Who learns what from whom? Implementing gender mainstreaming in multi-level settings

Abstract

With obstacles at various levels of government, multi-level settings provide complex challenges for the implementation of gender mainstreaming. Policy transfer appears to hold some explanatory potential in these sorts of contexts; scholarship however, still tends to focus on single sources of influence – either European or domestic – and potentially misses the broader picture. This article revisits the classic question of who learns what from whom by addressing the implementation of gender mainstreaming in research policies in the Spanish regions through the lens of policy transfer. Measures to tackle gender inequality in science have been developed at the EU, state and regional levels, thus enabling the three regions studied here – Galicia, the Basque Country and the Balearic Islands – to ‘borrow’ good practices from different layers of government. This article suggests that more nuanced frameworks, recognizing that multi-level settings are potential sites for complex lesson-drawing processes, are likely to offer greater explanatory depth.

Keywords

Europeanization federalism gender mainstreaming multi-level settings Spain

Introduction

Gender equality policies are increasingly engaged with, developed and operationalized in a multi-level environment (Haussman et al., 2010; Outshoorn and Kantola, 2007). This is particularly true in the case of gender mainstreaming, which is expected to bring the inclusion of a gender perspective to all policies at all levels. In the EU, this mandate embraces a plurality of realms from the local to the supranational. This adds a greater level of complexity to a strategy that is often considered to be either ‘lost in translation’, subject to strong resistance (Hafner-Burton and Pollack, 2009; Mergaert and Lombardo, 2014), or simply a failure of implementation (Fraisse, 2008; Moser, 2005; Perrons, 2005; Schmidt, 2005), despite multi-level settings offering opportunities for development.

Knowledge on how to tackle gender inequalities represents an important asset for an effective implementation of gender mainstreaming (Hankivski, 2008; Squires, 2007). The EU polity appears to hold great potential to facilitate policy transfer; meaning that know-how travels through time and space (Dolowitz and Marsh, 1996). In the case of gender mainstreaming – and gender equality policies more broadly – this has been captured mainly by two key research agendas within feminist scholarship. First, studies have revealed the importance of Europeanization processes by looking at how domestic actors learn from EU policies and adopt EU ‘ways of doing things’ (Krizsán and Popa, 2010; Lombardo and Forest, 2012). Second, it has been noted that in compound states, this same replication of policies occurs between regions, leading to a ‘race-to-the-top effect’ (Celis and Meier, 2007, 2011), with policy-makers increasingly ‘trapped’ in these complex institutional settings. Thus, feminist analyses either focus on the Europeanization of state-level policies, or are restricted to the internal dynamics of specific federations. Consequently, such studies frequently miss the intricate ways in which policies travel within multi-layered settings.

This article seeks to address this gap by revisiting the classic question of who learns what from whom, developed in the literature on policy transfer (Dolowitz and Marsh, 1996), and applied to the implementation of gender mainstreaming. The case of the Spanish regions offers a best-case scenario to do so, as they have long been embedded in a highly complex institutional framework subject to EU influence and strong territorial dynamics. Moreover, gender mainstreaming features a level of implementation that allows for the exploration of whether or not actions developed in the so-called Autonomous Communities in Spain were ‘imported’ from elsewhere. In scrutinizing such processes, the key questions are: do regional policy-makers learn from different layers of government on how to mainstream gender equality? Does the EU multi-level setting provide incentives and/or knowledge to do so? Does this framework ease the implementation of gender mainstreaming at the Spanish regional level?

Research policies offer a rich source of persuasive empirical material from the EU,¹ the Spanish government, as well as some Spanish Autonomous Communities that have been involved in promoting gender equality in science. Since 1998, the EU has sponsored several specific studies, launched institutional mechanisms and revised major policy documents to include gender-sensitive measures (Hafner-Burton and Pollack, 2009; Mergaert, 2012). Spain replicated the EU approach by setting up a Women and Science Unit in 2005. Similarly, key policy documents were modified to show concern over gender inequality in science. Starting with Catalonia, other Spanish Autonomous Communities have followed suit by transversally including a gender perspective in a number of research policies.

