institutionalizing intersectionality in central and eastern...
TRANSCRIPT
Chapter 7: Krizsan and Zentai
Forthcoming in July 2012 in Institutionalising Intersectionality? The Changing Nature of European Equality Regimes. Eds. Andrea Krizsan, Hege Skjeie and Judith Squires. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.
Institutionalizing Intersectionality in Central and Eastern Europe: Hungary, Poland, Romania, and Slovenia.
Andrea Krizsan and Violetta Zentai1
Countries of Central and Eastern Europe (CEEC) emerged in the early 1990s from a half-
century-long state socialist emancipation project (Gal and Kligman 2000, Fodor 2004) to
join global processes of human rights and gender equality norms diffusion. This brought
about a shift from the total absence of formal equality policies towards an increasing
recognition, formalization, and institutionalization of equality concerns within a
relatively short period of time. Although most comparative research has conspicuously
failed to document them in the region, gender equality institutions started to emerge from
the mid-1990s.
The European Union (EU) accession process presented a new and strong
incentive structure for countries in this region from the early 2000s onwards, pushing
them towards amending their existent, often embryonic, or weak equality institutional
structures. The accession negotiations of CEECs coincided with the emergence of new
priorities in the EU equality agenda: namely a steady move away from policy approaches
that deal with gender inequality separately towards approaches to address multiple
inequalities in integrated ways (Lombardo and Verloo 2009, Squires 2008, EC 2007).
This European shift has been especially manifest in institutional terms, where equality 1 This paper is based on research reports written within the framework of the FP6 comparative project Quality in Gender+ Equality Policies in Europe (QUING) – available online: http://www.quing.eu. We are very grateful to all researchers from Central and Eastern Europe for their enormous and extremely valuable work. In alphabetical order, they are: Magda Dabrowska, Tamas Dombos, Majda Hrzenjak, Vlasta Jalusic, Erika Kispeter, Roman Kuhar, Marja Kuzmanic, Zuzana Ocenasova, Raluca Popa, Stanislava Repar, Elena Stoykova, Melinda Szabo. Raluca Popa has contributed substantially to research for this paper and earlier writings on the topic. We owe her special recognition.
2
bodies dealing with multiple inequalities came to replace or to complement previous
inequality-specific institutions. Changes were accompanied by expectations that an
integrated equality policy and institutional approach would be more favorable to deal
with multiple, intersecting inequalities, and thus would better capture the complexity of
inequalities and disadvantages (Fredman 2005, Squires 2008, EC 2007).
Equality institutional changes in CEECs during the last decade should be
discussed as being strongly embedded in both the post-communist legacy as well as the
process of EU accession. While this common context might indicate a one-size-fits-all
adoption of EU equality norms across the region, this chapter aims to show the variations
in patterns of institutionalizing equality and their different engagement with
intersectionality. Differences will be explained by the legacies of institutions social
movements from the late communist and post-communist period, the role of political and
discursive opportunity structures in shaping policy developments, and the agency of
different non-state and international actors in catalyzing change.
The aim of this chapter is to analyze what equality policy changes across the
European Union (see Introduction, and chapter on the EU in this volume) mean for
gender equality institutions in CEECs and what are their implications for the engagement
of those institutions with multiple inequalities and particularly intersectional inequality.
The chapter looks at four countries that show markedly different trajectories of
development in institutionalizing equality: Hungary, Poland, Romania, and Slovenia.
The scarce literature on the emergence of gender equality policies and related
policy processes in CEECs focuses extensively on the common legacy and general trends
across countries of the region (Gal and Kligman 2000, Sloat 2004, Beveridge 2009,
Saxonberg 2000, Ghodsee 2004). Studies have pointed out the general weakness of civil
society (Howard 2002) and the problematic character of the term feminism within it
(Roth 2007), weak political representation of women (Saxonberg 2000, Sloat 2004), and
serious implementation deficits for policies in place (Beveridge 2009, Falkner, Treib, and
Holzleithner 2008). More than a decade after the fall of the Berlin Wall, studies started to
refocus arguments and marshal evidence to show variation among countries of the region
3
(Johnson 2007, Glass and Fodor 2007, Selewa and Saxonberg 2007, Spehar 2007). While
the legacy of state socialism is recognized by most of these studies, differences are
pointed out in how these legacies are transposed into the present and also in a
composition of factors that lead to divergent policy outcomes across countries of the
region. Differences are explained by role, strength, and strategies of feminist civil society
(Spehar 2007); economic and institutional traditions (Saxonberg and Selewa 2007); or an
interplay of factors including availability of formal political channels, timing of civil
society mobilization, and prioritization of inequality considerations that drives
mobilization (Johnson 2007, Glass and Fodor 2007). In addition, the influence of
transnational feminist cooperation and international organizations on domestic
mobilization is highlighted as crucial for understanding gender policy development in the
region (Johnson 2007).
We argue that EU-wide equality policy processes that brought a move from a
gender-only focus towards a focus on multiple inequalities had a differential impact on
equality institutional architectures in these countries. Along the framework of this
volume, equality institutional architectures are understood to be structured along three
different institutional pillars: political-administrative equality bodies, anti-discrimination
bodies, and consultative bodies. These pillars serve different functions in promoting
complex gender equality approaches and are seen to have the potential to work
complementarily towards promoting complex equality approaches (Introduction to this
volume, Krizsan 2011). While the four countries in this analysis witnessed an increasing
emphasis on equality policies covering multiple inequalities, due to a variety of historical,
structural, and discursive reasons different institutional responses emerged in the four
countries. Some countries create multiple equality institutional layers where some layers
remain gender-specific and others are integrated; other countries maintain relatively
strong gender equality priorities; yet others replace gender-specific institutions with
institutions bringing an integrated approach to multiple inequalities. The many different
ways that different types of equality institutions engage with intersectionality has been
noted elsewhere (Krizsan 2011). In the CEE context this chapter also points to the
relevance of interaction between different types of equality institutions and civil society
and international actors for successfully engaging with an intersectional agenda.
4
The chapter relies on the methodology and data generated by the European
comparative project, Quality in Gender+ Equality Policies (QUING). We use a mixed
neo-institutionalist approach, by relying both on tools of historical institutionalism
(Waylen 2009) as well as those of discursive institutionalism (Schmidt 2010). The
chapter aims to explain institutional change by a combination of discursive, interactional,
structural, and historical elements. Data collection for the analysis closed in early 2010,
which leaves some of the most recent institutional changes in the region outside the scope
of analysis.
The chapter first analyzes the institutional and discursive context in the selected
countries, next discusses patterns of institutional change coming with the EU accession
and then explains variation among them. The final section looks at different modes of
institutional engagement with intersectionality in the context of the different emergent
institutional structures of the four countries.
Context and Legacy
The countries of Central and Eastern Europe witnessed two main waves of
institutionalization in equality policy (Krizsan 2011). The first wave brought institutions
that placed a specific focus on different inequalities, particularly gender inequality, and
took place mainly within the context of global UN processes for creating women’s policy
agencies (Goetz 2005, Rai 2003). The second wave of institutionalization took place
within the context of EU accession negotiations in the mid-2000s and brought about a
tendency towards integrated institutionalization of different inequalities. Equality
institutions created during the first wave of institutionalization, embedded in political and
discursive opportunity structures (Ferree et al 2002) of the given country, served as
important legacies influencing the direction of change taking place within the second,
more recent wave of institutionalization. Early equality institutional developments and
their embeddedness in state structures, the strength of feminist civil society and its
relation to early equality institutions, and the discursive place of gender relative to other
5
inequality categories are the three major contextual factors comparatively analyzed in this
section.
Institutional developments
An analysis of institutional and discursive factors points to a variety of early
institutionalization trajectories in the four analyzed countries. In our analysis we look at
factors referred to by the literature (Stetson and Mazur 1995) such as founding, framing,
and location within the government and resources, and also look at embeddedness of
gender equality institutions within the state and in relation to feminist civil society,
particularly their stability and legitimacy.
