broomhill, 2002). Scambor and Busche (2009: 7) point to its relevance to intersectional issues and ‘how the financial coverage and infrastructure affect persons with different subject positions along the different analytical lines of intersectionality … [and] what can be done in order to avoid/reduce biases’. This echoes recent guidance from the EC (2007: 57) that calls for ‘appropriate financial and human resources to assist victims of multiple discrimination’. To date, analysis reveals limited progress on EB. In Northern Ireland the Equality Commission asserts that ‘equality-responsive budgeting could be a mainstreaming measure which … supports consideration of the complex intersection of multiple inequality’ (ECNI, 2010: 4, emphasis added). Wales has yet to apply full EB practices; whilst in the case of devolved functions in Scotland the Equality Statement accompanying the government’s budget is lacking in the necessary detail required by mainstreaming and EB theory; it offers a general commentary on public spending levels affecting older people (e.g. ‘of pensioner households, we anticipate that it is single pensioners (the majority of whom are women) who may suffer most from the combined effects of reduced services’, Scottish Government, 2011b: 38). Current meso-level practice therefore points to a failure to adopt the systematic use of EB in older people’s policy and represents a key failing, for as equalities theory (Fraser, 1997) asserts, redistribution of public goods and resources is necessary to address patterns and processes of inequality and oppression. From an international perspective, governments have proved reluctant to apply equalities budgeting techniques (Elson, 2006). In this regard, the devolved context in the UK is no exception.

Equality divisions in government

Neo-institutionalist theory (Peters, 2005) and existing studies of mainstreaming in government (Veitch, 2005) underline the importance of institutional mechanisms in the (re-)negotiation of power relations and pursuit of equality. As Boogaard and Roggeband (2010: 64) observe, they are central to cross-strand working: ‘an intersectional analysis helps to unravel the complex processes that (re)produce interlocking systems of oppression and inequality within specific organizational settings’ (see also Lombardo and Verloo, 2009). Each of the devolved governments has embedded a specialist unit in its bureaucracy to oversee the promotion of equality. In the case of Scotland a Mainstreaming Equality Project section is attached to the executive’s Equality Unit with a remit to ‘ensure compliance with statutory equality duties… by developing systems and structures and providing support to staff to implement change’ (Scottish Government, 2011a). In similar fashion, the Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Division in the Welsh Government is charged with overseeing its mainstreaming strategy and policies on equality for older people. In both cases analysis shows that the first years of devolution resonate with the wider international experience in that there are questions about the ‘organisational reach’ of these specialist units and their effectiveness in mainstreaming older people’s concerns across government departments (cf. UN, 1999). Similar issues apply in Northern Ireland where responsibility for promoting equality in government lies with the executive’s Equality Directorate. In each case the existence of equality policy units as discrete entities calls into question the application of mainstreaming practices. Recent internal reforms may begin to improve practice by distributing responsibility for promoting age and other modes of equality across departments in each devolved bureaucracy (e.g. ‘senior officials in each department will be required, as part of the Scottish Government’s internal assurance process, to set out how the requirement to undertake EIAs is being met in those areas for which they are responsible’; Scottish Government, 2008: 30). Notwithstanding such reforms, further key issues centre on the priority afforded to intersectional issues, adequacy of staffing and resources in the units and whether, in terms of the institutional hierarchy, they are located at a sufficient level to access and influence ministers and senior officials (Chaney, 2006).

Baseline data, statistics and research

As EC guidance highlights (EC, 2007: 55), ‘the absence of data for particularly vulnerable groups renders invisible the situation of people with intersectional identities… [and] creates an obstacle to developing adequate responses to multiple discrimination’ (see also Essed, 1991; Harnois and Ifatunji, 2011). It is a point echoed by UN General Assembly resolution 58/134 that refers to the importance of ‘age disaggregated data in considering the situation of older persons [and the] integration of ageing into all policies’ (UN, 2005: 5). In this respect inadequate progress has been made in the wake of devolution. Limited baseline data on older people have been produced by the Scottish Government Statistics Group, Statistics Wales and the Research Branch in the Northern Ireland Equality Directorate. This is not to deny some dedicated research examining age equality issues (e.g. Older People’s Wellbeing Monitor for Wales; WAG, 2009); however, advances have been piecemeal. The absence of systematic, multivariate data is a clear barrier to intersectional practice and lends credence to the notion of ‘data hierarchies’ (with greater coverage of more established equality ‘strands’). A key concern here is that gaps in intersectional data preclude effective EIAs and can be interpreted as signalling the absence of (in-)equality issues. Accordingly, Steinbugler et al.’s assessment of the international situation is germane to the devolved context in the UK: ‘additional resources and effort to construct and refine intersectional stereotype measures… are necessary if scholars hope to use social surveys to understand the complicated relationship between intersecting prejudices and public policy’ (2006: 814).

