This chapter applies concepts from gender mainstreaming to the development and implementation of inter-ministerial policy combinations to advance gender equality. First, the chapter presents an overview of practices, tools and approaches to gender mainstreaming. Second, the chapter zeroes in on strategic planning and co‑ordination as principal approaches that are particularly useful in the development of policy combinations. The application of these approaches is contextualised with results on gender mainstreaming in EU and OECD countries from the OECD’s 2024 Questionnaire on Policy Combinations for Gender Equality.
Gender Equality in a Changing World
Taking Stock and Moving Forward
Abstract
Policy combinations – across ministries and levels of government – can be an effective way to address gender inequality due to their ability to simultaneously tackle multiple cross-cutting challenges. However, getting policy combinations right requires strong governance and institutions.
Practices, tools and concepts from the field of gender mainstreaming – such as gender impact assessments, strategic planning and horizontal and vertical co‑ordination – can be helpful in building strong governance and institutions around gender equality considerations.
As of 2024, many EU and OECD countries had already adopted relevant practices, tools and concepts from gender mainstreaming. In 2024, for instance, 31 out of 41 EU and OECD countries reported using whole‑of-government gender equality strategies. Formal co‑ordination systems are also regularly applied at the horizontal level in 26 out of 33 reporting countries and at the vertical level in 21 out of 34 reporting countries.
Despite this, much work remains to be done. Countries cite various operational challenges to gender equality strategies, such as limited enforceability of strategic frameworks, the absence of data and resources, limited involvement from line ministries, and funding shortfalls against the approved action plan or strategy. Countries also report that co‑ordination systems suffer from competing priorities and a lack of interest at the central level, as well as insufficient funding, capacities and expertise of policy makers.
Over the last decade, policy makers in many countries have increasingly shifted toward addressing policy issues through comprehensive solutions that combine various interventions, rather than relying on single policy tools. These policy combinations, also referred to as “policy mixes”, consist of a bundle of different policy measures that contribute to a common overarching goal and that are, ideally, complementary or synergetic (Sewerin, Cashore and Howlett, 2022[1]; Rogge, Kern and Howlett, 2017[2]; Rogge and Reichardt, 2016[3]; Howlett, Vince and Del Río, 2017[4]; Cejudo and Michel, 2021[5]).
Given the cross-cutting nature of gender equality, policy combinations may be a useful approach for governments aiming to tackle persistent gender inequalities. But getting policy combinations right is challenging and requires strong governance and institutions – something that can be better achieved using gender mainstreaming.
The rest of this chapter proceeds as follows. Section 2.1 begins with a brief introduction to common practices, tools and concepts from gender mainstreaming. Section 2.2 and 2.3 then zero in on two key governance elements from the field of gender mainstreaming that could prove particularly helpful for adopting policy combinations that tackle gender inequalities: strategic planning and whole‑of-government co‑ordination. A third element – discussed in Section 2.1.1 – encourages the use of gender impact assessments (GIAs) throughout the policy cycle to ensure that all policies are gender-sensitive, both individually and collectively.
These three elements are given special emphasis in the context of policy combinations because they can help to overcome silos, ensure cross-cutting work, facilitate data sharing and ensure gender equality considerations are embedded into policies.
Gender mainstreaming is an approach that seeks to ensure that all areas of government, including government agendas, policies, programmes and practices, strategically tackle harmful gender norms, stereotypes and gaps between women and men. It also aims to ensure government systems and practices do not inadvertently perpetuate or entrench existing gender inequalities. Gender mainstreaming helps governments make more inclusive decisions and achieve better outcomes for all.