In Hungary, the Beijing World Conference (1995) provided the momentum for
launching the first gender equality policy strategy and the first gender equality
institutions. The Secretariat for Women’s Policy2 was established under a left-liberal
government in 1995 within the Ministry of Labor to coordinate and monitor performance
along the lines of the Beijing Platform for Action (Krizsan and Zentai 2006). In place
since then, the Hungarian gender equality machinery has gone through a number of
changes primarily tied to realignments in government or in relevant ministries. Its place
and mission has been reframed repeatedly in ways that place it closer either to a gender
equality framing as employment and social issue (during left-wing governments of 1995–
98, 2002–2010) or to a women’s policy framing tied to family policy (under conservative
governments 1998–2002), or even to an international compliance and European
integration framing (2004). The Hungarian gender equality machinery has always been
at a relatively low level in the hierarchy, with a modest budget and personal resources.
Changes in framing have also impacted on status and resources: the machinery has
repeatedly moved up and down the hierarchy, with its resources and personnel cut
depending on the orientation of the government (Krizsan and Zentai 2006).
2 Later renamed Equal Opportunity Secretariat.
6
In Poland, institutionalization of gender equality started with the establishment of
the Plenipotentiary for Women in 1986, under the influence of the Nairobi Third World
Conference (Nowakovska 2000). Created with relative autonomy and a high rank within
government, it acted to implement the Nairobi Forward Looking Strategies across
different government departments. The end of the state socialist period brought many
challenges to the Plenipotentiary, coming mainly with the strengthening role of the
Catholic Church and its links to major political forces in Poland (Saxonberg and Selewa
2006). As Nowakovska points out, the name, power, and position of the Plenipotentiary
has been through many changes related to political turning points (2000). Name changes
reflected changes in framing, too, from gender equality framing that engaged with such
strongly controversial issues in Poland as abortion and reproductive rights (1991–1992),
to framing that focused on the labor market and women’s entrepreneurship issues (1997–
2001), to framings that were indifferent or oppositional to gender equality such as youth
(1992–1995) or traditional family framing (1997–1999) (Dabrowska 2007). The activity
of the Plenipotentiary was limited by budget and resource constraints, and it had an
advisory role rather than direct influence on policymaking (Nowakovska 2000).
Governmental engagement with gender equality in Romania can also be dated
back to the Beijing Conference. A Department for Strategies for Promoting Women’s
Rights and Family Policies was created within the Ministry of Labor and Social Welfare
in 1996 largely to fulfill international obligations. In 1998 the Department was lowered in
the ministerial hierarchy and was replaced in 1999 by a Division for Equal Opportunities.
Due to restructuring of the ministries, the Division was split into two units and anchored
at two different line ministries (labor, family and health, respectively), and finally the
remnants of the unit for equal opportunities were fully erased from the ministerial
structures in 2003. With the decline of the Division for Equal Opportunity, an Inter-
ministerial Consultative Commission on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men,
established in 1999, functioned as the only gender equality body in the governmental
structure until 2005 (Popa 2008, OSI 2005). The Commission consulted NGO
representatives and in so doing it fulfilled the functions of a consultative body.
7
Socialist Yugoslavia, as an exception among the four countries, tolerated a vibrant
civil society, including feminist, gay and lesbian, peace, and environmental groups. After
the fall of the Berlin Wall and the dismantling of Yugoslavia, some of these groups
remained active and started mobilization. One of them, called Women for Politics, with
roots in the women’s movements in the 1980s, was the driving force in setting the first
pillars of the gender equality machinery in the new Slovenian state (Kuhar et al. 2007,
Humer 2007, Neubauer 2004). First, a Parliamentary Commission for Women’s Politics
was formed (1991) composed by members of parliament with regular engagement with
civil society representatives. In 1992 the Office for Women’s Politics was set up acting as
gender equality machinery placed in the prime minister’s office with the tasks of assisting
government policymaking, initiating legislative changes, preparing reports and
disseminating gender equality relevant information. While in the second half of the
1990s, the parliamentary committee was slowly dismantled, the Office for Women
Politics remained the main gender equality body within the state, and its status and
prerogatives remained unquestioned (Neubauer 2004). The position of the Office was
strongly reaffirmed in 2003 when the zeal for state administration reform nearly
submerged it in the Ministry for Work, Family, and Social Affairs. The Slovenian
delegation to the CEDAW Committee reported on the proposed institutional change
endangering the autonomy of the Office. In its concluding comments, the Committee
proposed to reconsider the plan, which resulted in a decision to maintain the Office as an
autonomous coordinating entity of the government (Neubauer 2004).
Gender equality machineries that resulted from this wave of institutionalization
show a lot of variations, yet a few common denominators can be discerned. UN influence
strongly determined the course of development in all countries except Slovenia where
civil society acted as a catalyst. An important commonality of these institutions was their
overall mandate that targeted women and gender inequality specifically, and focused on
policy implementation and representation of the gender equality perspective within the
government. These tasks were mainly enacted in order to comply with international
obligations (reporting to CEDAW, Beijing, early preparation for EU requirements).
Another important commonality that can be noted in all countries, with the exception of
Slovenia, is that overall genuine gender equality work remained marginal on the political
8
agenda. Confirming research findings on the wider CEE region (Krizsan 2011) in three of
the four countries analyzed here, gender equality machineries remained extremely
exposed to political shifts. The number of name changes, shifts in location between and
within ministries, and frame alterations of institutional missions illustrate this instability
most notably in Poland and Hungary.
Relation with civil society
Literature on women’s policy machineries (Rai 2003) and state feminism (Stetson and
Mazur 1995, Kantola and Outshoorn 2007, McBride and Mazur 2010) discuss their
objectives and success in terms of their relationship to women’s and feminist movements.
Movements can be seen to matter not only in the creation of institutions but also to their
continued accountability and legitimacy (Stetson and Mazur 1995), and their
embeddedness and stability within the state. Conversely, the main objective of women’s
policy machineries is to give political voice to women’s movements and contribute to the
substantive representation or women (Goetz 2003). The weak presence of women’s
movements, and their low mobilization and impact on policy distinguish equality
institutionalization processes in CEECs from most Western post-industrialized states.
Consultative equality bodies formalizing access to the state become particularly
important in this context (Krizsan 2011). Based on the limited primary research in the
field, this section looks into the relationship between women’s movement and gender
equality machineries in the four countries.
In the countries examined weak and fragmented NGO sectors operate with
uneven access to equality institutional structures, Patterns of participation in and
communication with equality institutions largely depend on political cycles.
Hungary has a relatively small autonomous feminist NGO sector, mainly
concentrated in the capital. Overall, its voice and standing in gender policy development
9
has been relatively weak and it had limited access to policymaking.3 The machinery and
the feminist civil society always had a controversial relationship: the machinery was
rarely seen by feminist groups to channel voice and representation of women into
policymaking. Questions of legitimacy and accountability were constantly on the agenda
regardless of right- or left-wing governments (Krizsan and Zentai 2006). Yet there were
periods of more intensive cooperation. One of the main fora for such cooperation was the
Council for Women’s Affairs established in 1999 as a consultative body. Given its close
link to the gender equality machinery, the Council has also been through changes and
inoperative periods throughout its existence. Formed by representatives of ministries,
national women’s associations, NGOs, and gender equality experts, competences of the
Council are only consultative and therefore weak. It nevertheless provides a forum for
access and consultation with the state for autonomous NGOs.
The Polish feminist movement has been relatively large and politically active in
lobbying for the improvement of gender equality policy (Dabrowska 2007), but also
exceptionally fragmented along framing issues and strategic questions. This often led to
the absence of concerted action in Poland, resulting in difficulties for example in the
creation of umbrella organizations (Dabrowska 2007, Fuchs 2007). The Polish
Plenipotentiary had always had an ambiguous relation with feminist groups. While its
operation was largely disconnected from the movement until 1995, post-Beijing
developments brought some improvements. The Standing Forum of Co-operation
between NGOs and Government Plenipotentiary for Family and Women was established
and operated from 1996 (Nowakovska 2000). The relation between the Plenipotentiary
and its consultative body proved extremely vulnerable to political cycles, which brought
radical shifts in framing, changes in NGO membership, and also inoperative periods for
the Forum. From 1991 the Parliamentary Group of Women played the role of an ally
within formal politics to the women’s movement, often to the extent to enter debates with
the Plenipotentiary in pursuing gender equality issues (Nowakovska 2004, Dabrowska
2007). Communication between the Parliamentary Group and the NGO Forum was
3 Domestic violence is an important exception, an issue where NGOs were the main driving force of policy development (Krizsan and Popa 2010). See Fabian (2009) for a detailed analysis of emergence, organization, resources, and changes of the Hungarian women’s movement.