Awareness raising

Awareness raising is a further mainstreaming prerequisite. Its salience stems from the fact that ‘issues concerning ageing and older persons suffer from a chronic lack of attention which is very much linked to the lack of political visibility’ (UN, 2005: 10). In this regard there has been some progress in the devolved context. For example, successive Scottish governments have backed a range of initiatives including the ‘See the Person, Not the Age Campaign’ (adduced to have fostered ‘awareness of older people’s issues… ‘own’ the territory of ‘age’-advertising, [achieve] high campaign awareness levels and champion the cause for older people’).¹⁵ Parallel work is evident in Wales (e.g. state-funded initiatives such as Age Alliance Wales’s¹⁶ dissemination of information related to the government’s Strategy for Older People). In Northern Ireland a limited number of awareness-raising activities have taken place (e.g. ‘Your voice - Your Future’ public consultation campaign on a [then-]proposed Older People’s Commissioner). Notwithstanding this, there is little to suggest that the regional governments have paid sufficient attention to intersectionality. Where reference is made to ‘cross-strand’ issues, it has generally been lacking in sophistication and grounded in an additive, intercategorical conception of intersectionality with cursory reference to, for example, ‘older disabled people’ or, ‘older carers’. In this respect current practice mirrors the wider European experience, as highlighted by the EC: ‘the majority of Ministries surveyed do not have specific strategies, action plans, awareness-raising or monitoring activities targeting multiple discrimination’ (EC, 2007: 5).

Participation in decision-making processes

Theoretical work on equality for older people highlights that, in contrast to earlier medicalised notions of welfare based on dependency, emphasis should be placed on ‘the enhancement of participative democracy or social inclusion’ (Fredman and Spencer, 2003: 38). According to EC guidance (EC, 2007: 32), ‘the more involved the NGO community… the more developed the understanding of multiple-discrimination’, whilst the UN observes that, ‘to a large extent, the successful implementation of efforts to mainstream ageing into national development agendas, depends on the establishment of networks and coalitions’ (UN, 2008: 71). In Scotland, there is evidence of some progress in this regard. The devolved government’s over-arching strategy on older people (Scottish Executive, 2007) identifies engaging older people as a core policy objective. It has led to initiatives such as the Older People’s Consultative Forum (chaired by a deputy minister and comprised of representatives from the main older people’s non-governmental organisations) and Older People’s Assembly (a policy forum composed of NGOs and other stakeholders). In Wales ‘network density’ is a feature of the policy landscape on older people. This refers to the speed and extent to which alliances of organisations concerned with older people’s policy and services have emerged in the wake of devolution. For example, a series of networks received state support as part of the initial phase of the Older People’s Strategy (WAG, 2003), including the National Partnership Forum for Older People (with a remit to provide ‘expert and informed advice to the Welsh Government on the development of its policies for older people’; NPfOPW, 2007: 3), and Better Government for Older People Cymru¹⁷ (a national network of older people’s coordinators, champions and 50+ Forums, ‘to act as a channel of communication between the networks, the Welsh Local Government Association and the Welsh Assembly Government’, WAG, 2008b: 9). Such organisations hold some features in common with conventional policy networks (inter alia, allowing a transfer of civil society expertise to policy formulation and delivery, and facilitating co-working between exogenous interests). Yet they are also distinctive in promoting cross-sectoral working, creating a comparatively strong lobbying focus in the devolved context (in contrast to the earlier period of administrative devolution), and symbolising attempts at partnership working with local and regional government. Age equality organisations have been generally positive about the new levels of engagement; according to one, there have been ‘many opportunities for us to influence policy development through involvement in a range of developments generated by the Strategy for Older People’.¹⁸ Another reflected: ‘developing local networks means a lot of people previously not having a chance to contribute are starting to get involved and community organisations are now getting a say’.¹⁹ Advancing policy claims on government – such as lobbying for the creation of older people’s commissioners – resonates with recent work on collaborative policy networks (DeLeon and Varda, 2009: 63) and ‘the way stakeholders are embedded in various degrees of institutionalized structure and the discursive tendencies of exchange among them that may lead to policy initiative and implementation’. In contrast, the situation in Northern Ireland has taken longer to develop. At the outset of devolution older people’s organisations stated that ‘consultation practices [we]re superficial and tokenistic’, noting that ‘older people are keen and willing to be involved’ (OFMDFM, 2001: 91). Most network development in the province has occurred through the self-organisation of the third sector. Overall, analysis shows the regional governments’ participatory mechanisms to be strand-based, inter-categorical vehicles. Whilst affording access to policy work, they also present the danger of disjuncture between political rhetoric on intersectionality and older people’s engagement in public decision making. Again, the devolved experience resonates with wider international concerns: ‘the unfulfilled potential of intersectional politics leads to the denial of intersectional voices. This potential can only be fulfilled by enabling participation that goes beyond responding to predetermined positions to permit the exercise of meaningful power in the construction of contexts’ (Bassell, 2010: 155).