According to the 2015 OECD Recommendations on Gender Equality in Public Life, the OECD recommends a dual approach that (a) aims to level the playing field between women and men through actions that target specific forms of gender discrimination and enable progress in the areas affected and (b) promotes the assessment of gender impacts in all governance areas from the earliest stages through to monitoring and evaluation. This recommendation recognises that targeted action is only one way in which to tackle discrimination and bias in the pipeline of policies, budgets, regulations and programmes, etc. (OECD, 2016[6]). Indeed, to ensure that policies, regulations and other strategic tools of public governance do not embed structural and systemic biases and stereotypes, gender mainstreaming also requires transformation of systems, including through:
gender impact assessments,
gender budgeting,
a strong legal foundation,
whole‑of-government strategic planning,
robust and effective co‑ordination mechanisms,
adequate resources and capacities,
stakeholder engagement,
high-quality and accessible gender sensitive data and evidence, and
comprehensive monitoring and evaluation with a gender lens (OECD, 2016[6]).
Other elements can also indicate a strong government commitment to improving gender equality, including requirements to advance gender equality and remove implicit and explicit barriers in key government documents (e.g. policies and laws), gender sensitive public procurement, gender sensitive infrastructure planning and delivery, the existence of cabinet committees to lead the gender equality agenda, and the allocation of the responsibility to promote gender equality at the highest level of office. Governmental efforts to ensure that gender mainstreaming is applied across all levels of government – i.e. national, regional, municipal, provincial, state – may also prove helpful.
This section is only meant as a brief introduction to and overview of gender mainstreaming. For a more thorough review of gender mainstreaming practices, see OECD (2023[7]; 2023[8]; 2019[9]; 2023[10]; OECD, 2022[11]) and EIGE (2020[12]; 2017[13]; 2024[14]; 2023[15]). Two reports merit specific mention. First, EIGE’s report “The pathway to progress: Strengthening effective structures for gender equality and gender mainstreaming in the EU,” provides an overview of institutional mechanisms for the promotion of gender equality and gender mainstreaming in EU countries and offers guidance and recommendations for going forward (EIGE, 2023[15]). Second, the OECD’s report “Toolkit for Mainstreaming and Implementing Gender Equality 2023” offers a practical resource to support governments and other decision-making institutions as they implement and refine gender mainstreaming (OECD, 2023[8]).
2.1.1. Gender impact assessments
Gender impact assessments (GIAs), sometimes also referred to as gender analysis, are a helpful tool for identifying the potential impacts of government decision making on women and men from diverse backgrounds. Indeed, GIAs are increasingly being viewed as a key policy making tool for promoting gender equality and are one of the most widely used tools for gender mainstreaming in OECD countries (OECD, 2023[7]).
GIAs are most effective when performed at multiple points throughout the policy process: ex-ante, by considering possible gender impacts of policies during the design and decision-making stage; throughout implementation, by monitoring the performance and results of policies; and ex-post, by evaluating the gender impact of policy outcomes (OECD, 2022[11]). GIAs can support parliaments in ensuring government performance remains on track and that government decision-making is transparent.
But policies do not exist in a vacuum. They are layered on top of one another in a complex system. For this reason, GIAs may be even more helpful when applied not only to individual policies, but also to policy combinations. In practice, this means that governments need to assess a set of policies in combination to have a holistic understanding of potential gender equality impacts. As an example, examining the impact of maternity leave policies alone is important, but it is equally important to analyse the impact of maternity leave policies in combination with other family leave policies (e.g. paternity leave, parental leave), with policies supporting the availability and affordability of childcare and with policies dictating school start ages. Indeed, these policies create a “continuum” of care that cannot be fully understood by looking at a single policy alone (ILO, 2023[16]).
According to the 2021 OECD Survey on Gender Mainstreaming and Governance, 26 out of 34 respondent countries have a formal requirement for GIAs in place. There is, however, no one‑size‑fits-all approach. In some countries, GIAs are undertaken as a part of a broader regulatory impact assessment, while in other countries, they exist as a standalone exercise. Figure 2.1 shows the range of decisions that are subject to GIAs across the OECD.
Number of countries indicating the existence of gender impact assessment (GIA) requirements, by type of document
Note: Data include responses from 27 OECD countries.
Source: OECD (2023[7]), Joining Forces for Gender Equality: What is Holding us Back?, based on 2021 OECD Survey on Gender Mainstreaming and Governance (https://stat.link/9c15nu).