10
regular throughout the active years of the Forum, pointing out that the parliamentary
group may be seen as a more state feminist formation as the Plenipotentiary’s Office.
In Romania, women’s NGOs were weaker and more fragmented in terms of
policy advocacy than the ones in Poland and Slovenia. In the 1990s, international
funding played a major role in the development of women’s organizations.
Notwithstanding, these organizations took a strong anti-political position inspired by the
former dissident approach and did not strive to engage in political and policy debates. It
is argued that in the 1990s women’s NGOs in Romania lacked the power to influence
policymakers: ‘women’s NGOs are busy helping women but not emancipating them’
(Grünberg 2000: 314). From the early 2000s on, NGOs became somewhat more active in
policy processes particularly regarding violence against women (Popa 2007). The above
mentioned gender equality consultative Commission that was created in 1999 provided
formalized access to gender equality groups to policymaking. However critical
evaluations highlight that the Commission channeled civil society voices into policies
with modest results (Popa 2007).
Slovenia, unlike the other three countries, had an active feminist NGO movement
during socialism. Influenced by transnational activism, Slovenian NGOs successfully
lobbied for the creation of the gender equality machinery in the early 1990s already
before the landmark Beijing Conference (Humer 2007). The Women for Politics group,
established in 1991, but with roots in the new women’s movement in the 1980s, was
instrumental in fostering the construction of the post-socialist gender equality machinery.
The creation of the Office for Women’s Politics demonstrated a conceptual shift in the
feminist movement’s position: from the rejection of engaging with the state to the
willingness to contribute to the policymaking processes. Access of the movement to the
machinery and their correspondent relationship was good all along, to the extent that
some scholars discuss the Office for Women Politics interchangeably with the Slovenian
women’s movement (Spehar 2007).
Relative place of gender inequality
11
Another contextual factor that may have influenced recent equality institutionalization
processes and the location of gender equality within them is the discursive place of
gender equality in relation to other inequalities (Glass and Fodor 2007, Ferree et al.
2002), particulary the five other inequality grounds covered by European policy. Only in
one out of the four countries is gender equality a privileged inequality ground (Slovenia),
in two of them ethnicity drives the agenda of equality thinking (Hungary and Romania),
with Poland being driven by an anti-gender equality agenda (Saxonberg and Selewa
2007).
A country with important Hungarian groups outside its borders and also an
important Roma minority within, Hungary has always prioritized protection on grounds
of ethnicity more than gender or disability (Dombos et al. 2008). Equality for ethnic
minorities has been driving development, both as a foreign policy issue, and following
increasing Roma mobilization, also as an ethnic discrimination issue (Krizsan 2000). An
Ombudsman for the Rights of Ethnic Minorities, the predecessor of the later anti-
discrimination body, has been in place since 1995 and had a relatively important role in
fighting ethnic discrimination and in shaping the equality policy agenda. Disability is also
an issue with a strong presence: a model Law on Equal Opportunity for Disabled Persons
was passed already in 1998, with disability institutions, including governmental
machinery and a consultative body, in place from the end of the 1990s. Competition for
recognition and resources between the three inequalities is often manifest in Hungary;
however, as a pattern gender never drives the agenda (Dombos et al. 2008).
In Poland there is no strong competitor to gender among other inequality
categories. The very early institutionalization (1986) shows the good initial position from
which gender policy started off in the late socialist period. Ethnically, Poland is a
relatively homogenous country; ethnic claims have never meant a challenge to gender.
The most important contestation to gender came from active anti-gender equality claims
conveyed by the Catholic Church acting in coalition with major conservative political
12
forces in defining policies and shaping prevalent social norms (Saxonberg and Selewa
2007).
In Romania the equality policy agenda was also shaped mainly by ethnicity. The
large and politically influential Hungarian minority, claiming collective rights from the
very early post-communist years, and a large Roma minority facing extreme forms of
discrimination set the agenda for discussing inequalities and discrimination in Romania.
Paramount international critique on criminalized homosexuality evolved as an important
external force (Krizsan and Popa 2010). Within this context Romanian policymaking
aimed to neutralize collective minority rights claims and to pursue the internationally
prioritized issues of Roma inclusion and protection of sexual orientation by promoting an
equal individual rights agenda. Gender remained mostly in the background and in the
shadow of political battles.
In Slovenia the equality policy agenda was driven by gender equality from the
very beginning. The legislative and the institutional framework of gender equality
advanced in Slovenia as a pioneer in post-socialist contexts in the 1990s. While some
argue that the CEDAW Convention and its reporting mechanisms represent major
reference points for gender equality thinking and institution building in Slovenia (Kuhar
et al. 2007), all interpretations agree in that the role of a relatively strong feminist
movement is key to explain the location and the authority of the gender equality policy
field in the state machinery (Humer 2007, Spehar 2007). The relative centrality of the
gender equality issue within the equality agenda has not been questioned in any form
until 2003 (Neubauer 2004).
13
Table 9: Legacy (up to 2000)
Integrated Semi-integrated
Separate- only gender
Separate: inequalities covered
No institution
Anti-discrimination body – up to 2000
Hu - ethnicity 1995 Ro, Sl, Pl
Political administrative body – up to 2000
Sl 1992 Pl 1986
Hu - gend. ethn.disab Ro – gend. ethn.
Consultative body - up to 2000
Pl Hu -ethn. gend. disab Ro – ethn. gend.
Sl
The analysis in this section showed that gender equality institutionalization started
by the mid-1990s in all four countries mostly upon impacts from the UN, with the
exception of Slovenia, where NGOs played a key role. Apart from Slovenia, the women’s
policy agencies developed troubled relationships with the women’s movements. These
bodies were neither seen to give voice to the feminist movement nor seen as
embodiments of state feminism in the region (Stetson Mazur 1995, OSI 2005); they
rather served as gatekeepers to international influence on gender. While the weak
relationship between the machinery and the movements in the three countries might have
legitimized the creation of alternative consultative mechanisms, these mechanisms have
been very vulnerable to political cycles themselves. Only Slovenia stood out as having
well-embedded, stable gender equality machinery genuinely connected to the women’s
movement. In sum, gender was a privileged inequality in Slovenia and Poland, while
ethnicity was a driving force for change in Hungary and Romania. The new millennium
finds these countries having gender equality arrangements of different strengths:
Romania with a very weak and relatively young gender equality consultative body,
Poland with a long standing yet overly controversial and politicized Plenipotentiary,
Hungary with a young and politically vulnerable architecture composed of a machinery
and a consultative council, none of them supported by their respective women’s
movements, and Slovenia with a long-standing and relatively embedded Office for
Women’s Politics with close ties to the movement.
14
Change
Trajectories of change
Countries in the region started accession negotiations with the European Union in the late
1990s and beginning of 2000s. Conditionality criteria of the accession, as shaped by the
evolving EU equality policy regime, met in different ways with the institutional and
discursive context of the four countries discussed above. This section aims to analyze
institutional changes in the context of the EU accession and post-accession, and explain
variation between countries with reference to factors discussed in the previous section.
In the early 2000s, EU member states faced important changes discussed by the
literature as institutional shift from gender equality to diversity (Squires 2008, Kantola
and Nousianen 2009, Kantola 2010). This chapter argues for the need to look at ongoing
equality policy changes while also noting institutional continuity. We identified two
kinds of institutional change trajectories in the countries analyzed: one emphasizing
continuity, the other emphasizing change. The two trajectories are: institutional layering
and institutional displacement. Institutional layering (Heijden 2011) implies that the
equality institutional architectures become increasingly complex. Political administrative
gender equality bodies and consultative bodies already in place are complemented with
new institutions serving new functions: with anti-discrimination bodies that cover all
inequalities under one umbrella. The other trajectory, institutional displacement implies a
more radical move from the earlier equality institutional model towards a new approach.