Equal opportunities legislation

Socio-legal scholars are divided on the impact of legislation in aiding governments’ recognition of cross-strand issues. Some view it as beneficial (Ashiagbor, 1999); others question whether it is able to negotiate complex issues of intersectionality (Marchetti, 2008; Conaghan, 2009). In all three polities a growing body of law passed by the devolved legislatures impacts on equality for older people. This is significant because of the way in which these enactments convey contrasting duties and rights between polities owing to the different legal definitions of equality in the respective devolution statutes. Examples include Adult Support and Protection (Scotland) Act (2007, §.2) (based on the Scotland Act definition of equality that includes age as a protected characteristic); the Social Care Charges (Wales) Measure (2010, §.3) (which specifies exemptions to charges for personal care ‘by reference to age’); and the Rate Relief (Qualifying Age) Regulations (Northern Ireland, 2007) (specifying details of age-related benefits). However, ‘devolved’ legislation has generally tended to be reductive, treating older people as an homogenous grouping with no evidence that intersectional issues have informed law making. This is a missed opportunity, particularly given the anti-categorical equality duty in the Government of Wales Act (2006, §77).

Regional equality infrastructure

EC Directives²⁰ and domestic developments such as the Macpherson Report²¹ underline the need for state regulators to ensure welfare providers’ compliance with equalities policy and law. It is a point that is also emphasised by the UN, namely the need for an ‘enforcement mechanism designed in order to successfully mainstream older persons’ issues holistically’ (UN, 2005: 12; see also Squires, 2009). In this respect there has been a comparatively rapid development in the regional state infrastructure concerned with monitoring and compliance of age and other modes of equalities policy and law. Prominent examples include the Older People’s Commissioners for Wales and Northern Ireland (with statutory responsibilities to promote awareness of, and safeguard, the interests of older people; eliminate discrimination; and review the adequacy and effectiveness of the law), as well as the Public Services Ombudsmen for Wales and Scotland, and bodies like the Northern Ireland Social Care Council.²² Viewed through the lens of cross-strand working, the creation of stand-alone older people’s commissioners in Wales and Northern Ireland presents an interesting tension between theory and practice; for whilst the dedicated commissioners offer the potential for enhanced regulation of age equality, theory suggests that a single equalities body is best suited to deliver intersectional mainstreaming.

Intersectional public policy for older people?