The multi-level commitment to gender equality in science gives three unique case studies with which to illustrate policy transfer: the regions of Galicia, the Basque Country and the Balearic Islands, which have a variety of factors in common.² Galician and Basque research policies have incorporated a gender perspective since 2007, whereas Balearic policies remain gender blind; providing variation in our dependent variable. The time window from 2007 to 2010 for Galicia and the Basque Country, and from 2009 to 2012 for the Balearic Islands, allowed us to explore the role of the EU, along with national and regional precedents, in facilitating conditions for policy change. In order to account for policy transfer processes, the views of those involved in the making of regional research policies were recorded. First, those in charge of the Regional Ministries of Research and Development were considered critical actors and paramount to explaining why policies are imported from elsewhere. Additionally, the perceptions of the officials involved in the regional equality machinery and of women from the regional organizations oriented towards gender equality in science were also important. In 2011 and 2012, 31 semi-structured interviews were conducted with these three sets of actors in the three regions analysed.³ Similarly, over 60 policy documents were assessed to determine if and how a gender perspective was effectively included in research policies.⁴

The following section provides a consideration of the policy transfer literature, emphasizing the impact of Europeanization processes and domestic territorial dynamics. Then the third section in the article describes the development of equality policies and gender mainstreaming in Spain, reflecting how the transference of policies has impacted that process. The fourth section goes on to consider the implementation of gender mainstreaming by focusing on research policies in Galicia, the Basque Country and the Balearic Islands. It reveals how policies travel through the EU polity and how the multi-level setting in which they are inserted influences actors. Finally, the article concludes with a discussion on the need for a multi-level explanatory framework to analyse the practice of gender mainstreaming.

Policy transfer in multi-level settings: An opportunity for gender mainstreaming implementation?

The current ‘institutionalist turn’ in the feminist research agendas has paved the way for a renewed emphasis on the relevance of downloaded and uploaded powers (Krook and Mackay, 2011). In complex polities like the EU, this has resulted in increased concern in the literature on Europeanization and federalism with processes of policy transfer. We note the extent to which policy knowledge travels, either through coercive transfer or lesson drawing (Dolowitz and Marsh, 1996), and consider how far this process has contributed to the development of gender equality policies.

The Europeanization agenda has been addressing the impact of the EU legal framework for a long time. There is general consensus regarding how EU equality policies have helped promote gender equality in member states (Kantola, 2010). Initially, analyses were devoted to demonstrating the extent to which EU binding norms affected national policies. In line with mainstream literature, a top-down approach was adopted to track the transposition of EU equality directives and account for country-specific responses to acquis (Caporaso and Jupille, 2001; Liebert, 2003). More recent contributions, however, align with emerging debates calling for a bottom-up and actor-sensitive approach (Exadaktylos and Radaelli, 2012). Thus, in reaction to the growing relevance of soft law within the EU (Open Method of Coordination), attention is shifting to ‘what actors make’ of EU policies (Radaelli and Pasquier, 2008), even when there is no pressure for adaptation. Learning from above or ‘using’ EU discourse to legitimize national and regional policies have thus become new ways of capturing the EU impact (Ladrech, 2010; Woll and Jacquot, 2010). The EU itself is seen more as a ‘policy transfer platform’ (Radaelli, 2003). Feminist scholars have reacted to this new perspective by exploring the impact of EU soft policies as well (Bruno et al., 2006; Idil, 2008; Krizsán and Popa, 2010; Lombardo and Forest, 2012). They looked at the growing role of non-binding measures, benchmarking and naming and shaming strategies (Beveridge and Velluti, 2008). To do so, they made use of sociological and discursive approaches to identify that both national and regional⁵ actors learn from EU ‘ways of doing things’ in the absence of hard law (Lombardo and Forest, 2012). Gender mainstreaming offers a solid example of such tendencies as it is a soft strategy that frequently lacks binding capacities. The EU has influenced its development at the domestic level. EU moral leverage, the provision of EU funding, or the dissemination of good practices all represent significant incentives to implement this strategy in member states (Bruno et al., 2006; Kantola, 2010; Lombardo, 2004; Squires, 2007).

The process of downloading powers constitutes another area of interest in identifying policy transfer (Haussman et al., 2010; Outshoorn and Kantola, 2007). Studies on federalism have long been preoccupied with the positive/negative impact of this territorial model. In terms of policy outcomes, federations seemed to yield quite remarkable results at the sub-national level (Vickers, 2011, 2013). Many countries have contributed to the expansion of their equality architecture by setting up regional women’s policy agencies (Outshoorn and Kantola, 2007). Emulation processes between territories – also called the demonstration effect – that typically affect compound states facilitated this enlargement. However, the transfer of policies is especially remarkable in federations featuring distinctive territorial dynamics such as competitive patterns. Here, policies developed in a specific region/level of government are rapidly transferred to other territories that wish to avoid being left behind (Alonso, 2015; Celis and Meier, 2011). This also seems to facilitate innovation, as sub-national entities often strive to ‘lead the way’. These tendencies apply also to the implementation of gender mainstreaming. As the Belgian case vividly illustrates, competence among territories has been a powerful engine to boost its development. Measures have been transmitted between regions and levels of government, spurred by the leading role of the region of Flanders (Celis and Meier, 2007, 2011).