In this framework earlier equality institutional models addressing gender in its specific
terms are displaced by integrated equality institutions that cover multiple protected
inequality categories. Institutional displacement thus brings a new institutional setting
rather than amending the earlier one.
Hungary and Romania witnessed institutional layering. They both established
integrated anti-discrimination bodies complementarily to gender-specific political
administrative and consultative bodies already in place. In this model the two pillars of
the equality institutional architecture may be seen to work complementarily on promoting
gender equality: one pillar focusing primarily on an individualist, complaints-based equal
15
treatment approach, where gender is handled similarly to other inequalities, the other
pillar geared towards gender equality specifically, targeting by political and
administrative tools of positive action and gender mainstreaming the structural
components of inequality, and aiming to channel the collective voice of feminist civil
society into policymaking.
From the end of the 1990s in Hungary, increasing NGO and expert mobilization
targeted the creation of an efficient anti-discrimination policy. This mobilization
strengthened within the context of the EU accession process, but remained partly
independent from it (Krizsan 2009). Mobilization revolved primarily around
discrimination against Roma, and to a lesser extent around women, disabled persons, and
LGBT persons. While there was relative agreement among advocates about the need for
better anti-discrimination policy, and more efficient litigation of discrimination
complaints, debates revolved around the scope of these laws in terms of inequalities
covered. Three failed anti-discrimination bills submitted in 2000–2001 under a right-
wing government illustrate the contestation between the different approaches: one was on
racial discrimination, another one on all grounds of discrimination, and yet another one
on gender discrimination.
The comprehensive anti-discrimination act adopted soon after the emergence of a
new left-liberal government opted for an integrated approach with reference to EU trends
(Dombos et al. 2007). The act covers an open-ended list of seventeen inequalities, but
does not cover multiple discrimination. The law also created as of 2005 an independent
anti-discrimination body, the Equal Treatment Authority (ETA). This body has the
mandate to address complaints and monitor law enforcement. It is a relatively strong
equality body handling large number of discrimination cases, including gender. ETA’s
creation fueled contestation coming from ethnicity, but not from gender equality groups.
The reason was the overlap between the mandate of ETA and the Minority Ombudsman
overseeing anti-discrimination work regarding ethnicity since 1995. Ultimately, the
integrated anti-discrimination body handles all discrimination complaints, while the
Minority Ombudsman deals with complaints relating to structural forms of disadvantage
and group-based minority rights.
16
The Hungarian anti-discrimination body functions in the gender equality field in
parallel and complementarily to the political administrative gender equality body and the
consultative gender equality body that were previously in place. Their competences are
not overlapping as ETA focuses on discrimination complaints, while the political
administrative and consultative bodies work on specific gender policy development and
coordination. 2006 brought the reshuffling of the consultative body as well, upon
pressure coming from feminist NGOs, resulting in a Council for Gender Equality that
was more accountable to gender equality groups (Krizsan 2009).
The start of the EU accession process opened a new chapter in equality policy
development in Romania. A combination of left-wing political pressure (from 2000) and
EU influence was conducive to passing new comprehensive regulations in the field of
anti-discrimination (in 2000) and the filed of equal opportunities for men and women
(2001),4 as well as the creation of an integrated anti-discrimination body and the
revitalizing of the gender equality machinery (Popa 2007). From 1999 the Department for
the Protection of National Minorities worked in cooperation with NGOs on developing
anti-discrimination legislation. Developments thus were fostered by powerful internal
political forces as well, most importantly, by minority rights advocates and civil society
groups fighting against discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. The newly
passed anti-discrimination act covered fourteen inequality categories and also explicitly
mentioned multiple discrimination as a heightening condition. The Romanian anti-
discrimination body established in 2001, called the National Council for Combating
Discrimination (NCCD), is an independent body with mandate to investigate complaints
and assist victims of discrimination. It is a relatively strong and legitimate anti-
discrimination body with an increasing flow of cases (Popa 2008: 53). Experts involved
in its legislative and institutional birth recall that it was a compromise to proceed first
with integrated anti-discrimination work and then focus on specific groups (Popa 2008:
56).
4 First in the form of Executive Ordinances. Later also pushed through Parliament to become laws.
17
Two years after passing the Law on Equal Opportunities between Women and
Men (2002), in 2004, a new political administrative gender equality body, the National
Agency for Equal Opportunities between Women and Men, was also created in Romania.
The Agency was set up without having direct continuity with the gender equality
machinery established with the Beijing wave (Popa 2007) and it became the main actor of
gender equality policy. Unlike in other countries, EU accession influenced this
institutional progress (Popa 2007). Major European inspiration and support was also
coming through a PHARE Twinning Project in which the Spanish gender equality
machinery was the advising party of the Romanian institution (Popa 2007). The Agency
has pursued a conscious gender mainstreaming strategy, in the frame of which it has
established local level offices and a regular interface with civil society. This has proven
to be crucial for developing sensitivity to multiple discriminations and an intersectional
understanding of equality issues (Popa 2007).
The Romanian anti-discrimination body and the political administrative gender
equality body followed different equality strategies (Rees 1998, Walby 2005), one
focusing on equal treatment for all the different inequalities, the other targeting gender
inequalities along the lines of gender mainstreaming. While the two can be seen as
complementary to each other, they quickly found themselves in a space of competition
for resources and visibility. The 2005 Regular Report on accession progress of the
European Commission pointed out the ambiguous division of responsibilities between the
two bodies. An explicit competition with instances of open conflict emerged between the
two bodies for the role of main implementing agency of the European Year of Equal
Opportunities for All in 2007, backed by the support of different circles of civil society
(Popa 2008).
Somewhat differently from Hungary and Romania, Poland and Slovenia
witnessed institutional displacement (Streeck and Thelen 2005) during the same period.
This brought a move away of equality institutions from a gender-specific focus towards
covering multiple inequalities. Depending on contextual factors and earlier patterns of
institutionalization, this shift had different implications in the two countries for gender
equality and other inequalities, respectively.
18
Slovenia was fast in reacting to EU Directives in the midst of accession
negotiations. The Slovenian political administrative gender equality body, the Office of
Equal Opportunities, that was in place since 1992 was instrumental in preparing the Act
on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men, adopted in 2002. Though relying on
previous efforts of the Office and civil society mobilization, the law was an explicit step
in fulfilling the accession criteria of EU membership (Kuhar et al. 2007). Besides
provisions for gender mainstreaming, the Act brought functional extension to the equality
institutional structure: it launched in 2003 the first, at this stage gender-specific, anti-
discrimination body within the framework of the already existent political administrative
gender equality body. The Advocate for Equal Opportunities for Men and Women was
mandated at this point to conduct hearings on individual gender discrimination
complaints.
In 2004, the Implementation of Equal Treatment Act was adopted to extend the
principle of equal treatment beyond gender to fourteen inequalities, and to bring equal
treatment protection for these under the Office of Equal Opportunities and the Advocate
for Equal Opportunities. This changed the earlier gender-specific mandate of the anti-
discrimination body and the political administrative equality body into an integrated one.
