This chapter puts forth a conceptual framework consisting of six priority considerations to help policy makers build and assess impactful policy combinations to advance gender equality. A self-assessment tool is proposed at the end of the chapter as an example to operationalise selected priority considerations.
Gender Equality in a Changing World
Taking Stock and Moving Forward
Abstract
Governments are increasingly shifting toward addressing priority challenges through comprehensive solutions that combine various policies and programmes – also known as policy combinations. Policy makers operate in a complex environment where competing priorities, limited budgets, and political factors shape decision-making. Both financial and human resources are finite, and governments must balance gender equality objectives with broader economic, social and political priorities.
This report identifies key policy actions adopted or recommended for EU and OECD countries, ranging from addressing gender-based violence to tackling gender gaps in paid and unpaid work. These policy actions should not be viewed in isolation; rather, they form an integrated, cross-sectoral approach that works towards the achievement of gender equality outcomes.
Building on the policies identified in this report, this chapter provides a conceptual framework to guide policy makers in:
designing and implementing co‑ordinated policy combinations;
assessing whether these policies are achieving gender equality outcomes; and
identifying opportunities for policy improvement.
The primary objective of this conceptual framework is to ensure gender equality policies are coherent, results-driven and effectively leveraged across public administrations. Specifically, the framework fosters strategic alignment on gender equality across relevant ministries. It offers flexible, actionable guidance that policy makers can tailor based on their context, resources and priorities without being prescriptive. This approach aims to strengthen accountability, legitimise public funds, facilitate policy learning and cultivate transparency toward internal and external stakeholders.
The framework is built around six priority considerations for assessing the impacts of gender equality policy combinations, including:
1. defining what gender equality progress looks like;
2. clarifying scope and sequencing;
3. identifying the range of cross-portfolio policy and programme combinations (e.g. based on the various policy measures identified in this report);
4. establishing baseline measures through a gender audit or programme evaluation planning;
5. understanding and measuring gender equality impacts; and
6. interpreting and reporting results and using assessments to inform future strategies.
Many EU and OECD countries already have gender mainstreaming infrastructure in place (see Chapter 2), which provides a solid foundation for building effective policy combinations. According to the 2024 Questionnaire on Policy Combinations for Gender Equality, 26 out of 33 countries report having a formal co‑ordination system for gender-related policies that is regularly applied, and 18 of these involve all ministries. These structures can be crucial at key decision-making moments ensuring that gender equality objectives are pursued in a co‑ordinated way – including when designing or evaluating national gender strategies, developing new policies, allocating budgets or setting administrative procedures for incoming governments after elections.
Assessments of policy combinations can complement individual policy evaluations and gender impact assessments (GIAs) (see Chapter 2). While ministries monitor outputs internally, impact evaluation is best undertaken by independent individuals or teams, separate from those responsible for implementation.
This framework builds on concepts from Chapter 2 and the evidence in this report, Gender equality in a changing world: Taking stock and moving forward. A sample self-assessment tool covering priority considerations 2 and 5 is provided in Table 3.2.
Before beginning an assessment, it is useful to define a set of stated goals or anticipated results to measure success. This is best elaborated as part of a results framework that includes gender equality goals. Taking the policy objective of increasing women’s participation in STEM jobs as an example, governments can consider developing a set of short, medium and long-term goals related to the representation of women (e.g. share of women in ICT occupations), retention of women (e.g. share of women who started and remained in STEM after 5 years) and experiences of women in STEM (e.g. share of women in STEM who feel welcome in the workplace). Given that every country is at a different starting point in their journey toward gender equality, defining indicators of progress can enable governments to assess whether they are on track to achieve the goals set out in their short, medium and long-term results frameworks. Table 3.1 provides an overview of key characteristics of a results framework.
Source: Developed by the OECD Secretariat.
Policy makers can start their assessment with a targeted scope, focusing on a small number of themes, population groups or sectors. This approach helps identify data and consultation needs, while testing and refining the data collection methodology (see priority consideration 3.5). To ensure the versatility of the chosen method for assessing gender equality impacts across policy areas, governments can consider topics that are directly related to gender equality (e.g. women in STEM), but also those that are targeting other priorities (e.g. climate change, poverty). Once the methodology is validated, the assessment can be scaled up to the whole‑of-government level. Starting with pilot studies or small-scale randomised controlled trials can help identify policy levers contributing to short- and medium-term outcomes. Engaging external experts for independent advice on course corrections and scaling options is also recommended.
