More and better public money for gender equality worldwide
Global Cooperation Update
By Paty Alemañy, Programme Officer, Global Nation & Fionna Smyth, Director of Influence and Growth, Development Initiatives
As delegates convene at the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) in 2024, Global Nation and Development Initiatives, along with many other civil society organisations, are exploring how financing reforms rooted in the emerging concept of Global Public Investment (GPI) can catalyse larger funds that are both inclusive and effective in advancing gender equality.
To achieve meaningful progress towards financing gender equality, we need to reevaluate current funding mechanisms, prioritise women’s representation in decision-making processes, recognise the importance of public money, and embrace diverse perspectives in global cooperation efforts. Adopting gender-responsive public expenditure management (GRPEM) practices can also help ensure that public funds are allocated and managed to effectively address gender inequalities.
Evolving challenges and revisiting strategies towards gender equality
Women’s activism, energised by the 1995 Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, has played a pivotal role in reshaping the discourse surrounding international cooperation. Rooted in the principles of decolonization, it left an indelible mark, laying the groundwork for a more inclusive and equitable approach to international development.
However, traditional development models have impacted feminist and other progressive movements across the Global South, often resulting in the depoliticization of activism and more competition for ever dwindling funds. The emphasis on the economic rewards of gender equality means policies and programs are framed in terms of their potential economic benefits rather than intrinsic rights.
At the current rate of progress, the UN and UNDESA estimate that it will take up to 286 years to close gaps in legal protection and remove discriminatory laws, 140 years for women to be represented equally in positions of power and leadership in the workplace, and 47 years to achieve equal representation in national parliaments, thus highlighting the urgent need for governance parity across all sectors.
These numbers highlight the continued importance of giving greater priority and targeted funding to initiatives promoting gender equality. But more dollars alone are not sufficient. It's also about the quality of funding. While strides have been made in incorporating gender equality into wider development strategies, more focused efforts are necessary to ensure that gender equality receives the necessary attention.
The feminist movement has made clear that simply addressing immediate concerns is insufficient in tackling multifaceted challenges, particularly in light of the unsustainability of a patriarchal production system. By prioritising long-term strategies and sustainable investments, we can work towards creating lasting change and resilience in communities affected by ongoing conflicts and systemic injustices. This is precisely what the Global Public Investment approach brings to the table.
More funding for gender equality
Amidst a pandemic which has disproportionately impacted women, an environmental crisis which poses dire risks to humanity, and humanitarian crises, the redistribution of international public funds becomes increasingly important, not only for eradicating inequalities but also for achieving Human Rights.
Gender-related development financing has expanded due to the advocacy efforts of the global women's movement accounting 43% of bilateral ODA in 2021-2022. However, only 4% of bilateral allocable ODA was dedicated to programs with gender equality as the principal objective and as highlighted by Oxfam research, on average the gender-mainstreamed projects scored much lower (32 percent) than the projects whose main objective was gender equality (52 percent). The allocation of ODA specifically targeting the end of violence against women and girls remains alarmingly low, averaging USD 563 million per year in 2021-2022. A mere 1% of development aid and foundation grants directly reach women's rights and feminist organizations and only 0.4% of all ODA is designated for gender-related initiatives, according to the Association for Women’s Rights in Development (AWID).
When countries face debt crises and resort to implementing austerity measures, the negative consequences for gender equality are exacerbated.
Decolonisation and representation
“All dollars are not equal. It is not just the quantity of money that matters; the type and quality of money are just as important.” - Jayati Ghosh & Jonathan Glennie, Time for GPI
There is evidence that when women are present, they prioritise issues which affect the whole community. When today’s international financial architecture was established in Bretton Woods discussions largely omitted considerations of gender and racial equality. With poor representation at the negotiating table, marginalized voices were silenced, perpetuating systemic inequalities.
Prioritizing women’s representation from the outset of discussions serves as a corrective measure to past oversights. By actively involving diverse perspectives, we can rectify historical injustices and lay the foundation for more inclusive and equitable frameworks, ensuring that the mistakes of the past are not repeated.. While representation is just the first step towards equality and inclusivity, it remains crucial, especially given the historical context.
Moving away from GDP as only indicator
“Global Public Investment is needed in basic social services and as social protection pillars. The existing instruments, such as traditional official development assistance rules attached to GDP-per-capita criteria, are outdated. (...) As care emerges as a new pillar of social protection and the welfare state – a new sector to transform the international and sexual division of labor – GPI can contribute to its centrality, connecting innovative instruments with traditional ones.” - Cecilia Alemany, Time for GPI
As raised repeatedly by feminist movements, the problem with using GDP as the primary allocation indicator lies in its failure to account for activities that occur outside the market or are considered non-productive. GDP does not put a value on essential tasks like care work, community service, subsistence farming, and maintaining local knowledge and resources.
Additionally, GDP is biased against self-consumption, because if individuals consume what they produce it is not considered production. Instead, GDP counts employment in wage labour, even under exploitative conditions, as contributing to economic growth. This narrow focus of GDP measurement overlooks the extensive unpaid care economy, predominantly carried out by women, and leads to an incomplete understanding of economic activity and well-being.
The concerns voiced by southern countries and women's rights organizations regarding the limitations of GDP are also echoed in the Global Public Investment approach which implies a significant shift in international cooperation reflecting the 2030 agenda and a recognition of the multifaceted nature of development beyond GDP measurements.
Conclusion: Linking the CSW with ongoing development finance debates
In sum, to advance towards a better way to finance gender equality, linking ongoing CSW discussions and key multilateral events this year and next, two critical steps emerge.
First, there is a pressing need to re-evaluate the current state of development financing for gender equality. Despite significant advocacy efforts, only a minimal percentage of bilateral ODA is dedicated to programs with gender equality as the principal objective. We need better, bigger, and more equitably distributed funding to address current inequalities.
Secondly, enhancing governance and ensuring equal participation in decision-making processes are paramount. Historically, discussions surrounding international financial architecture have largely overlooked gender and racial based discrimination, perpetuating systemic inequalities. By ensuring inclusive representation at the onset of discussions, we have the opportunity to address past oversights and set the groundwork for the development of more equitable and inclusive frameworks.
Considering the challenges we are facing, the broken promises, and the dire consequences many in the Global South must bear due to decisions made without them, we need a renewed political commitment to genuine international cooperation and power redistribution, and a fundamental shift from a charity-based system to one firmly grounded in principles of women’s equality and Human Rights.