In addition the comprehensive anti-discrimination law has also created from 2004 an
integrated consultative body: the Council for the Implementation of the Principle of
Equal Treatment. This new consultative body was composed of governmental delegates,
representatives of major ethnic minorities, and several NGOs active in the anti-
discrimination field representing all protected inequality categories. The Equal Treatment
Act (2004) thus brought in de jure terms a shift away from specific gender equality
institutions, both political administrative and anti-discrimination bodies towards
integrated institutions, and it also added an integrated consultative body. The new
consultative body had a particularly high potential for inequality groups other than gender
which had far more problematic relations with state institutions than gender equality
groups. Interpretations of these changes converge in saying that in fields other than
gender equality the activity of the political administrative institutional structures
remained restricted to policy coordination, while gender equality remained the main field
of activity (Kuhar et al. 2007, Kuhar 2008). While an integrated approach prevailed in the
19
realm of equal treatment work, more extensive equality work remained focused on
gender.5
In Poland, after a prolonged conservative period criticized by NGOs and the EU
for its approach to gender equality (see, for example, Krizsan and Popa 2010, Fuchs
2007, Dabrowska 2007), the 2001 political shift to a left-wing government brought the
revival of the political administrative gender equality body. Renamed Plenipotentiary for
Equal Status of Women and Men, upon NGO pressure the office was elevated to State
Secretarial level within the Prime Minister’s Office. In 2002, within the framework of the
EU accession process, the competences of the Polish political administrative gender
equality body were extended to other inequalities as well, including race and ethnicity,
religion, age and sexual orientation, although without extending the mandate to address
individual discrimination complaints. Nonetheless, the core of the activity at this point
continued to revolve around gender (Dabrowska 2007). The relatively proactive period
between 2001 and 2005 resulted in regional offices of the Plenipotentiary and better
cooperation with women’s NGOs through a renewed Consultative Council made up of
NGOs, experts, and state representatives (Dabrowska 2007). After the 2005 elections,
won by a right-wing majority, the office was closed down with no delay. Soon
reestablished upon protests by NGOs, the new Office received a lower rank, was
reframed as Plenipotentiary for Women and Family, and placed within the Department
for Women, Family, and Counteracting Discrimination.
A final shift took place in 2008 when the political administrative gender equality
body was closed down and replaced by a new political administrative body covering
multiple inequalities, including gender, race, ethnic origin, nationality, religion or
beliefs, political convictions, age, sexual orientation, civil (marital) and family status.
While using an integrated approach, the new institution, called the Plenipotentiary for
Equal Treatment does not fulfill the function of an anti-discrimination body as required
by the EU, as it does not have competences to address individual complaints.6 To the
5 Review of activities on the institutional website clearly point in this direction. Available online: http://www.uem.gov.si/en/areas_of_work. 6 ‘Poland’ in European Anti-discrimination Law Review, No. 3, 2006.
20
contrary, it has become infamous and criticized for repeated anti-gender, xenophobic, and
homophobic statements (Dabrowska 2010). Since 2005 cooperation with NGOs has
shifted towards right-wing, pro-life, and Catholic Church linked organizations, despite
domestic and international critique (Dabrowska 2007). To date, despite numerous drafts
and attempts, Poland has not yet passed either a comprehensive anti-discrimination law
or a gender equality law, and no equality body addressing complaints along the standards
of the EU acquis has been established.
Table 10: Current institutions
Integrated Semi-integrated
Separate -only gender
Separate - inequalities covered
No institution
Anti-discrimination body
Hu 2004, Ro 2003, Sl 2004
Pl
Political administrative body
Pl 2008
Sl 1992
Hu - ethn. gend. disabRo – ethn. gend.disab
Consultative body Sl 2004 Pl 1996 Hu- gend. Ethn. disab Ro - gend, ethn.
21
Understanding change
Two patterns of change emerge from the analysis: institutional layering and institutional
displacement. The layering pattern creates specific spaces and institutional pillars for
visions of gender equality. Accordingly, integrated thinking about inequalities emerged
only in the equal treatment realm, while specific gender equality institutions remained in
place both in Hungary and Romania for group-based positive action and mainstreaming
approaches and also for consultative purposes. By the same token, Poland and Slovenia,
followed an institutional displacement model by reorganizing their specific gender
equality institutional structures at the expense of strengthening a new integrated approach
to inequalities. Contextual factors, however, fundamentally shaped de facto policy
outcomes in these two countries. In Poland the displacement came together with a general
weakening of the equality architecture and decreasing political will for genuine
engagement with any inequalities, in particular gender. The opportunity of institutional
change was used as an excuse for dismantling the gender equality machinery. In Slovenia
the displacement came as an obvious response to Europeanization, but did not lead
unequivocally to weakening gender equality thinking.
The different trajectories confirm the thesis that policy development in CEE has
to be understood in the triangle of civil society, states, and international actors (Johnson
2007) working in discursive spaces. International actors, particularly UN actors and the
EU, played significant roles at one stage or another in all four countries. World
conferences (particularly Beijing and Nairobi) had an important influence on launching
the first waves of gender equality institutions as in other parts of the world (Rai 2003),
though somewhat later. CEDAW monitoring mechanisms have also provided a
framework for the activity of gender equality machinery and in some instances (Slovenia)
a safeguard against marginalizing them. The EU offered a blueprint for anti-
discrimination institutional development, both through the equality directives and the
accession reports, and also through social learning and policy transfer mechanisms
(Schimmelfennig and Sedelmeier 2005). The latter is connected to soft policy instruments
and increasing incorporation of these countries in different European structures.
22
Nonetheless, looking at the variation in patterns of change between the four
countries, the homogenizing effects of international mechanisms, and particularly the EU
influence, need to be reflected upon. Local forces and processes filter and translate
international influence to domestic contexts. A variety of these forces and their
interactions may offer explanation for patterns of change, such as strength and access of
civil society to gender equality machineries, dynamics between different inequality
groups, and particularly the relative place of gender equality in discursive opportunity
structures (Ferree et al 2002). In Hungary and Romania, where institutional layering took
place, inequalities other than gender were the primary drivers of the equality agenda:
above all ethnicity, but also sexual orientation in Romania. Civil society groups
mobilized themselves around these inequality grounds, thus facilitating the adoption of an
integrated equal treatment agenda that left gender in a relatively marginal position backed
mostly by international players.
In Slovenia and Poland, where institutional displacement took place, gender
equality civil society groups were strongly present in debates and change occurred as
outcome of political struggles: a won battle in Slovenia and an oscillating but ultimately
lost one in Poland. Institutional changes emerged in relation to already existing gender
equality institutions. In Slovenia gender equality had strong public and political support,
while in Poland strong anti-gender equality rhetoric became contested by vociferous
(though fragmented) pro-gender equality civil society. The well embedded and legitimate
gender equality machinery of Slovenia resisted the EU influence and maintained the
primacy of gender equality in the new institutional setup despite the formal institutional
displacement, probably at the expense of progress in protecting other inequalities. The
Polish Plenipotentiary, while having a long history, appeared to be very weak position
and largely illegitimate for civil society groups. Its shift brought the total loss of gender
equality priorities to the benefit of other inequalities, but most importantly, of anti-gender
equality rhetoric.
Looking at Europeanization’s influence in the four countries against the presented
context, we can notice different usages of the same set of European norms (Woll and
Jacquot 2010). Poland and Slovenia use the new integrated European equality agenda to
23
introduce protection for ‘new’ inequality categories, but the dominant discursive
opportunity structure ultimately determines how gender equality remains the privileged
inequality in Slovenia or is leveled down to the minimal protection given to ‘new’
inequalities in Poland. By the same token, Romania and Hungary use the same set of
norms to enhance a strong anti-discrimination agenda that then becomes the core of their
equality agenda. It should also be taken into account that Europeanization generates
different requirements over time (Krizsan and Popa 2010). Differences become
particularly visible if looking at Romania, the only country in the analysis acceding the
EU in the second wave (2007). This wave seems to have brought a different focus on
multiple inequalities as compared to the first wave. In the peak of Romania’s accession
negotiations, multiple discrimination had already been an issue on the EU agenda, which
could be masterfully laced in national anti-discrimination laws by civil society actors.7 It
is also important to note the leverage the EU has played particularly through soft policy
instruments to improve the gender equality machinery in Romania – not the case in any
of the other three countries.
The emergent institutional structures in the four countries looked upon in this
context bring various potential for institutionalizing intersectionality.
Institutional changes and nascent intersectionality
This section looks at whether newly emerging equality institutional architectures compel
intersectional thinking and operation in the four countries concerned. It analyzes how
different institutions engage with intersectionality either through recognizing the needs
and including the voices of specific groups at intersections of inequality axes or through
building frameworks that treat inequality categories as interdependent.
7 This finding is also corroborated by the case of the other second-wave accession country, Bulgaria, which
again has multiple discrimination included in its anti-discrimination law (Krizsan 2011).