The EC (2007: 43–4) asserts that ‘to combat multiple discrimination… equality proofing, [is required] where the aim is to ensure that policies and legislation incorporate an equality perspective’, whilst the Madrid Declaration (UN, 2002, Article 14) encourages states to ‘commit [them]selves to providing older persons with universal and equal access to healthcare and services’. In this regard each devolved administration has sought to apply universal principles to aspects of welfare entitlement for older people; in the case of Scotland, the older people’s strategy (Scottish Executive, 2007) aims to mainstream age equality across the breadth of policy portfolios. The most prominent initiative is ‘free’ personal and nursing care (PNC) (namely, ‘care needs which give rise to the major additional costs of frailty or disability associated with old age’ and those requiring ‘the knowledge or skills of a recognised nurse’; Sutherland, 2008: 12). Following legislation in 2001, and in contrast to practice elsewhere in the UK, ‘free’ at the point-of-need, universal welfare entitlement to PNC was introduced for those aged 65+ years (important local variations exist in policy implementation by local authorities). However, the current fiscal crisis raises questions about the continuation of the present arrangements: ‘demographic change and the public sector’s financial circumstances mean that current service and funding arrangements are not sustainable’ (Scottish Government, 2011b: 32). Such issues aside, universal welfare entitlement is evident in other areas of devolved social welfare, as in the introduction in 2006 of free bus travel for the over 60s and the Scottish government’s Central Heating Programme (2001) and Energy Assistance Package (2009). Overall, analysis of the past decade reveals uneven progress in mainstreaming age equality across the devolved policy areas. In particular, consideration of intersectional issues is reliant on a basic intercategorical, cumulative model (e.g. ‘all groups in Scottish society are ageing, including people from minority ethnic communities; disabled people; and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. Ageing can present particular difficulties for various groups [… e.g.] lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender older people may have concerns about finding appropriate housing or residential care services’; Scottish Government, 2007: 10).

In Wales, the Older People’s Strategy 2008-13 (WAG, 2008a: 3–4) sets out measures also ‘aimed at the mainstreaming of older people’s concerns across all policy areas’. The latter include the use of local authority coordinators to oversee the implementation of policy at the community level and installing ‘champions for older people’ within local councils ‘to encourage full representation of the concerns of older people and action across all relevant local authority departments’. Yet such an approach can be inherently problematic for, as Hughes (2011: 604) asserts, approaches to group-based representation that address only one dimension of (in)equality at a time ‘may reinforce within-group inequalities’. Thus, as in the Scottish case, intersectionality is acknowledged in an intercategorical manner (e.g. guidance to local 50+ forums underlines the need to involve older people who are ‘members of ethnic minority groups, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender groups… in the formulation and implementation of policy’; WAG, 2005: 99). Unevenness is a further characteristic of the policy landscape. Housing and social care generally evidence age equality mainstreaming (inter alia: engagement with service users; equality impact assessments; equality indicators; links between policy areas; pro-action in the form of equalities schemes; and ‘ownership’, monitoring and evaluation through institutional measures such as equalities units). Whilst in other policy areas, such as business and the economy, age equality is principally a symbolic or declaratory matter, with discourse espousing the need for (generic) equality of opportunity but failing to apply full mainstreaming practices in policy implementation.

Intersectional approaches are also the exception in Northern Ireland, where progress to date has been limited by the extended periods when devolution has been suspended. Over the past decade some key policies have been introduced under direct-rule from Whitehall (e.g. the overarching strategies ‘Ageing in an Inclusive Society’; OFMDFM, 2005; and the anti-poverty and social inclusion strategy ‘Lifetime Opportunities’; OFMDFM, 2006). Policy developments also include ‘free’ travel on public transport for those aged 65+ years; a housing benefit rate relief scheme providing assistance for older people; and the inclusion of ageing and issues affecting older citizens as topics in the schools curriculum. However, many policy proposals await implementation (OFMDFM, 2010). This is not only a function of the imposition of direct rule but also reflects dissatisfaction amongst civil and civic organisations that the published policy frameworks fail to address needs identified by stakeholders. Overall, analysis of post-1998 policies reveal high variability between policy areas in the attention afforded to older people’s issues and fewer references to intersectionality than are evident in the other devolved polities (cf. OFMDFM, 2006: 5).

