SOUNDING BOARD is an outlet for opinions on good and crazy things going on at home (wherever I may be). All are welcome. You are not expected to bring anything except your common sense & sense of humor.
'If the automobile had followed the same development cycle as the computer, a Rolls-Royce would today cost $100, get one million miles to the gallon, and explode once a year, killing everyone inside.'
-Robert X. Cringely (from geek wisdom)
SOUNDING BOARD
Monday, May 19, 2003
_____________________________________________
IMF Working Paper: Gender-Responsive Government Budgeting
The abstract of the working paper states:
“This paper examines the concept of gender-responsive government budgeting, promoted in recent years by women’s nongovernmental organizations, academia, and multilateral organizations, and the extent of its implementation by national governments in both advanced and developing countries. Owing to recently developed analytical and technical tools, government budget management systems in some countries can help promote gender equality – the extent of government involvement in gender-sensitive sectors and programs – at any level of available funding. However, to be fully effective, obstacles such as gender-biased culture, the lack of appropriate budget classifications, and the lack of gender analysis expertise and gender-disaggregated data in most countries need to be addressed.” (Sarraf F. 2003. Gender-Responsive Government Budgeting. IMF Working Paper 03/83)
The paper is laudable insofar as it explains gender-responsive government budgeting, discusses the tools for its implementation, and assesses its the scope and practicality. It also describes the political, technical and financial support provided by multilateral organizations to national governments. Personally, I think any additional focus on gender-responsive government budgeting is very much welcome. At the very least, it generates awareness from a wider audience on its policy and program implications, as well as its intended benefits.
Having said those points, let me also stress that the paper is more focused on the tools and technical nuances that are necessary for gender-responsive government budgeting to be effective and operational. In view of this, the paper’s analysis missed the critical role of the political environment (including the different stakeholders) and the necessary strategies to manage such environment. The management of the political processes and stakeholders is a crucial factor that separates an operational gender-responsive budgeting policy from one that is ‘good only in paper’ (One may even argue that there is no such thing as a policy good only in paper because if it is, then it missed the critical role of the bigger political environment. Such policy, in effect, may be considered ‘bad on paper’ from the very start.).
First, the paper assumes ‘that there is strong will and commitment to use the government budget, among other policy instruments, to promote gender mainstreaming…’ (a very dangerous – maybe even useless – assumption indeed!). Gender budgeting is a tool to address women’s needs and rights, and in so doing, seeks to change gender roles - socially differentiated roles which limit participation of women (and men), politically, economically and socially. It is important to note that the operationalization of gender budgeting should maximize support and minimize resistance. Often, if not always, the political will (of the current leadership and government as a whole) to go into gender budgeting is not there. If it is, then we should be able to see a better picture of gender budgeting in most, if not all, countries.
Second, the paper also assumes the existence of a ‘built-in rigidity in government budget structures’ in both advanced and developing countries that limits the capacity of government budgeting in addressing cross-sectoral concerns and issues. Perhaps this flows from the initial assumption that a strong will and commitment exist. Given such ambitious assumption, it seems that the next step is to blame the rigidity of the budgetary structures for the inadequacies of gender budgeting.
The more critical questions are: If we take these two things given – resistance to gender budgeting and rigidity of the budgetary structures – how do we operationalize gender budgeting? Specifically, how do we manage the resistance (and indifference) of those agencies who are supposed to be on the forefront of gender budgeting? Given the rigidity of the budgetary structures, how do we make the structures and processes transparent and accountable to the citizens who are supposedly the intended beneficiaries of the budgeted government programs and projects? How do we maximize civil society participation and checks and balances (role of congress perhaps for carrots and sticks)?
The paper did mention the value of analyses of impacts on beneficiaries and households (even this level of analysis is gender-blind to a certain extent) and redirecting budgetary allocation in the next budgeting cycle toward addressing gender issues. However, it overemphasized the technical aspect by saying, ‘the results of the surveys and debates would only be useful (emphasis supplied) if they could be integrated into a specific budget classification’. Perhaps a more accountable and transparent way of using the budget and getting around its rigidity is to ensure that it results to programs that correct gender imbalances. Budgets should be analyzed, and the resulting analyses should be used for lobbying for changes in budgetary priorities – regardless of the budget classification. In the end, what matters most are not the classifications under which programs are funded. What matters is whether or not the government budget responds to the needs and priorities of its constituents.
In the advent of performance-based budgeting, most countries now have a very potent tool in their hands to hold leaders and government agencies accountable and responsive to their contituents’ needs and priorities. We now have a way to link government budget and priorities – including the availability of succeeding budgetary outlays based on previous ‘performance’. The crucial question that we all should be vigilant about is how to make performance-based budgeting more participatory as we go on.
Perhaps in addition to the oversimplified assumptions, the title of the paper limits the analysis. Gender budgeting is not only a government activity. It is not government budgeting in a strict sense. When one emphasizes the government part of it, as in ‘gender-responsive government budgeting’, it is not very difficult to get bogged down to the so-called ‘rigidity’ of the budgetary process. Gender budgeting is a participatory method by which we hold our leaders accountable to our needs and priorities. It is a process where we, ourselves, can ask even the most basic questions such as, ‘how much is going to this and that project, or whether such projects even exist in the pipeline’. Basic questions that provide valuable information to us, women and men. Basic questions that serve as our handle in participating in ‘government' decisions affecting our day-to-day lives.
posted by Allan at 12:49 PM (GMT+8)
permalink (URL of this post) ::