Research agendas on Europeanization and federalism reveal thus that multi-level settings offer a fertile ground for policy transfer – in the case of gender mainstreaming implementation also. Nevertheless, as these agendas have remained mainly disconnected, studies often look at single sources of influence and do not capture the complexity of the EU polity. The multi-level explanatory framework developed here will contribute to filling this gap.

Gender equality policies in multi-governed Spain

Of all the member states, Spain is most affected by regionalization and associated processes. In the aftermath of the Franco regime, the territorial model experienced exceptional and somewhat unexpected development. Efforts to resolve the Basque and Catalonian ‘questions’ – the historical push for self-government in these two regions – led to the inclusion of ‘regional issues’ as essential elements of the constitutional agenda. Instead of recognizing a federal state with specific regions, the Constitution sketched out a rather vague territorial model (Aja, 1993) and established two itineraries for becoming an Autonomous Community. The historic regions of Galicia, Catalonia and the Basque Country were granted the fastest access and the broadest set of powers. Other ‘differential factors’ such as regional languages or special fiscal regimes yielded an even more heterogeneous landscape. The tensions that arose between symmetry and asymmetry, homogeneity and heterogeneity drove the construction of the State of Autonomies (Estado de las Autonomías) (Agranoff, 1999; Máiz et al., 2010). These inherent tensions created a competitive cycle in which the slow-track communities continuously strove to acquire similar competences (playing catch-up) and the fast-track communities in turn sought to differentiate themselves again by acquiring new powers. The result has been described as ‘competitive federalism’ (Moreno, 2008),⁶ in which all regions enjoy a broad set of powers that allow for self-government in a variety of policy areas.

Gender equality policies in Spain are fairly multi-level in nature and reflect the dynamics of the State of Autonomies (Bustelo, 2014; Ortbals et al., 2011). The first equality machinery, the Women’s Institute, appeared at the national level in 1983. The Spanish regions also included the promotion of gender equality in their regional statutes or constitutions, which were enacted between 1979 and 1983. Sub-state equality institutions soon emerged in all Autonomous Communities, replicating the state example and structures. The Basque Country and Andalusia were the first to establish women’s institutes in 1988 (Bustelo and Ortbals, 2007). Similarly, multi-annual policy plans and programmes targeting women were rapidly imported. Currently, the Autonomous Communities play a leading role in gender equality policies, whereas the national government increasingly plays catch-up (Alonso, 2015). The most recent and remarkable developments in this area, the Equality Acts, were first approved at the regional level. These norms regulate women’s rights, policy instruments and equality institutions in a detailed manner, representing a notable improvement with regard to former equality policies based on non-binding measures (Bustelo, 2014).

Interestingly, some groundbreaking contributions implicitly pointed to policy transfer as a meaningful factor for understanding this remarkable expansion. On the one hand, it is generally assumed that the EU policy framework has had a positive effect (Bustelo, 2004; Lombardo, 2004). Multi-annual equality plans were adopted during the 1980s in response to the European Commission Framework Programmes, and became the main instrument for promoting gender equality. Key EU directives were also transposed to domestic legislation, in some cases even before a country entered the EU (Lombardo, 2004; Valiente, 2003). The adoption of gender mainstreaming strategies in the mid-1990s was strongly related to Europeanization as well. While the impact of the Beijing Conference must not be disregarded, the EU is ubiquitous in gender mainstreaming policies, documentation and literature (Alonso and Forest, 2012) at both the state and the regional level. In fact, the Autonomous Communities pioneered the adoption of this strategy. Equality plans implemented in the Basque Country (1995) and Asturias (1996) were the first to state that all public policies must be revised from a gender perspective. The central government and other regions followed this example in subsequent years and gender mainstreaming became a key strategy throughout Spain.

Domestic dynamics also account for the rapid development of this policy domain. In the initial stages of decentralization, state-level institutions and instruments – including equality plans – were faithfully emulated at the sub-state level (Bustelo and Ortbals, 2007). However, as regional leadership and the strong influence of competitive patterns emerged in the 1990s (Alonso, 2015; Linos, 2003), Autonomous Communities strove to attain prominence between themselves, and with respect to the central government. Some territories played a leading role in this and other social policies, specifically Catalonia, Andalusia and the Basque Country, while others (including the national government) played catch-up (Alonso, 2015; Alonso and Verge, 2014). Again, a look at the implementation of gender mainstreaming helps identify these learning patterns. Key instruments for putting this approach into practice travelled quickly from one territory to another. For instance, gender impact assessment (GIA) was first regulated in Catalonia, in 2001. In response, Extremadura adopted GIA in 2002 and the national government followed suit in 2003. In fact, the national bill was presented before the Spanish parliament by the Catalonian governing party, Convergència i Unió (CiU). Subsequently, GIA was implemented in other territories and currently represents one of the most common instruments for incorporating a gender perspective into regular policies. Interdepartmental commissions, equality units, gender training and participatory councils were generalized in a similar manner (Alonso, 2015). The gender mainstreaming toolkit developed in Spain is thus closely related to the vibrant learning dynamics brought about by the State of Autonomies.