Since gender inequalities are cross-cutting, cross-sectoral policies can directly and indirectly advance gender equality. To assess gender equality impacts, it is therefore crucial to identify the range of cross-portfolio policies and programmes (or policy combinations) addressing systemic gender inequalities. For example, when identifying policies and programmes designed to increase women’s participation in STEM jobs, governments may want to consider policies and programmes relating to employment (e.g. non-discrimination laws, pay transparency policies, unconscious bias in recruitment), educational attainment and skills (e.g. changes to the national curriculum to reduce or eliminate harmful gender stereotypes), leadership and representation (e.g. policies supporting gender-balance in senior leadership in STEM roles), social protection (e.g. parental leave and childcare) and gender-based violence (e.g. preventing sexual harassment in the workplace). The self-assessment tool in Table 3.2 provides a detailed example.
To assess the contributing impact of these policy combinations, governments can start by identifying:
the range of cross-portfolio policies and programmes that may be contributing to gender equality outcomes, including those outside of traditional gender equality frameworks;
the challenges and barriers these policies are designed to address; and
their policy goals (this could include goals for how policies are implemented and/or measured as well as their interlinkages with national frameworks, in addition to policy outcomes).
Establishing the baseline state and nature of (intersectional) gender inequality through a gender audit can provide important reference points against which to measure progress and support the assessment of the impact of policy combinations on gender equality outcomes.
The first step in undertaking a gender audit is to collect a mix of qualitative and quantitative gender-disaggregated data against a set of gender indicators which will enable governments to measure subsequent trends and variations over time.
Quantitative evidence can be collected from a variety of sources, including administrative data and surveys. Such evidence may be available through national or subnational agencies, national statistical organisations, civil society, international organisations and more.
Qualitative evidence can be collected from various stakeholders both internal and external to government, including government departments, civil society organisations, service providers, service recipients and experts. Such evidence can establish the lived experiences of target groups at the start of policy or programme implementation and can provide insights into whether a policy or programme is operating as intended, what is working well, what needs to be improved, whether targets are being met and how implementation may be adjusted to be more effective. Casting a wide net during stakeholder consultations can ensure that any differential impacts across different groups of people are understood.
The gender audit can also reflect intersectionality. This means considering how gender inequality may be compounded by the impacts of disadvantage or discrimination that someone might experience based on other factors such as age, disability or ethnicity.
Some of the strongest evidence for effectiveness can be obtained through the use of randomised or quasi-random evaluation methods which exploit random or near-random variation in exposure to the policy or programme to estimate causal impacts on measurable socio‑economic outcomes, including the extent to which impacts differ across groups of people.
(Quasi)-random exposure to a policy or programme is sometimes inherent to an intervention but not always. As a result, governments can (and should) explicitly design policies and programmes with a random or quasi-random component from the outset. This enables the subsequent estimation of causal impacts and a deeper understanding of “what works” on the ground, and for whom. Such assessments can also help identify which levers within a policy combination are contributing to change, enabling governments to demonstrate the value and effectiveness of public investments, supporting future budget allocations. Small-scale pilots or trials that show positive gains across a range of measures can then be scaled-up to accelerate outcomes.
Governments can consider engaging external experts and researchers to support these exercises and to provide independent advice on policy course correction and options for scaling up randomised controlled trials and pilot studies.
To measure gender equality impacts against a results framework, governments can a mix of data collection and impact evaluation methodologies, considering key questions such as:
To what extent has the policy or programmed achieved planned objectives?
What are the direct impacts on the target group or population?
What are the indirect impacts on public opinion, norms and attitudes?
How might women, men and gender diverse people from different backgrounds or abilities be differently impacted, considering potential disadvantage caused by social norms and historical discrimination?
Are there negative unintended consequences for certain groups of people? If so, how could these be redressed?
What feedback do stakeholders have?
For more information about how to undertake gender impact assessments of individual policies, refer to the OECD Toolkit for Mainstreaming and Implementing Gender Equality.
As part of the assessment of individual policies and programmes, governments must consider the implementation context – including potential interactions with other policies and programmes. This might require the use of complementary evidence – including both quantitative and qualitative data. Some key questions might include:
What are the key contextual factors, both domestic and international, that may have impacted effectiveness?
Are policies in this or other areas operating in a mutually supportive way or are they hindering progress, and why (e.g. due to unintentional design flaws or unforeseen barriers to access)?
