Closing the Gender Gap: Act Now

Style

The slim 34-page 1991 report is essentially a manifesto with strong calls to action. Each short section concludes with a set of unequivocal ‘Directions for Action’ such as the following:

The 2012 report is over 10 times longer, containing comparative data, case studies, research findings, and the results of economic modeling. In this regard, it conforms to the familiar style of OECD documents, the hallmarks of which are detailed analysis and comprehensive presentation of evidence. Instead of ‘Directions for Action’, each chapter concludes with ‘Key Policy Messages’, which, although more detailed, are typically less ambitious and compelling than the 1991 directions.

For example, in the 2012 report, the key policy message dealing with the transition between different forms of employment is to

Promote a more gender-equal use of flexible work practices that reconcile work and family life and which fit into career patterns. For example, promote a better transition to full-time, permanent, better paid jobs and extend affordable childcare opportunities so as to enhance continuous employment opportunities. (p. 173)

In the 1991 report, the direction for action on the same topic was to

Enhance choice and mobility between non-standard and standard employment. (p. 25)

Structuring argument

The basic argument in the 1991 Shaping Structural Change is more radical than its moderate-sounding name suggests. It is that the ‘social contract’ defining the current division of family/household and labour market roles is out of step with people’s lives and should be revised, to the benefit of both women and men (as well as society). The words of the Expert Group’s Chair, Francis Blanchard, in the letter of transmittal published with the report are interesting:

It is my personal belief that we are heading towards a different society, a new society.

As a consequence, the 1991 report argues consistently for ‘systemic change’, noting the ‘limited impact’ of previous antidiscrimination and equal opportunity policies.

By contrast, in 2012, Closing the Gender Gap, as the name implies, is framed by the discursive structure of a reform process that simply needs to continue. The report argues that although many countries have made substantial progress toward gender equality, ‘the glass is still only “half-full”’.

Although in the executive summary it is stated that tackling the complex causes of gender inequality means ‘changing the way our societies and economies function’, elsewhere the language is tentative. The report exhorts stakeholders to find ways for men and women to make work and life choices that ‘suit them’, to ‘change attitudes’, to research ‘solutions’, to collect ‘solid and reliable data’, and to ‘raise public awareness’ about barriers to change.

And the transformative theme evident in 1991 is weaker two decades later. The 1991 report states baldly, ‘Diversity is an asset in a culturally varied and competitive world’ (p. 26). It consistently emphasizes that policy should acknowledge and support the full range of market and nonmarket activities important to an ‘active society’.

Government’s role is to prevent alternatives to full-time paid employment becoming poverty traps for women. In other words, it is not just about women catching up to men (closing the gap), but about more pluralistic choices being possible for men and women. Instead, the 2012 report focuses heavily on barriers to women gaining equality with men in employment opportunities, pay, income protection, and decision-making – implying that equality involves women taking up a single and inevitably masculine model of life, work, and career.

The government ‘gender agenda’ in Australia

Does this shift reflect a general shift within the liberal political culture of the OECD member states?

From the Australian perspective, a few observations are relevant. In the two decades between the reports, the 1995 Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action of the Fourth World Conference for Women put ‘mainstreaming’ - integrating policies for women into the mainstream - at the centre of delivering progress for women.

Unfortunately, the shift in approach was not accompanied by the necessary empowerment of women and training of government agencies in how to integrate women into policy development, program delivery, and evaluation. The 1991 focus on empowering women to play a greater role in shaping the future was lost to a great extent in the mainstreaming approach.

As importantly, gender mainstreaming occurred at the same time as neoliberal reforms were increasing inequality, diminishing social welfare protections, and reducing the size and role of the state in society.

Two impacts were notable from a gender perspective. First, the weakening of unions and reduction in the scope of Australia’s centralized industrial relations system have affected women workers more than men because women are concentrated in jobs defined as low-skilled and are more likely to work nonstandard hours. In a workforce that is highly sex segregated in terms of occupation and industry, it is therefore not surprising that the pay equity gap in Australia has scarcely altered over the last two decades. ²

Second, governments of all persuasions today have a less ambitious and more limited view of their role in effecting social change than in the past. This philosophy is reflected in the agendas of offices or bureaus for women, which in the 2000s tend to be smaller than in the past and concentrate on specific projects and initiatives, and performance measurement rather than pursuing systemic reform across the sweep of portfolio areas.

As noted earlier, the clear, powerful messages of the 1991 report were useful to those representing women’s interests within government, and the document was therefore influential. How useful will this new OECD report be to government, industry, and nongovernment advocates for women’s interests in Australia?

Much has changed when we consider the context in which each report is read. The policy focus has changed from structural adjustment and globalization to fiscal reform in the context of austerity and limited government. ³ In Australia, there are now stronger mechanisms for cooperation between the national and state governments.

Reports and databases that compare country performance on gender equity and other social indicators have proliferated. The World Economic Forum Global Gender Gap Index (begun in 2006) and the more recent United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Gender Inequality Index and European Union Gender Equality Index measure similar indicators to those used by the OECD. In Australia, the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) reports on a set of national gender indicators every six months, the intergovernmental Council of Australian Governments (COAG) produces a gender-disaggregated report on national performance indicators, and some states produce occasional or annual reports on women’s status and experiences. ⁴

Governments have different degrees of sensitivity to international forums, rankings, and reports, however. Rankings are of concern to governments when they highlight the need for improvement in matters high on the national political agenda or when they can be effectively used by stakeholder groups to lobby for change.

Closing the Gender Gap: Act Now is attuned to the times. In a context where women’s interests are often not articulated or considered, it makes strong evidence-based arguments for their consideration. The Australian Department of Foreign Affairs website notes that

The OECD . . . relies on persuasion and consensus, and derives its relevance to member countries from its high quality analysis.

Recording gender inequality and arguing for stronger action in OECD countries is highly valuable work in this tradition. The breadth of the report and the number of topics for which research evidence is reviewed (from fathers’ reading habits to the effect of gender-diverse boards on company performance) are of great value. But perhaps we also need to revive the more radical and transformative spirit of the OECD’s 1991 document, and keep our eyes on the development of the ‘new society’ that Francis Blanchard predicted.