The three regions analysed here enjoy a significant level of development in gender mainstreaming, which goes beyond its adoption as a mere strategy. Even though the Basque Country is the champion in this respect, Galicia and the Balearic Islands also have Equality Acts that embrace specific instruments to further its implementation. It is thus worth exploring how gender equality is mainstreamed into their regular policies.

Learning how to mainstream gender equality: A focus on the Spanish regional level

Gendering research policies

Research policy represents one area that appears to have been significantly affected by the implementation of gender mainstreaming. However, the literature on women in science, which has long been dedicated to exposing how gender inequalities affect scientific institutions, suggests a number of qualifying factors. Most pertinently what they identify as ‘double segregation’, which relegates female researchers to certain fields and the lowest positions, is one of its main findings. What we find, therefore, is a differential vertical and horizontal distribution of men and women which has been consistently reported to affect all countries and types of organizations (European Commission, 2012). These well-established tendencies led scholars to ask a new question: What is the problem of women in science? Qualitative analyses point to maternity and reproductive roles as explanatory factors for the ‘leaky pipeline’: the loss of women in academic careers and slower advancement in their professional life (Probert, 2005). Another area of concern involves the gendered nature of institutions: a trait reflected in biased recruitment processes, unbalanced decision-making bodies or androcentric organizational cultures that seem to disadvantage women (European Commission, 2011; Garforth and Kerr, 2009). Accordingly, scholars have emphasized the need to effectively include a gender perspective both in research policies and in academic institutions (Rees, 2007).

Some of the regions analysed here have reacted to these long-standing concerns. Galicia presents the highest level of gender mainstreaming development in this field. Its regional research plan, approved in 2007, included among its main goals recognition of the contributions of female scientists, the promotion of equal opportunities and parity in decision-making bodies.⁷ This was based on explicit recognition that the loss of women was a key problem for the Galician research system, as well as reflecting an interest in aligning with the European Research Area (ERA) policy priorities by including gender goals. Several actions were taken to develop this plan. They included measures to address the work–life balance through more flexible career paths that allow for maternity/care breaks, incentivizing gender-balancing and female leadership, to reverse the existing pattern of overwhelmingly male-dominated research teams, and the promotion of research on gender issues. An interdepartmental Women and Science Unit was launched in 2007 to develop and expand these measures. It brought together representatives from research, education and equality departments in a complex approach that sought to address the most relevant issues for equality in science. Its main outputs included two area-specific reports on the education system and research personnel and a 2008–2012 Women and Science Programme, the first of its kind in Spain.

The Basque case features a similar, although less developed approach. Here, the research plan argued succinctly that measures must be taken to guarantee effective equality between men and women.⁸ As in Galicia, the EU framework appears as the main motor and measuring stick. Internationalization of the Basque research and innovation system – with the ERA as its reference point – is stated as a key goal and gender equality is framed as intrinsic to this purpose. Programmes to implement the 2007 research plan include actions similar to those found in other contexts. Doctoral and postdoctoral grants take into consideration care-related leaves of absence in an attempt to not disadvantage female researchers. Project funding rewards gender parity in research teams, while projects involving technological parks encourage the inclusion of a gender perspective. However, gender-sensitive actions do not reach all the existing programmes; nor is there a specific institutional device analogous to the Galician Women and Science Unit to assist with implementation. Still, the revision of some regular policies points to the implementation of gender mainstreaming in this field.

By contrast, policies in the Balearic Islands are gender-blind. The multi-annual research plan approved in 2009 makes no mention of the unequal presence of women in science,⁹ despite the fact that this region recognized the lack of human resources as a main weakness of its research system. The absence of gender concern reverberates in subsequent policies. With the exception of doctoral scholarships envisioning career breaks, programmes do not replicate any of the measures mentioned in the other two cases. This situation mirrors the well-documented phenomenon of de-coupling (Schmidt, 2005): though gender mainstreaming has been embraced ‘in theory’ through the Regional Equality Act, it has been denied ‘in practice’ as regular policies remain unrevised.