To understand how government policies and processes impact people differently, policy makers can undertake quantitative and qualitative gender and intersectional research and data analyses (see Section 2.1.8). This can include population-level statistical analyses, reviews of previous evaluations and expert advice from those targeted by the policy or programme as well as any service providers involved in delivery (OECD, 2023[8]) (see Section 2.1.7). This evidence can also inform prioritisation decisions (see Section 2.1.4). A growing recognition by policy makers across the OECD that gender inequalities may be the result of gender-based discrimination interacted with other identity-based discriminations (OECD, 2023[7]) means that considering evidence disaggregated by a range of factors in addition to gender – such as race, ethnicity, age, pregnancy status and disability – can further strengthen the impact of intended results, especially among the most marginalised groups.
To ensure that policies and programmes are designed in a way that supports gender equality outcomes, governments can also consider developing a guiding framework (e.g. mandate, guidelines, approach, methodology, etc.) for the implementation of GIAs across all policy areas, even in those areas where gender considerations are not immediately apparent to policy makers. Indeed, many policies can appear to be gender-neutral at face value, but high-quality gender data analysis can help to (a) reveal the ways in which policies may differently impact women and men and (b) identify and redress unintended consequences of policy design decisions that may undermine broader gender equality goals.
Consider, for example, a hypothetical gender-neutral parental leave policy that gives all parents – regardless of gender – the same amount of leave time and benefits. On the surface, this policy is gender neutral, but a high-quality data analysis might reveal that women are much more likely than men to take the full amount of leave, with men only taking a portion of leave or none. Further data analysis might suggest ways to redress the unintended consequences of such a policy design. For example, analysis might suggest that dedicated “use‑it-or-lose‑it” leave for fathers helps to increase take‑up among fathers.
2.1.2. Gender budgeting
Government tax and spending decisions have powerful social, environmental and economic implications. Gender budgeting is a way for governments to ensure that decision-makers have information on how tax and spending choices impact gender equality.
As of 2022, 23 out of 38 OECD countries had introduced gender budgeting measures (OECD, 2023[10]) (see Box 2.1 for a country example from Canada). As with gender impact assessments, there is no one way to implement gender budgeting and countries tend to choose an approach that builds on the key features of their existing budgeting system. To do so, a range of tools exists, including ex ante gender impact assessment of policies, ex post gender impact assessment of policies, a gender dimension in performance setting, a gender dimension to resource allocation, and a gender needs assessment. Gender budgeting practices are also typically accompanied by standard guidelines from the central budget authority on implementation, general and/or specific gender-disaggregated data, training and capacity development, and an annual budget circular with instructions related to gender budgeting. In addition, many countries that implement gender budgeting also publish information alongside the annual budget to help inform budget oversight, and this information often takes the form of a “gender statement” (OECD, 2019[9]).
The 2018 Canadian Gender Budgeting Act enshrined gender budgeting in the federal government’s budgetary and financial management process. Gender budgeting in Canada is achieved through the use of two underlying tools, namely Gender-based Analysis Plus (GBA Plus) and the Gender Results Framework (GRF). The Gender Results Framework (GRF) is a whole‑of government tool designed to track how Canada is currently performing, define what is needed to achieve greater equality, and determine how progress will be measured going forward. It identifies six key areas where change is required to advance gender equality: Education and Skills Development, Economic Participation and Prosperity, Leadership and Democratic Participation, Gender-based Violence and access to Justice, Poverty reduction, Health and Well-Being, and Gender Equality around the World. Gender-Based Analysis Plus (GBA Plus) is an approach that recognises that many identity factors, such as gender, income, age, disability, and geography, can affect access to opportunities, helping to deepen understanding of how policies uniquely affect people with diverse experiences.
Source: OECD Secretariat 2024 Questionnaire on Policy Combinations for Gender Equality.
2.1.3. Strong legal foundation
A strong legal foundation can provide the basis for integrating a gender perspective into government action. An increasing number of EU and OECD countries have integrated gender equality and mainstreaming requirements into legal frameworks and other statutory obligations (OECD, 2022[11]). These provisions can take various forms, including:
general laws and binding decisions on gender equality and mainstreaming;
general obligations for public servants to advance gender equality in all actions; and
gender mainstreaming requirements enshrined in specific legislation (e.g. budget, impact assessment, procurement, planning, economic recovery, and emergency management laws) (OECD, 2023[7]).