Policy impact: The views of stakeholders and service users

A full discussion of the mobilisation of third sector organisations associated with older people is outwith the present purposes, yet when compared to the long-established social movements concerned with gender or ethnicity, age equality has only recently begun to develop comparable lobbying structures. A partial explanation for this is the heterogeneity of older people. This presents a problem in terms of a shared identity for individuals to mobilise around, and is a challenge acknowledged in EC (2007: 47) guidance on intersectional approaches to policymaking: ‘for persons belonging to the intersections of identities, the risk prevails that… they may not find a community or movement which embraces their full identity’. Notwithstanding such concerns, the views of the nascent older people’s lobbies provide a valuable index of age equality in policy work at the meso-level. In each polity, stakeholders²³ and service users point to mixed progress in establishing mainstreaming prerequisites and intersectional practices. In Scotland (cf. Scottish Government, 2009a: 8–25) ongoing issues and concerns include: the adequacy of awareness raising and effective communication (e.g. ‘some people miss out on this opportunity [telecare] because of a lack of understanding and information about these services and the benefits’); government failure to address intersectional needs (e.g. ‘mental health needs of older people are being neglected… there needs to be better education and better access’); effective participation in policy work (e.g. ‘government and other organisations should always provide feedback when older people have been consulted’); and appropriate institutional arrangements (e.g. ‘government should create an older people’s commissioner for Scotland’ and ‘facilitate an Older People’s website, with access to information, services and advice’).²⁴

The challenges and shortcomings identified by Welsh NGOs include the need for: more central co-ordination of local projects and services; greater security of project funding; moving away from a perceived age equality ‘silo’ by mainstreaming older people’s projects across the voluntary sector; and instituting effective training and policy monitoring mechanisms.²⁵ Moreover, it was felt that older people’s networks and partnerships ‘need to ensure that key decision makers in other policy areas and [government] departments, both national and local, take ownership of the [Older People’s] Strategy, enabling it to be mainstreamed’.²⁶

In Northern Ireland an age equality organisation reflected a prevailing sentiment amongst NGOs that ‘there have been some encouraging advancements, not least the… Older People’s Commissioner, a clear example of the potential of devolved government to deliver for older people’. However, critical voices were also evident. Public policy priorities identified by older people’s organisations include: tackling pensioner poverty; developing a ‘modern and responsive care system with a focus on prevention, rights, entitlements and fairness’; and ensuring ‘the fair and equal treatment of older people in public services and through legislation and policy’.²⁷ Furthermore, it was felt by some that information technology could be used to greater effect to raise awareness of services and information for older people. In addition, a prominent NGO asserted that there is a need for a ‘fundamental shift’ in the consultation process: ‘a need to move away from process-driven age equality consultations and put emphasis on substantive policy outcomes for older people’.²⁸

As Burchardt and Holder (2009: 266) note, ‘greater devolution will tend to increase inequality between the four [UK] countries, but whether or not this translates into a positive or a negative impact on inequalities within countries depends on the particular policies adopted’. In this respect there is also mixed evidence. Some analysts point to a disjuncture between policy discourse at the devolved level and policy outcomes. For example, referring to wider patterns of inequality during the first years of devolution, Hills et al. (2010: 291) state that ‘there has been comparatively little difference between the devolved nations and England over the period’, This ‘may come as a disappointment to some, given the priority given to equality issues by the devolved governments’. In part, this can be attributed to governments’ failure to effectively address older people’s needs through the systematic use of EIAs. Despite this, evaluation of the Welsh government’s first Older People’s Strategy (WAG, 2003) shows advances in relation to 7 of the 16 principal indicators (SfW, 2009). These include support for independent living with an increase in the number of people aged 65+ helped to live at home per 1,000 population,²⁹ and a fall in the proportion of pensioners living in low-income households (from an average of 26% 1996–9 to an average of 18% in the years 2006–9).³⁰ Notwithstanding these gains, little or no progress was apparent in the remaining indicators (although none showed a clear deterioration). Base-data indicators for each UK polity further serve to underline inter-polity variation and significant remaining policy challenges in order to address inequality and the welfare needs of older people (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Inequalities and public policy challenges: older people in the UK’s polities.