Galicia and the Basque Country demonstrate a two-fold approach to improving the situation of women in science: the inclusion of a gender perspective into research policies, and the creation of specific institutional devices. Interestingly, different levels of government had already applied these same measures. The EU initially ‘carried the torch’ in that regard (Marcheti and Raudma, 2010; Mergaert, 2012). In 1999, the European Commission recognized openly for the first time the unequal situation of women scientists. It called for gender-sensitive measures to ensure research by, for and on women.¹⁰ A Women and Science Unit was subsequently set up within the Research Directorate General to map the situation and assess existing policies.¹¹ Significantly, EU regular policies were also affected: Research Framework Programmes introduced since 2001 include gender equality as a transversal goal (Alonso, 2015). In response, gender-sensitive measures aimed at reconciliation between work and family life or gender-balanced decision-making processes began to be implemented.¹²

Spanish research policies echoed these patterns in the following years (Alonso, 2015). In 2004 the national research plan incorporated gender equality into its goals and a Women and Science Unit was set up in 2005. Like its EU forerunner, this Unit has been very active in examining and diagnosing existing research policies from a gender perspective. As a result, key actions and programmes (human resources, research project funding, etc.) have created space for gender-sensitive measures. More recently, Act 4/2011 on Science, Technology and Innovation went a step further by stating that recruitment processes, research designs and scientific organizations should be scrutinized to avoid reproducing gender inequalities. In Spain, regional powers over research policies make the sub-state level equally interesting. Catalonia pioneered this by introducing gender mainstreaming in parallel with the national government. It began assessing plans and programmes in 2004, and set up a specialized unit in 2005.

Who learns what from whom?

The cases analysed here illustrate the presence of a multi-level agenda on equality in science. They show that the approach, and the action taken, replicated that at the EU, state and sub-state levels, over a timeline that allowed for policies to be transferred from these levels of government to these three regions. What did the actors involved in the development of such policies have to say? Did they ‘import’ equality measures from other territories? Did the multi-level setting in which they were inserted make any difference for gender mainstreaming implementation?

Generally speaking, mapping existing equality policies at the three levels of government appears to be a common procedure in all of the three regions. Before adopting new measures, policies developed elsewhere are assessed to identify potential good practices. One of the interviewees provides an illustrative example: ‘To draft our equality law, the first thing we did was to undertake a comparative study of the legislation in other regions.’¹³ It was commonly reported that this lesson drawing is facilitated by informal contacts between the heads of the regional equality machineries.¹⁴ Similarly, precedents represent a source of legitimacy. For instance, the EU framework is frequently ‘used’ to justify policy change. As one participant in the study puts it, ‘These [EU equality] directives have a legitimizing effect. When you have to discuss, negotiate or advocate for something, the fact that it is regulated in an EU directive is very important.’¹⁵ Similar trends apply to research policies, though here EU goals and targets are predominant as policies are strongly influenced by the European Research Area (ERA).

The Galician case vividly illustrates how these patterns of policy transfer are very present in the implementation of gender mainstreaming. First, inclusion of gender equality in the research plan should be understood as part of an effort to internationalize the Galician Research and Development system. Replicating the Basque Country experience, the ERA framework strongly informs this document. In both cases, incorporation of a gender perspective was considered both pertinent and necessary to align with EU gender-friendly policies. According to one of heads of the regional ministry, ‘It was not only a matter of being convinced … the EU research policies emphasized gender mainstreaming, equality … This gave us strong arguments to foster that issue.’¹⁶ Galicia has received extensive EU funding as an Objective 1 region since Spain became a member state and is prone to adjusting its policies towards EU priorities. Thus, interest in accessing more EU funds provided a powerful incentive to Europeanize its policies and adopt such an innovative strategy. Second, subsequent programmes illustrate complex lesson-drawing processes in which EU, state and regional policies were assessed and copied. One interviewee remarked, ‘Those [gender-sensitive measures] were already there. The national Ministry [of Science and Innovation] was producing policy documents. Proposals were sent from many places. So you had to introduce it, it was unavoidable.’¹⁷ Policies implemented by the national government gave policy-makers a sense of the need not to be left behind and were relevant for learning how to mainstream gender. However, the EU policy framework was again significant. To access resources from Structural Funds, it was paramount that gender-sensitive measures be incorporated into Galician programmes before they were evaluated by the European Commission. This was the case for programmes funding PhD or postdoctoral scholarships.