24
Scholars and policymakers alike (Fredman 2005, Squires 2008, EC 2007)
assumed that an institutional approach that addresses several inequalities in integrated
ways would be more favorable to deal with multiple, intersecting inequalities than an
approach segmented along different inequalities. Providing a similar level protection for
different inequalities as well as making the specific expertise gathered for different
inequalities speak to each other by being merged in one location (Fredman 2005, EC
2007) were seen as keys to addressing multiple discrimination. While this potential was
repeatedly voiced, concerns also emerged about the inherent difficulties courts and court-
like bodies have in engaging with the social complexity of intersectionality (Hannett
2003, Fredman 2005). Research findings on the early activity of integrated anti-
discrimination bodies confirm the latter rather than the former (EC 2007). Out of the four
anti-discrimination bodies reviewed in this paper, all of which are using an integrated
approach, only one has explicit mandate to address multiple discrimination: the National
Council for Combating Discrimination in Romania. Hungary and Slovenia have open-
ended lists of protected inequality, a condition seen to favor engagement with multiple
discrimination (Fredman 2005). None of the four bodies designates institutional
structures targeted specifically for addressing multiple discrimination, though none of
them separates departments according to inequalities either. So in principle cases are
handled on an integrated basis, which might open platform for capturing intersectional
disadvantage.
Little comprehensive data is available on specific discrimination cases examined
by anti-discrimination bodies. Information available in the annual reports of the
Romanian Council (NCCD Romania 2007) and other secondary studies (Society for
Feminist Analyses 2007) indicates that even in Romania – where multiple discrimination
is in the text of the law – there is a general tendency towards framing multiple
discrimination in reductionist rather than mutually constitutive terms (Introduction to this
volume 2011). In cases that involve multiple or intersecting inequalities, the Council
tends to establish a dominant inequality (Society for Feminist Analyses 2007: 38) or
notes various inequalities, yet considers only one as dominant and relevant for
adjudicating. This explains the fact that in the period under review the Council has made
25
no decision implicating multiple discrimination despite its specific mandate established
by the law.
A summary review of cases considered by the Hungarian ETA shows similar
tendencies. Decisions made by the ETA are organized into groups according to inequality
categories, without any reference to multiple discrimination. This lack of attention to
multiple discrimination is particularly striking because in several cases the short
description of the complaint makes clear that more than one axis of inequality is
involved. Two examples from 2008 illustrate well what seems a random choice of the
one inequality category prioritized in intersectional cases. The case of an elderly woman
who complained of harassment at work on the basis of her age, marital status, and gender
is seemingly randomly listed under the heading of ‘discrimination on the basis of family
status’; whereas the case of a Romani woman whose family was evicted from a council
flat is listed under class-based discrimination.8 Handling of intersectional cases shows a
tendency to establish hierarchical relations between inequalities and prioritizing the most
feasible one for deciding on the case. A systematic review of intersectional cases
addressed by anti-discrimination bodies in all four countries is much wanted.
Gender equality machineries have the potential to approach intersectionality in an
intra-categorical way when dealing with diversity within gender (McCall 2005). Their
potential is in going beyond an understanding of gender as a homogenous category to
include the variation and diversity within it, and to reveal the mutual constitution of
gender and different other inequalities. Yet, genuine engagement of gender equality
machineries with intersectionality is the exception rather than the rule in the countries
observed. This confirms conclusions of recent Research Network on Gender Politics and
the State (RNGS) project outcome by Outshoorn and Kantola (2007) who found that
‘many [women’s policy] agencies still tend to take women as an undifferentiated
category as their point of reference, with the attendant danger of paying too little heed to
minority voices’ (280).
8 Available online: http://egyenlobanasmod.hu/zanza/43-2008.pdf and http://egyenlobanasmod.hu/zanza/54-2008.pdf
26
The few examples of intersectional activity of gender equality machineries can be
found along the lines of encounters with international or civil society actors. A notable
case for in-depth involvement with multiple discrimination was generated by the
Romanian National Agency for Equal Opportunities between Women and Men. Good
cooperation by the Agency with civil society groups, and in particular Romani women
activists, was conducive to the most enduring contribution of the Agency to intersectional
thinking in Romania: to introduce the concept of multiple discrimination in the 2006
amendment of the Law on Equal Opportunities between Women and Men and further on
to the amendment of the anti-discrimination law the same year (Popa 2008). This was the
direct result of Roma women’s group advocacy, in later stages in coalition with
mainstream women’s organizations and human rights NGOs. In this particular case, the
advance of the intersectional agenda is an interesting local development at the interface
of the gender equality machinery and minority women’s groups. The benefits of the
cooperation continued in the context of the European Year for Equal Opportunities
(2007). The Agency chose multiple discrimination as the core issue of the Year in
Romania and specified that ‘actions [would] focus on those vulnerable social categories
that suffer discrimination at the intersection of many deprived positions’.9 To meet this
priority, the Agency commissioned two analyses concerning multiple discriminations: a
survey regarding the labor market and another more general review for which a major
feminist NGO was contracted. The EU-wide initiative on the European Year of Equal
Opportunities for All (Decision 771/2006/EC) provided a framework for engaging with
multiple discrimination in the other three countries as well. The national strategies for the
European Year of Equal Opportunities developed by implementing bodies provided one
of the very few documents that developed at a declaratory -level language recognizing
the mutual constitution of inequality categories.10 In Hungary and Slovenia, the Year was
implemented by equality institutions using an integrated approach to inequalities (ETA in
9 National Strategy and Priorities for 2007 – European Year of Equal Opportunities for All, p. 14. 10 All National Strategies of the European Year of Equal Opportunities are available on the Year’s official website. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/eyeq/index.cfm?cat_id=NI&
27
Hungary and Office for Equal Opportunities in Slovenia). In Poland and Romania gender
equality machineries were the implementing bodies.11
CEDAW reporting provides another important meeting point between
international actors and gender equality machineries and another platform for engaging
with intersectional thinking. This is a particularly important international influence, both
because of trends at the level of the CEDAW Committee to increasingly recognize
differences among women,12 but also because one of the chapters of the CEDAW
Convention (Article 14) actually identifies a specific group: rural women. On the issue of
Roma women, CEDAW’s voice has been shaped by Roma women’s advocacy in a
typical boomerang pattern (Zwingel 2005).
CEDAW reporting is normally coordinated by gender equality machineries, thus
it may reveal their institutional engagement with intersectionality. The Hungarian
CEDAW Report 2006 gives a relatively well developed description of the intersectional
nature of the category of rural women. It captures the main structural conditions for
regional/micro-regional and urban/rural inequalities in the country and discusses the main
gender related aspects of these regional (in the professional jargon often called spatial or
territorial) inequalities. The 2007 CEDAW Report on Slovenia pays the most detailed
attention from among the intersecting categories to the problem of rural women. It reports
on decisive distinction between young and elderly rural women through evidence based
data and even goes on to highlight the plight of poor rural Roma women. The CEDAW
Report on Romania in 2006 better demonstrates policy attention to Roma women in
employment and makes some modest references to foreign aid projects in support for
rural women. The report also refers to intersecting social categories when discussing
trafficking (for example, vulnerable young women). The Polish CEDAW Report 2007
11 In Romania, the appointment of the National Agency for Equal Opportunities between Women and Men as the National Implementing Body of the Year met with significant resistance from the multiple grounds body, but also from civil society. See Letter on the Year of Equal Opportunities sent to the Minister of European Integration, the Prime Minister, the Ministry for Labor, Social Solidarity, and Family, the Romanian Parliament, the European Commission, the Embassy of Finland, and the Embassy of Germany by a coalition of human rights NGOs in Romania, 24 August 2006. 12 This assessment is based on statements at the 25th anniversary of the CEDAW Committee, July 2007, and the overview of the Committee’s work that was published for the anniversary. Available online: http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/25anniversary.htm
28
covering the period between 1998 and 2002 discusses specific problems of rural women
extensively and also mentions problems around early marriage and early school leaving
of Roma women.