2.1.4. Whole‑of-government strategic planning
Ensuring strong commitment to gender equality among political leadership and at the highest levels of government is critical to making the topic a priority for the government’s agenda (OECD, 2016[6]). For this reason, many OECD countries have adopted gender equality strategies, frameworks and action plans (hereafter, strategies) with the explicit purpose of advancing gender equality and reducing gender gaps. Indeed, in 2024, of 41 EU and OECD countries with available data, 31 had gender equality strategies, and another 3 countries reported that such approaches were under development (Figure 2.2).
Social cohesion plays a role in the formulation of effective public policy and whole‑of-government strategic plans, requiring a commitment to inclusive public policies (e.g. gender-sensitive social protection systems, guaranteed access to healthcare) and continuous engagement with civil society stakeholders (e.g. involvement of trade unions, women’s associations, rights organisations).
Section 2.2 provides more details on the use of gender equality strategies in EU and OECD countries, including barriers to their effective implementation.
2.1.5. Robust and effective co‑ordination mechanisms
Given the cross-cutting nature of gender inequality, ensuring co‑ordination and coherency across policy areas and between related policy and legislative instruments and ministries is essential. This requires gender equality policies to be connected to national economic and social development plans, for legislation and regulation to take gender impact assessments into account and for government decision-makers to be briefed on the cross-cutting gender impacts of new policy proposals. Cross-ministry co‑ordination mechanisms can help by ensuring all relevant ministries have contributed to policy design and are aware of their role in implementation and by facilitating an administrative culture and infrastructure that helps to manage horizontal and vertical challenges (OECD, 2021[17]; 2022[18]).
Across the OECD, there is no standard blueprint for the institutional set-up to implement, co‑ordinate and advance the government’s gender equality agenda. Conventionally, a central gender institution (CGI) or body is responsible for the co‑ordination and implementation of gender equality at the central or federal level. CGIs can be a separate ministry, paired with other portfolios within a single ministry, or located at the Centre of Government within the office of the head of government or state. In 2021, the OECD Survey on Gender Mainstreaming and Governance found that in the majority of responding countries, the body responsible for implementing, co‑ordinating and advancing the government’s gender equality agenda was located within the Centre of Government (OECD, 2023[7]).
Beyond day-to-day co‑ordination, such bodies and committees may also play an important role by ensuring and maintaining a long-term focus on gender equality at national and supra-national (e.g. European Commission) levels.
2.1.6. Adequate resources and capacities
Gender mainstreaming is only possible with adequate resources and capacities – both human and financial. Continuous training and capacity building for civil servants, for instance, is a useful method for developing and maintaining the necessary expertise in gender analysis required for gender mainstreaming and for supporting cross-agency capacity building for those involved in policy implementation, mid-cycle review and course correction. Designated gender units or gender focal points across departments, agencies and ministries endowed with appropriate levels of authority can also ensure accountability in gender mainstreaming and in-house support for civil servants. Sufficient financial resources – including an adequate budget for formal process and impact evaluation – are equally key to effective and impactful gender mainstreaming (EIGE, 2024[19]).
2.1.7. Stakeholder engagement
Stakeholder engagement can ensure that policy design options and implementation encompass a wide range of experience and viewpoints (Women's Democracy Network, 2020[20]). Indeed, stakeholder perspectives may be indispensable for understanding the success or failure of different policies and programmes; for filling data gaps; and for ensuring buy-in and shared ownership of gender equality strategies, priorities and objectives (OECD, 2019[9]). Indeed, in areas where quantitative data and evidence are particularly weak, qualitative data and evidence gathered through gender consultations with stakeholders can ensure that the voices of different groups of women and men are heard throughout the policy cycle.
To ensure that stakeholder consultation is most effective, governments can target different groups of stakeholders via different methods – e.g. online, on the phone, or in person – while offering adequate time to respond. Governments can also ensure that they engage with representatives external to government from the outset, such as women’s and civil society organisations, academics and trade unions.