Third, a similar process occurred with the creation of the Women and Science Unit. In pursuit of the best institutional model, the Galician equality machinery scrutinized both the EU and state-level units. The national unit, attached to the Ministry of Education, was considered excessively narrow in its approach. The EU unit enjoyed a broader mandate. It targeted research policies in the private sector and was therefore considered more capable of facilitating the implementation of gender mainstreaming. Consequently, it strongly influenced the design of the multiple-issue, interdepartmental structure of the Galician unit. Its main output, the Women and Science Programme, claims to be drawn from policies previously developed at the EU, the state and the regional level. Most of its policy measures do in fact echo the abovementioned precedents, with gender mainstreaming as the main approach to be developed.

The Basque case also speaks of the relevance of policy transfer. Like Galicia, the Basque Country considered the ERA as the natural framework for Basque science and technology. Gender equality emerged in response to this willingness to converge with EU policies, albeit here as a way to bypass state-level policy frameworks. As put by one of the heads of the research department, ‘We paid much more attention to Europe than to Madrid since EU policies are more suitable for well-developed countries … Gender equality was part of this effort to converge with the EU.’¹⁸ Thus, Europeanization can be seen to have influenced the regional level, although a desire to implement more innovative policies than the national government was an additional impetus. This in turn highlights the salience of domestic dynamics. The Basque Country has traditionally acted as a driver of the Spanish competitive policy cycle. An analysis of equality policies suggests that its pioneering role accounts for the adoption of diverse policies by other regions and at the state level (Alonso, 2015). The active role of regional actors also explains the implementation of gender mainstreaming. The interviewees emphasized the strong commitment of the regional Prime Minister, who as head of the interdepartmental commission, furthered its development. This critical actor used this structure to exert control over regional ministers, who were required to report regularly on the inclusion of gender equality in their respective areas.

The Balearic case shows, however, that precedents elsewhere do not constitute sufficient conditions for the presence of policy transfer. Here, both research and gender policies have been generally affected by EU, state and regional policies. EU funding, or a willingness to take the lead with respect to the state-level, were less significant in the Balearic Islands. More importantly, actors did not show interest in modifying research policies to mainstream gender. In the regional ministry responsible, gender inequality was not identified as an issue that needed to be addressed. One participant in the study put it this way, ‘It was not a central issue for us at all. Even if it is not politically correct to say so … Our objective was to have a good research plan, nothing more.’¹⁹ In sharp contrast with Galicia and the Basque Country, where evidence strongly suggests a willingness to transfer policies was crucial, in the Balearics, actors demonstrated little inclination to align with the gender-sensitive measures adopted elsewhere. This case provides an instance of individual implicit resistance (Mergaert and Lombardo, 2014). Actors did not overtly oppose equality but, despite the legal mandate to implement gender mainstreaming, they considered research policies to be gender neutral.

Conclusions

Gender mainstreaming has been the subject of numerous scholarly works, eager to find the formula for its effective implementation. In the EU, Europeanization and federalism research agendas have shed some light on how policy transfer can facilitate its practice and benefit gender equality more broadly. However, they have not provided convincing explanatory frameworks that capture how policies travel within multi-level settings.

This article has integrated elements of both literatures to engage with the classic question of who learns what from whom, and to disentangle how policy transfer processes contribute to gender mainstreaming implementation. The Spanish Autonomous Communities, conditioned by the strong political and territorial dynamics of the Spanish multi-governed state, provided a suitable case study to do so. We looked specifically at the inclusion of a gender perspective in research policies. The presence of solid precedents in this area at the EU, state and sub-state levels made it possible to track the extent to which lesson drawing occurred. The examination of these processes through interviews with key policy actors in three Autonomous Communities constituted the core of the analysis. The cases showed that the key actors involved in both research and equality policies recognize their multi-level nature, and often map and borrow good practices. The article further shows that Europeanization appears to influence beyond the transposition of binding norms at the state-level. The inclusion of gender equality goals and measures in the regions analysed corresponds strongly with the existing EU commitments. In Galicia, this compromise was encouraged by the presence of EU funding, whereas in the Basque Country interest in surpassing state-level policies played a significant role. In line with what recent literature has suggested, the actor-centred and bottom-up approach adopted here was helpful for capturing the impact of the EU in the absence of pressure for adaptation from the EU itself. It provided a clearer grasp of the influence of EU research policies, which draw on the Open Method of Coordination and its related soft tools (e.g. benchmarking, naming and shaming). This approach made it possible to explore the regional level, which has been largely disregarded in scholarly works on Europeanization.