Alternative shadow reports by civil society actors were recently submitted in three
out of four countries. Under the leadership of the transnational advocacy group, the
European Roma Rights Center, Roma women’s organizations from Romania and
Hungary drafted specific Shadow Reports on Roma Women in which they have
highlighted the deficiencies of gender equality policies in addressing their specific
problems and implicitly criticize the Official CEDAW Report for its missing
intersectional aspects.13 Somewhat similarly in Slovenia, organizations of lesbian women
produced an alternative shadow report to the mainstream one in which they criticized the
legal framework on gender equality and on equal treatment for failing to respond to
multiple discrimination claims (Slovenia Shadow Report/B 2008). But the Polish
mainstream Shadow Report 2007 also discusses rural women specifically in criticizing
their government’s approach.14
Finally, consultative equality bodies may be open to engagement with
intersectionality due to their important NGO component. They could be seen as platforms
for transversal politics (Yuval Davis 2006). Integrating intersectional groups into
consultative bodies and consultation processes is an obvious way to improve the potential
of policymaking to capture intersectional disadvantage (Krizsan 2011). A case in point is
the Hungarian Council for Gender Equality which now has eight NGO members along
with experts and government representatives after its recent NGO-driven consolidation.
These members represent different specializations in gender equality policy including one
designated slot for multiply disadvantaged women. No such clearly formalized
requirement for including intersectional voices in consultative bodies is set in any of the
other countries. Yet, representatives of intersectional groups could be identified
incidentally among members of other consultative bodies (for example, Poland in earlier
years but not in Romania or Slovenia). While consultative bodies do have a strong 13 In Hungary two shadow reports are submitted in parallel: the mainstream report and a Roma women’s report. See document available online: http://www.errc.org/db/03/7A/m0000037A.pdf. 14 Available online: http://www.iwraw-ap.org/resources/pdf/Poland%20final%20SR.pdf.
29
potential to introduce intersectional thinking to the policy agenda, the limited power of
these bodies largely qualifies this potential.
The engagement of equality institutional structures with intersectionality has not
come a long way in CEECs. The few good examples that come through are located at the
crossroads of equality institutions and specific international influences or NGO voices.
The research has identified NGOs and international influence as the main voices that, in
partnership with equality institutions, prompt intersectional thinking. Those institutions
that have a strong NGO component, like consultative bodies, seem to be the best
candidates for institutional sites that would advance intersectionality. Anti-discrimination
bodies that are mandated to address discrimination based on different inequalities tend to
reduce complexity and uniqueness into what most easily fits given legal categories. The
reluctance to open the Pandora’s box of intersecting inequalities (Fredman 2005) is quite
strong in most of these bodies for the moment. To summarize: while different types of
equality institutions convey different intersectional potential pending both on their
functions and their scope, currently in the CEE context it is certain types of interactive
processes between different actors that are indicative of intersectional policy potential
rather than certain types of institutions.
Conclusions
Based on the analysis of processes of equality institutional change in four countries of the
CEE region, this chapter developed two sets of arguments. First, it argued against a wider
assumption in the literature, according to which countries of the European Union are
witnessing an institutional shift from gender-equality-specific institutions to integrated
equality institutions dealing with several inequalities, and pointed out a more complex
picture in which a variety of institutional change trajectories may emerge. From the four
case studies, it identified two main trajectories of institutional change emerging upon EU
influence: institutional layering and institutional displacement, whereby institutional
layering maintained the previous gender institutional structures but made institutional
architectures more complex, and institutional displacement meant a move away from
30
specific gender equality institutions towards integrated ones. The chapter showed the
importance of contextual factors such as institutional path dependencies, civil society
mobilization, discursive opportunity structures, and political opportunity structures, in
explaining why countries took one or the other trajectory of change, and also in what de
facto policy outcomes resulted from the newly emergent equality institutional
architectures.
Second, the chapter argued that despite the institutional complexity in the four
countries and diverse platforms within these institutions, very little genuine engagement
with intersectionality could be detected on the equality institutional map. It argued that in
the four distinctive cases the engagement of different equality institutions with
intersectionality did not depend primarily on the types of equality institutions (gender
equality machinery, consultative body, anti-discrimination body) or their scope (gender
equality specific or integrated) but rather on interactions between different equality
institutions as well as relevant civil society and international actors pursuing an
intersectional agenda. Our comparative endeavor cannot explore the inherent difficulties
of legalistic and quasi-legal work of such agencies in capturing the complexity of
intersectional inequality or with the modest equality knowledge and tradition within anti-
discrimination bodies of the CEE region. Further work needs to be done to that end.
To move further in developing the discursive institutional analysis of equality
institutional architectures in CEE and in understanding their implications for
institutionalizing intersectionality, one needs in-depth knowledge on the activity of these
institutions and on the political and policy debates that make certain notions of multiple
discriminations meaningful and relevant in the given contexts. A larger study of the
domestic contexts and production of ideas may offer more insights in the structural and
programmatic thoughts in political and policy debates that shape the concept and model
of equality institutions.
31
References
Beveridge, F. (2009) ‘Gender, the Acquis and Beyond’ in M. Dougan and S. Currie (eds.)
50 Years of the European Treaties: Looking Back and Thinking Forward (Oxford:
Hart Publishing), pp. 393–414.
Dabrowska, M. (2007) Series of Timelines of Policy Debates in Selected Topics, Poland
(Vienna: Institute of Human Sciences and QUING Project). Available online:
http://www.quing.eu
Dabrowska, M. (2008). Report Analysing Intersectionality in Gender Equality Policies,
Poland (Vienna: Institute of Human Sciences and QUING Project). Available
online: http://www.quing.eu
Dombos, T., A. Horváth, A. Krizsán (2007) ‘Where Did Gender Disappear? Anti-
Discrimination Policy in the EU Accession Process in Hungary’ in Mieke
Verloo (ed.) Multiple Meanings of Gender Equality. A Critical Frame
Analysis of Gender Policies in Europe (Budapest: CEU Press).
Dombos, T., A. Krizsan, M. Szabo, and V. Zentai (2007) Series of Timelines of Policy
Debates in Selected Topics, Hungary (Vienna: Institute of Human Sciences and
QUING Project). Available online: http://www.quing.eu
Dombos, T., E. Kispeter, A. Krizsan, and V. Zentai (2008) Report Analysing
Intersectionality in Gender Equality Policies, Hungary (Vienna: Institute of Human
Sciences and QUING Project). Available online: http://www.quing.eu
European Commission (2007) Tackling Multiple Discrimination: Practices, Policies and
Laws (Brussels: Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Equal
Opportunities, Unit G4).
Fabian, K. (2009) Contemporary Women’s Movements in Hungary: Globalization,
Democracy, and Gender Equality (Washington, D.C.: Woodrow Wilson Center
Press and Johns Hopkins University Press).
32
Falkner, G., O. Treib, and E. Holzleithner (2008) Compliance in the Enlarged European
Union: Living Rights or Dead Letters? (Ashgate: Aldershot et al.).
Ferree, M. M. et al. (2002) Shaping Abortion Discourse. Democracy and the Public
Sphere in Germany and the United States (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press).
Fodor, E. (2004) ‘The State Socialist Emancipation Project: Gender Inequality in
Workplace Authority in Hungary and Austria’, Signs, Spring, 29 (3), 783–804.
Fodor, E. and C. Glass (2007 ) ‘From Public to Private Maternalism? Gender and
Welfare in Poland and Hungary after 1989’, Social Politics, 14, 323–350.
Fredman, S. (2005) ‘Double Trouble: Multiple Discrimination and EU Law’, European
Anti-discrimination Law Review, 2, 13–19.
Gal, S. and G. Kligman (2000) Politics and Gender After Socialism (Princeton: Princeton
University Press).
Ghodsee, K. (2004) ‘Feminism-by-Design: Emerging Capitalisms, Cultural Feminism,
and Women's Nongovernmental Organizations in Postsocialist Eastern Europe’,
Signs, Spring, 29 (3), 727–753.
Grünberg, L. 2000 ‘ONGizarea feminismului în România. Esecul unui succes’ (The
NGOization of feminism in Romania. The failure of a success), AnAlize, revistă de
studii feministe, 7, 14–19.