How might cross-portfolio co‑ordination and collaboration be improved for more effective implementation?
Similar questions can be asked when assessing a set of policies and programmes (i.e. policy combinations) or entire gender equality strategies, keeping in mind that impacts of a specific combination of policies or programmes may not be simply the sum of the individual parts. Interactions between the policies and programmes might enhance or reduce effectiveness. As it is likely difficult, if not impossible, to assess the impact of a whole set of policies or a gender equality strategy through randomised or quasi-random evaluation methods, governments must rely on a combination of quantitative and qualitative data.
Gender impacts can be classified according to different categories. The “gender equality continuum” (Figure 3.1) is a useful tool for assessing whether a policy or policy combination is contributing to transformative change, identifying the specific type of impact it may have on gender equality (OECD, 2022[1]). The continuum categorises gender equality objectives and impacts on a scale going from gender “negative” or “exploitative” (causing harm, implying a risk) to gender “blind,” “neutral” or “accommodating” (ignoring and working around existing gender inequalities, but possibly perpetuating them), gender “sensitive” or “aware” (considering gender inequalities), gender “responsive” or “positive” (strengthening gender equality) and gender “transformative” (changing gender norms and power relations).
Caution should be applied when selecting an appropriate category to avoid inaccurate assessment. For example, a policy that considers gender equality but does not include specific actions to address it would be considered gender-neutral or gender-sensitive. Further, while a single policy may be gender-sensitive, it is unlikely to be considered gender-responsive unless it is operating as part of a combination of policies operating in parallel to address the multiple drivers and consequences of gender inequalities.
It can take time for policies and policy combinations to achieve gender-responsive outcomes. Regular assessments of effectiveness and progress under the results framework combined with course correction can support governments to move from gender-sensitive to gender-transformative policies and policy combinations.
Source: OECD (2022[2]), Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women and Girls: DAC Guidance for Development Partners, https://doi.org/10.1787/0bddfa8f-en.
Beyond assessing the impacts of an individual policy or programme or set of policies and programmes (e.g. policy combination, gender equality strategies), governments can also assess whether adequate and sufficient resources are provided for implementation, assessment, monitoring and evaluation. Some key questions include:
Are there adequate human and financial resources for implementation, review and course correction?
Is the budget for evaluations sufficient to adequately assess outcomes and allow for programme scale up, as needed?
Are there relevant qualitative and quantitative gender-disaggregated data to adequately monitor impacts by gender? Are these data disaggregated by gender and other factors (e.g. age, disability, socio‑economic status)?
For more information, refer to the OECD Toolkit for Mainstreaming and Implementing Gender Equality (OECD, 2023[3]).
Governments can use the results of these assessments in several ways, including to inform future budget allocations, adjust policy settings, introduce complementary policies, support stakeholder consultations and revise gender equality strategies, among others. For example, when assessments show unintended consequences, governments can consider redressing inequities or imbalances through complementary initiatives. In addition, assessments can highlight gender and intersectional data gaps that can shape (future) gender data strategies – tools that help fill data gaps, assign roles to key gender data stakeholders, establish regular co‑ordination mechanisms, elaborate data publication and dissemination strategies and identify gender data analysis capacity building opportunities.
Such assessments also support transparency and accountability, especially when made publicly available, updated regularly, published through a centralised, accessible location and tied to identified policy goals and results frameworks. When made publicly available, assessments should be easy for the public to interpret. In some cases, this may mean accompanying assessments with careful explanations to avoid misinterpretation. Consider, for example, that an increase in workplace sexual harassment complaints is likely to follow the introduction of policies intended to facilitate safe reporting.
This tool is an example of how to operationalise priority considerations. It presents hypothetical targets, policies and outcomes that should be tailored to national contexts.
Source: Developed by the OECD Secretariat.
References
[3] OECD (2023), Toolkit for Mainstreaming and Implementing Gender Equality 2023, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/3ddef555-en.
[2] OECD (2022), Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women and Girls: DAC Guidance for Development Partners, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/0bddfa8f-en.
[1] OECD (2022), Stronger Open Democracies in a Globalised World: Embracing the Global Responsibilities of Governments and Building Resilience to Foreign Influence. Background note for the Meeting of the Public Governance Committee at Ministerial level, OECD, Paris, https://one.oecd.org/document/GOV/PGC(2022)17/REV1/en/pdf.