Second, domestic dynamics emerged as a significant catalyst for change in our three cases. Spanish competitive federalism facilitated the inclusion of gender equality in two different ways. In the Galician case, policies undertaken at the state level, and by other regions, provided both an incentive for introducing a gender perspective, and a knowledge resource for implementation. As highlighted before, Basque policy actors emphasized their intention to follow the EU policy framework as a way of ‘doing it better’ than the national government and preserve its traditional leading role. Both cases show how the competitive cycle powerfully informs the Spanish policy-making process. Similarly, they accurately capture the intricate way in which the EU multi-level setting facilitates the implementation of gender mainstreaming by providing multiple sources of influence. Nevertheless, it became clear that the existence of significant precedents for promoting equality in science is not a sufficient condition for policy change. Balearic policies reflect how the actors’ willingness to pursue change remains a crucial factor. Multi-level settings provide ‘platforms for policy transfer’, though actor resistance to implementing gender mainstreaming, or equality policies in general, has been widely acknowledged and should be taken into consideration.

If the relevance and comprehensiveness of the patterns revealed in these cases are to be adequately assessed, then further analyses of other countries, policy areas and levels of government are needed. The current implementation of austerity measures, with potential consequences for equality policies across nations and regions, calls for new studies as well. In such an environment, the presence of policy transfer may lead to the shrinkage, rather than the expansion, of gender mainstreaming practice. Future studies should explore whether multi-level settings remain significant for the promotion of gender equality, or become a threat if actors ‘learn’ to dismantle existing policies.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Marta Lois and Ainhoa Novo, the editors and two anonymous reviewers for their support and inspiring comments on earlier drafts, and all the people who have kindly accepted to be interviewed, giving me both time and valuable information for the development of this work.

Funding

Research for this article has been carried out at the University of Santiago de Compostela, as part of a PhD funded by the Regional Government of Galicia.

Notes

References

Agranoff

(ed.) (1999) Accommodating Diversity: Asymmetry in Federal States. Baden: Nomos.

Aja

(1993) El Estado Autonómico. Federalismo y hechos diferenciales, 2nd edn. Madrid: Alianza.

Alonso

(2015) El mainstreaming de género en España. Valencia: Tirant lo Blanch.

Alonso

Forest

(2012) Is gender equality soluble in self-governance? Europeanizing and regionalizing gender policies in Spain. In: Lombardo

Forest

(eds) The Europeanization of Gender Equality Policies: A Sociological and Discursive Approach. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Alonso

Verge

(2014) Territorial dynamics and gender equality policies in Spain. Revue Fédéralisme-Régionalisme 14. Available at: popups.ulg.ac.be/1374–3864/index.php?id=1271.

Beveridge

Velluti

(eds) (2008) Gender and the Open Method of Coordination. Farnham: Ashgate.

Börzel

(2002) States and Regions in the European Union: Institutional Adaptation in Germany and Spain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bruno

Jacquot

Mandin

(2006) Europeanization through its instrumentation: Benchmarking, mainstreaming and the open method of co-ordination … toolbox or Pandora’s box? Journal of European Public Policy 13(4): 519–536.

Bustelo

(2004) La evaluación de las políticas de igualdad de género. Madrid: Catarata.

10.

Bustelo

(2014) Three decades of state feminism and gender equality policies in multi-governed Spain. Sex Roles 70(9/10). Epub June. DOI 10.1007/s11199–014–0381–9.

11.

Bustelo

Ortbals

(2007) The evolution of Spanish state feminism: A fragmented landscape. In: Outshoorn

Kantola

(eds) Changing State Feminism. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

12.

Caporaso

Jupille

(2001) The Europeanization of gender equality policy and domestic structural change. In: Cowles

Caporaso

Risse

(eds) Transforming Europe. Europeanization and Domestic Change. London: Cornell University Press.

13.

Celis

Meier

(2007) State feminism and women’s movements in Belgium: Complex patterns in a multi-level system. In: Outshoorn

Kantola

(eds) Changing State Feminism. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

14.

Celis

Meier

(2011) Convergence and divergence: The federalization of Belgian equality policies. Regional and Federal Studies 21(1): 55–71.

15.

Dolowitz

Marsh

(1996) Who learns what from whom: A review of the policy transfer literature. Political Studies XLIV: 343–357.

16.

European Commission (2011) Structural Change in Research Institutions: Enhancing Excellence, Gender Equality and Efficiency in Research and Innovation. Brussels: European Commission.

17.

European Commission (2012) She Figures 2012. Statistics and Indicators on Gender Equality in Science. Brussels: European Commission.

18.

Exadaktylos

Radaelli

(eds) (2012) Research Design in European Studies: Establishing Causality in Europeanization. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

19.

Fraisse

(2008) Le gender mainstreaming, vrai en théorie, faux en practique? Cahiers du Genre 44: 17–26.