Discussion

Analysis of the past decade reveals some headway in mainstreaming the needs of older people in the policy work of government. In each devolved polity this agenda has been characterised by political will and high-level commitment, not least because key equalities activists have been elected to the new assemblies and NGOs have continued to advance older people’s policy claims on government. Devolution in the UK also provides evidence of the comparatively rapid territorialisation of policy on older people. Notably, the past decade reveals successive devolved administrations’ willingness to introduce universal, non-means–tested welfare entitlements that go beyond the prescriptions of the central state. In terms of embedding the institutional prerequisites for mainstreaming, there have been advances, including the creation of equality policy units in each bureaucracy and, more recently, the growing use of EIAs. Progress has also been made in relation to participation in policy work through state sponsorship of older people’s networks and partnerships. Thus, whilst ongoing problems (e.g. adequacy of funding, overlapping organisational remits, et cetera) must be acknowledged, the devolved context is characterised by greater ‘system openness’ and discursive opportunities for older people to engage in, and influence, policy making.

The present findings also show that social welfare policies for older people are increasingly grounded in Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish law. This is significant because it gives jurisdictive basis to contrasting welfare regimes and is overseen by ‘devolved’ public service inspectorates and, (in two polities), older people’s commissioners. Challenges and shortcomings are also evident. Foremost is the failure to secure systematic intersectional mainstreaming practices. Rather devolution has seen greatest progress in traditional, ‘strand-specific’ interventions that mainly treat older people as an homogenous grouping. Reference to cross-strand issues is presently founded on an intercategorical approach rather than more sophisticated intracategorical techniques. Accordingly, much work remains at the meso-level in order to secure a long-term transformation in policy-making practices and systematically address the specific needs of older people at the intersection of protected equality characteristics and identities.

Footnotes

Acknowledgement

The author would like to acknowledge the comments and suggestions of three anonymous referees in revising an earlier draft of this paper.

Notes

References

Ashiagbor

(1999) The intersection between gender and “race” in the labour market: lessons for anti-discrimination law. In: Morris

O’Donnell

(eds) Feminist Perspectives on Employment Law. London: Cavendish.

Bassell

(2010) Intersectional politics at the boundaries of the nation state. Ethnicities 10(1): 155–180.

Birrell

(2008) The Impact of Devolution on Social Policy. Bristol: Polity Press.

Boogaard

Roggeband

(2010) Paradoxes of intersectionality: theorizing inequality in the dutch police force through structure and agency. Organization 17(1): 53–63.

Burchardt

Holder

(2009) Inequality and the devolved administrations. In: Hills

Sefton

Stewart

(eds) Towards a More Equal Society? Poverty, Inequality and Policy Since 1997. Bristol: The Policy Press.

Caro

Morris

(2003) Devolution and aging policy. Journal of Aging & Social Policy 14(3): 1–14.

Chaney

(2006) A case of institutional decoupling: equality and public policy in post devolution Wales. Scottish Affairs 56: 22–34.

Chaney

(2011) Equality and Public Policy. Cardiff: University of Wales Press.

Chinkin

Butegwa

(2001) Gender Mainstreaming in Legal and Constitutional Affairs. London: Commonwealth Secretariat.

10.

Conaghan

(2009) Intersectionality and the feminist project in law. In: Grabham

Cooper

Krishnadas

Herman

(eds) Intersectionality and Beyond: Law Power and the Politics of Location. London: Routledge.

11.

Council of Europe (2004) Gender Mainstreaming. Strasbourg: COE. Available at http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/equality/03themes/gender-mainstreaming/EG_S_MS_98_2_rev_en.pdf.

12.

Crenshaw K (1989) Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics, University of Chicago Legal Forum 139–67. Reprinted in Kairys D (ed) (1990) The Politics of Law: A Progressive Critique, 2nd edn. New York: Pantheon.

13.

Crenshaw

(1993) Mapping the margins: intersectionality, identity politics and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review 43(6): 1241–1299.

14.

Crenshaw

(2000) Gender-Related Aspects of Race Discrimination. New York: United Nations.

15.

Crenshaw

Gotanda

Peller

Thomas

(1995) Critical Race Theory: The Key Writings that Formed the Movement. New York: New Press.

16.

DeLeon

(1998) Models of policy discourse: insights versus prediction. Policy Studies Journal 26(1): 147–161.