Hannett, S. (2003) ‘Equality at the Intersections: The Legislative and Judicial Failure to
Tackle Multiple Discrimination’, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 23 (1), 65–86.
Howard, M. M. (2002) ‘The Weakness Of Postcommunist Civil Society’, Journal of
Democracy, 13/1, 157–169.
33
Humer, Z. (2007) ‘Europeanization and the Equal Opportunities Policy in Slovenia’ in K.
Fabian (ed.) Globalization: Perspectives from Central and Eastern Europe.
(Amsterdam: Elsevier), pp. 305–326.
Johnson, J. E. (2007) ‘Domestic Violence Politics in Post-Soviet States’, Social Politics:
International Studies in Gender, State and Society, 14 (3), 380–405.
Kantola, J. (2010) ‘Shifting Institutional and Ideational Terrains: The Impact of
Europeanisation and Neoliberalism on Women's Policy Agencies’, Policy &
Politics, 38 (3), 353–368.
Krizsan, A. (2000) ‘The Hungarian Minority Protection System: A Flexible Approach to
the Adjudication of Ethnic Claims’, Journal on Ethnic and Migration Studies, 26
(2), 247–262.
Krizsan, A. (2011) ‘Travelling Notions of Gender Equality Institutions. Equality
Architecture in Central and Eastern European Countries’, submitted to Social
Politics, special issue on intersectionality edited by Sylvia Walby and Mieke
Verloo.
Krizsan A. and R. Popa (2010) ‘Europeanization in Making Anti-Domestic Violence
Policies in Central and Eastern Europe’, Social Politics, 17 (3).
Krizsan A., H. Skeje, and J. Squires (2011) ‘Introduction’ in A. Krizsan, H. Skeje, and J.
Squires (eds.) Institutionalizing Intersectionality, Forthcoming at Palgrave
MacMillan.
Krizsan, A. and V. Zentai (2006) ‘Gender Equality Policy or Gender Mainstreaming:
The Case of Hungary’, Policy Studies, 27 (2).
Kuhar, R., V. Jalusic, M. Hrzenjak, and M. Kuzmanic (2007) Series of Timelines of
Policy Debates in Selected Topics, Slovenia (Vienna: Institute of Human Sciences
and QUING Project). Available online: http://www.quing.eu
34
Kuhar, R. (2008) Report Analyzing Intersectionality in Gender Equality Policies,
Slovenia (Vienna: Institute of Human Sciences and QUING Project). Available
online: http://www.quing.eu
Lombardo, E. and M. Verloo (2009) ‘Institutionalizing Intersectionality in the European
Union? Policy Developments and Contestations’, International Feminist Journal of
Politics, Special issue 2009 ‘Institutionalising Intersectionality’, edited by Johanna
Kantola and Kevät Nousiainen.
Magyari-Vincze, E. (2006) ‘Romanian Gender Regimes in Women’s Citizenship’, in J.
Lukic, J. Regulska, and D. Zarvisek (eds.) Women and Citizenship in Central and
Eastern Europe (London: Ashgate).
McCall, L. (2005) ‘The Complexity of Intersectionality’ Signs, 30 (3), 1771–1800.
National Council for Combating Discrimination (2007) Annual Activity Report 2007,
(Bucharest: Romania).
Neubauer, Violetta (2004) ‘Institutional Mechanisms for Gender Equality in Slovenia’.
Available online:
http://www.wwan.cn/womenwatch/daw/egm/nationalm2004/resource-
papers/RP.9_Neubauer.pdf
Nowakowska, U. (2000) ‘Government Mechanism for the Advancement of Women’ in
Women’s Rights Center, Polish Women in the 90’s (Warsaw: Women’s Rights
Center). Available online: http://temida.free.ngo.pl/rapcont.htm
Outshoorn, J. and J. Kantola (eds.) (2007) Changing State Feminism (London: Palgrave
Macmillan).
Popa, R. M. (2007) Series of Timelines of Policy Debates in Selected Topics, Romania.
(Vienna: Institute of Human Sciences and QUING Project). Available online:
http://www.quing.eu
35
Popa, R. M. (2008) Report Analysing Intersectionality in Gender Equality Policies,
Romania. (Vienna: Institute of Human Sciences and QUING Project). Available
online: http://www.quing.eu
Rai, S. (2003) ‘Introduction’ and ‘Institutional Mechanisms for the Advancement of
Women: Mainstreaming Gender, Democratizing the State?’ in S. Rai (ed.)
Mainstreaming Gender, Democratizing the State. Institutional Mechanisms for the
Advancement of Women (Manchester: Manchester University Press).
Rees, T. (1998) Mainstreaming Equality in the European Union: Education, Training
and Labour Market Policies (London: Routledge).
Roth, S. (2007) ‘Sisterhood and Solidarity? Women’s Organizations in the Expanded
European Union’, Social Politics 14 (4), 460–487.
Saxonberg, S. (2000) ‘Women in East European Parliaments’, Journal of Democracy, 11
(2), 145–158
Saxonberg, S. and D. Szelewa (2007) ‘The Continuing Legacy of the Communist
Legacy? The Development of Family Policies in Poland and the Czech Republic’,
Social Politics 14 (3), 351–379.
Schimmelfennig, F. and U. Sedemeier (eds.) (2005) The Europeanization of Central and
Eastern Europe (Ithaca: Cornell University Press).
Schmidt, V. (2010) ‘Taking Ideas and Discourse Seriously: Explaining Change Through
Discoursive Institutionalism as the Fourth “New Institutionalism”’, European
Political Science Review 2 (1), 1–25.
Sloat, A. (2004) ‘Legislating for Equality: The Implementation of the EU Equality
Acquis in Central and Eastern Europe’, Jean Monnet Working Papers, No. 8.
Available online: http://ideas.repec.org/p/erp/jeanmo/p0161.html
36
Society for Feminist Analyses AnA and National Institute for Scientific Research on
Labor and Social Protection (2007) Discriminarea Multipla in Romania (Multiple
discrimination in Romania) (Bucharest: AnA).
Spehar, A. (2007) ‘How Women’s Movements Matter. Women’s Movements’ Strategies
and Influence on Gender Policy Formation in Post-communist Croatia and
Slovenia’, Unpublished PhD dissertation, Goteborg University. Available online:
http://www.pol.gu.se/digitalAssets/1312/1312989_dissertation.pdf
Squires, J. (2007) New Politics of Gender Equality (New York : Palgrave Macmillan).
Squires, J. (2008) ‘Intersecting Inequalities: Reflecting on the Subjects and Objects of
Equality’, The Political Quarterly 79, 53–61.
Stetson, D. and A. Mazur (eds.) (1995) Comparative State Feminism (Thousand Oaks:
Sage Publications).
Streeck, W. and K. Thelen (eds.) (2005) Beyond Continuity: Institutional Change in
Advanced Political Economies (New York: Oxford University Press).
Tesiu Roxana and Florentina Bocioc (2005) Equal Opportunities for Women and Men.
Monitoring Law and Practice in New Member States and Accession Countries of
the European Union, Series of monitoring reports, Open Society Institute. Available
online:
http://www.soros.org/initiatives/women/articles_publications/publications/equal_20
050502
Verloo, M. 2005. ‘Displacement and Empowerment: Reflections on the Council of
Europe Approach to Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Equality’, Social Politics
12 (3), 344–366.
Walby, S. (2005) ‘Gender Mainstreaming: Productive Tensions in Theory and Practice’,
Social Politics 12 (3), 1–25.
37
Woll, C. and S. Jacquot (2010) ‘Using Europe: Strategic Action in Multi-level Politics’,
Comparative European Politics 8 (1), 110–126.
Yuval Davis, N. (2006) ‘Human/Women’s Rights and Feminist Transversal Politics’ in
Myra Marx Ferree and Aili Mari Tripp (eds) Global Feminism. Transnational
Women’s Activism, Organizing, and Human Rights (New York: NYU Press).
Zwingel, S. (2005) ‘From Intergovernmental Negotiations to (Sub)national Change. A
Transnational Perspective on the Impact of CEDAW’, International Feminist
Journal of Politics 7 (3), 400–424.