20.

Garforth

Kerr

(2009) Constructing careers, creating communities: Findings of the UK KNOWING research on knowledge, institutions and gender. University of Leeds.

21.

Hafner-Burton

Pollack

(2009) Mainstreaming gender in the European Union: Getting the incentives right. Comparative European Politics 7(1): 114–138.

22.

Hankivski

(2008) Gender mainstreaming in Canada and Australia: A comparative analysis. Policy and Society 27: 69–81.

23.

Haussman

Sawer

Vickers

(eds) (2010) Federalism, Feminism and Multi-level Governance. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.

24.

Idil

(2008) The European employment strategy and the Europeanization of gender equality in employment. In: Beveridge

Velluti

(eds) Gender and the Open Method of Coordination. Farnham: Ashgate.

25.

Kantola

(2010) Gender and the European Union. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

26.

Krizsán

Popa

(2010) Europeanization in making policies against domestic violence in Central and Eastern Europe. Social Politics 17(3): 379–406.

27.

Krook

Mackay

(eds) (2011) Gender, Politics and Institutions: Towards a Feminist Institutionalism. New York: Palgrave.

28.

Ladrech

(2010) Europeanization and National Politics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

29.

Liebert

(ed.) (2003) Gendering Europeanisation. Brussels: P.I.E. Peter Lang.

30.

Linos

(2003) Are socialists a woman’s best friend? Equality policies in the Spanish regions. Journal of European Public Policy 10(3): 438–462.

31.

Lombardo

(2004) La europeización de la política española de igualdad de género. Valencia: Tirant lo Blanch.

32.

Lombardo

Forest

(eds) (2012) The Europeanization of Gender Equality Policies: A Sociological and Discursive Approach. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

33.

Máiz

Caamaño

Azpitarte

(2010) The hidden counterpoint of Spanish federalism: Recentralization and resymmetrization in Spain. Regional and Federal Studies 20(1): 63–82.

34.

Marcheti

Raudma

(2010) Stocktaking 10 Years of ‘Women in Science’ Policy by the European Commission 1999–2009. Brussels: European Commission.

35.

Mergaert

(2012) The reality of gender mainstreaming implementation: The case of the EU research policy. Doctoral Thesis, Radboud University Nijmegen.

36.

Mergaert

Lombardo

(2014) Resistance to implementing gender mainstreaming in EU research policy. European Integration Online Papers 18(1): 1–21. Available at: eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/2014–005a.htm.

37.

Moreno

(2008) La federalización de España. Poder político y territorio. Madrid: Siglo XXI.

38.

Moser

(2005) Has gender mainstreaming failed? International Feminist Journal of Politics 7(4): 576–590.

39.

Ortbals

Rincker

Montoya

(2011) Politics close to home: The impact of meso-level institutions on women in politics. Publius: The Journal of Federalism 42(1): 78–107.

40.

Outshoorn

Kantola

(eds) (2007) Changing State Feminism. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

41.

Perrons

(2005) Gender mainstreaming and gender equality in the new (market) economy: An analysis of contradictions. Social Politics 12(3): 389–411.

42.

Probert

(2005) ‘I just couldn’t fit in’: Gender and unequal outcomes in academic careers. Gender, Work and Organization 12(1): 50–72.

43.

Radaelli

(2003) The Europeanization of public policy. In: Featherstone

Radaelli

(eds) The Politics of Europeanization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

44.

Radaelli

Pasquier

(2008) Conceptual issues. In: Graziano

Vink

(eds) Europeanization: New Research Agendas. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

45.

Rees

(2007) Pushing the gender equality agenda forward in the European Union. In: Danowitz

(ed.) Women, Universities and Change. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

46.

Schmidt

(2005) Gender Mainstreaming – An Innovation in Europe? The Institutionalisation of Gender Mainstreaming in the European Commission. Leverkusen and Opladen: Barbara Budrich.

47.

Squires

(2007) The New Politics of Gender Equality. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

48.

Valiente

(2003) Pushing for equality reforms: The European Union and gender discourse in post-authoritarian Spain. In: Liebert

(ed.) Gendering Europeanisation. Brussels: P.I.E. Peter Lang.

49.

Vickers

(2011) Gender and state architectures: The impact of governance structures on women’s politics. Politics and Gender 7(2): 254–262.

50.

Vickers

(2013) Is federalism gendered? Incorporating gender into studies of federalism. Publius: The Journal of Federalism 43(1): 1–23.

51.

Woll

Jacquot

(2010) Using Europe: Strategic action in multi-level politics. Comparative European Politics 8(1): 110–126.