17.

DeLeon

Varda

(2009) Toward a theory of collaborative policy networks: identifying structural tendencies. Policy Studies Journal 37(1): 59–74.

18.

Department for Communities and Local Government (2007) Equalities Review. London: DCLG.

19.

Diamond

Liddle

Southern

Townsend

(2007) Managing the City. London: Routledge.

20.

Elson

(2006) Engendering government budgets in the context of globalization(s). International Feminist Journal of Politics 6(4): 623–642.

21.

Equality Commission Northern Ireland (2010) Equality Responsive Budgeting. Belfast: ECNI.

22.

Essed

(1991) Understanding Everyday Racism: An Interdisciplinary Theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

23.

European Commission (1995) Communication from the Commission to the Council: A New Partnership Between Women and Men: Equal Sharing and Participation. The European Community's Priorities for the Fourth UN World Conference on Women, Beijing, September 1995, COM(95)221 final. Brussels: European Commission.

24.

European Commission (1996) Communication from the Commission: Incorporating Equal Opportunities for Women and Men into All Community Policies and Activities, COM(96)67 final of 21.02.1996. Brussels: European Commission.

25.

European Commission (2007) Tackling Multiple Discrimination: Practices, Policies and Laws. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

26.

Fischer

(2003) Beyond empiricism: policy analysis as deliberative practice. In: Hajer

Wagenaar

(eds) Deliberative Policy Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

27.

Fraser

(1997) Justice Interruptus. London: Routledge.

28.

Fredman

Spencer

(eds) (2003) Age as an Equality Issue. Oxford: Hart.

29.

Gunnarsson

(2009) The welfare state, the individual and the need for care: older people's views. International Journal of Social Welfare 18(3): 252–259.

30.

Harnois

Ifatunji

(2011) Gendered measures, gendered models: toward an intersectional analysis of interpersonal racial discrimination. Ethnic and Racial Studies 34(6): 1006–1028.

31.

Hayek

(1970) Law, Legislation and Liberty. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

32.

Hills

Brewer

Jenkins

Lister

Lupton

(2010) An Anatomy of Economic Inequality in the UK: Report of the National Equality Panel. London: LSE.

33.

Howlett

Lindquist

(2004) Policy analysis and governance. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice 6(3): 225–249.

34.

Hughes

(2011) Intersectionality, quotas, and minority women’s political representation worldwide. American Political Science Review 105(3): 604–620.

35.

Levenson

(2003) Auditing Age Discrimination: A Practical Approach to Promoting Age Equality in Health and Social Care. London: The King’s Fund.

36.

Lombardo

Verloo

(2009) Institutionalizing intersectionality in the European Union? International Feminist Journal of Politics 11(4): 478–495.

37.

Marchetti

(2008) Intersectional race and gender analyses: why legal processes just don’t get it. Social & Legal Studies 17(2): 155–174.

38.

McCall

(2005) Managing the complexity of intersectionality. Journal of Women in Culture and Society 30(3): 1771–1780.

39.

National Partnership Forum for Older People in Wales (2007) Second Annual Report 2006-2007 - The National Partnership Forum for Older People in Wales. Cardiff: NPFfOP.

40.

Northern Ireland Executive (2006) Equality Scheme. Belfast: NIE.

41.

Northern Ireland Executive (2007) EIA: Rural Development Plan 2007–13. Belfast: NIE.

42.

Office for National Statistics (2010) Statistical Bulletin: Population Trends. London: ONS.

43.

Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister (2001) Equality Scheme. Belfast: OFMDFM.

44.

OFMDFM (2005) Ageing in an Inclusive Society. Belfast: OFMDFM.

45.

OFMDFM (2006) Lifetime Opportunities. Belfast: OFMDFM.

46.

OFMDFM (2010) Building a Better Future – The Northern Ireland Executive’s Programme for Government 2008–2011: Delivery Report. Belfast: OFMDFM.

47.

OFMDFM (2011) Equality Scheme for the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. Belfast: OFMDFM.

48.

Peters

(2005) Institutional Theory in Political Science: The New Institutionalism. London: Continuum.

49.

Scambor

Busche

(2009) Intersectional Mainstreaming. Berlin: Peerthink/EU Daphne Project Research Paper, Peerthink.

50.

Scottish Executive (2000) Working Together for Equality. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive.

51.

Scottish Executive (2007) All Our Futures. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive.

52.

Scottish Government (2007) All Our Futures: Planning for a Scotland with an Ageing Population. Edinburgh: Scottish Government.

53.

Scottish Government (2008) Gender Equality Scheme Annual Report 2008. Edinburgh: Scottish Government.

54.

Scottish Government (2009a) All Our Futures: Older People Stakeholder Events. Edinburgh: Scottish Government.

55.

Scottish Government (2009b) Equality Impact Assessment - Towards 2016 Energy Assistance Package. Edinburgh: Scottish Government.

56.

Scottish Government (2011a) Equality Statement: Scottish Spending Review 2011 and Draft Budget 2012–13. Edinburgh: Scottish Government.

57.

Scottish Government (2011b) Reshaping Care for Older People: A Programme for Change 2011–2021. Edinburgh: Scottish Government.

58.

Shachar

(2001) Multicultural Jurisdictions: Cultural Differences and Women's Rights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

59.

Sharp

Broomhill

(2002) Budgeting for equality: the Australian experience. Feminist Economics 8(1): 25–48.

60.

Squires

(2005) Intersecting inequalities: reflecting on the subjects and objects of equality. The Political Quarterly 79(1): 78–89.

61.

Squires

(2009) Intersecting inequalities. International Feminist Journal of Politics 11(4): 496–512.

62.

Statistics for Wales (2009) Older People in Wales: Summary of the Progress against the Strategy for Older People in Wales Indicators. Cardiff: SfW.

63.

Steinbugler

Press

Dias

(2006) Gender, race, and affirmative action: operationalizing intersectionality in survey research. Gender & Society 20(1): 805–825.

64.

Sutherland

(2008) Independent Review of Free Personal and Nursing Care in Scotland. Edinburgh: Scottish Government.

65.

Sutton

(1997) Will you still need me, will you still screen me, when I’m past 64? British Medical Journal 315(25): 1032–1033.

66.

United Nations (1999) The United Nations Fourth World Conference, Action for Equality, Development and Peace, Platform For Action. New York: UN.

67.

United Nations (2000) Gender and Racial Discrimination. Report of the Expert Group Meeting, Zagreb. Croatia. New York: UN.

68.

United Nations (2002) Madrid International Plan of Action on Ageing. New York: UN.

69.

United Nations (2005) Mainstreaming the Concerns of Older Persons into the Social Development Agenda. New York: UN.

70.

United Nations (2008) The Madrid International Plan of Action on Ageing: Guiding Framework and Toolkit for Practitioners and Policy Makers. New York: UN.

71.

Veitch

(2005) Looking at gender mainstreaming in the UK government. International Journal of Feminist Politics 7(4): 56–78.

72.

Ward

(2000) Ageism and the abuse of older people in health and social care. British Journal of Nursing 9(9): 560–564.

73.

Weldon

(2006) The structure of intersectionality: a comparative politics of gender. Politics and Gender 2(2): 235–248.

74.

Welsh Assembly Government (2003) Strategy for Older People in Wales. Cardiff: WAG.

75.

Welsh Assembly Government (2005) National Service Framework for Older People. Cardiff: WAG.

76.

Welsh Assembly Government (2007) Living Better, Living Longer. Report of an Advisory Group on the Strategy for Older People in Wales. Cardiff: WAG.

77.

Welsh Assembly Government (2008a) The Strategy for Older People in Wales 2008–2013. Cardiff: WAG.

78.

Welsh Assembly Government (2008b) Older People’s Wellbeing Monitor for Wales. Cardiff: WAG.

79.

Welsh Assembly Government (2009) Full Equality Impact Assessment Report: Ten Year Homelessness Plan for Wales. Cardiff: WAG.

80.

Welsh Assembly Government (2010) Annual Equality Report 2009–10. Cardiff: WAG.

81.

Yuval-Davis

(2006) Intersectionality and feminist politics. European Journal of Women’s Studies 13(3): 193–210.