2.1.8. High-quality gender-sensitive data and evidence
Progress in all areas of gender mainstreaming requires good measurement, monitoring, evaluation and reporting of gender gaps, and increased efforts to collect gender-disaggregated data across all policy fields. Gender-disaggregated data should be collected and analysed regularly and repeatedly over several years, allowing governments to track progress against set benchmarks or targets. Ideally, data should be collected to assess the effectiveness of specific policy interventions, for example through (randomised) experimental or quasi‑experimental design and pre‑ and post-implementation assessment of a policy.
The capacity of governments to use such data is equally important. Governments can improve the quality and specificity of gender equality strategies, gender impact assessments, stakeholder engagement tools and accountability and transparency mechanisms by investing in training and capacity building (see Section 2.1.6).
According to the 2021 Gender Mainstreaming and Governance Survey, some OECD countries are taking key steps to produce more gender-disaggregated data, with 19 out of 33 countries reporting legal or binding requirements for the collection and dissemination of gender-disaggregated data. At the same time, however, only 7 of 17 countries include explicit commitments or actions relating to data disaggregated by gender and/or other relevant characteristics within their strategic framework for data and statistics at the national level (OECD, 2023[7]).
To continue to promote the availability and accessibility of gender-disaggregated data and gender mainstreaming, countries are increasingly turning toward publicly-available online data tools (Box 2.2). Indeed, according to EIGE’s 2021 Gender Mainstreaming Survey, 14 EU countries have a website or a section of a website to disseminate statistics disaggregated by gender. The most common approach is a special section of the national statistical office’s website dedicated to gender, but some countries have a website dedicated specifically to gender statistics (EIGE, 2023[15]).
OECD databases, reports, briefs and working papers also support the increasing availability and dissemination of gender-disaggregated data and research (Box 2.3 and Box 2.7).
Luxembourg launched an observatory for gender equality in 2023 with more than 500 indicators across seven different domains, including the areas of domestic violence, employment, decision-making, work-life balance, education, income and health. These indicators are available by gender but also incorporate intersectionality by disaggregating according to age, nationality, education level and more.
In Sweden, an online tool was launched in 2024, titled Statistik i arbete med jämställdhetsintegrering (Statistics in gender mainstreaming work). Hosted by Statistics Sweden, this tool presents statistics disaggregated by gender and other identity characteristics and is targeted to agencies and other organisations that undertake intersectional analyses in their implementation of gender mainstreaming.
In 2019, Portugal launched the National Statistics System on Gender Equality to review, update and enhance the content and coverage of its Gender Database and offer a more comprehensive system of gender statistics on (in)equality between women and men.
Source: OECD Secretariat 2024 Questionnaire on Policy Combinations for Gender Equality.
The OECD Dashboard on Gender Gaps (www.oecd.org/en/data/dashboards/gender-dashboard.html), redesigned and relaunched in 2024, provides a snapshot of gender equality policies and outcomes across five key domains: Education and skills; Employment, entrepreneurship and trade; Public life and policy tools; Technology, knowledge and resources; and Health and well-being. Indicators are available over time and across countries, and serve to support reporting on progress toward the implementation of the OECD gender recommendations.
Harvard University’s Gender Action Portal (GAP) (https://gap.hks.harvard.edu/) collects evidence‑based insights from research focused on gender equality. The portal aims to translate research into action to better support policy and decision-making through a deeper understanding of the impacts of policies, strategies and organisational practices. As of September 2024, 320 studies aiming to close gender gaps had been assessed and entered into the portal.
The World Bank Gender Data Availability Portal (https://genderdata.worldbank.org/en/data-availability) summarises the availability of more than 1 000 indicators from a global and regional perspective, a country-specific perspective, a topic-based perspective and an indicator perspective.
The European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE)’s Gender Statistics Database (https://eige.europa.eu/gender-statistics/dgs) contains a wealth of information on gender equality across several thematic areas, including work and labour, demography, fertility, research, health, time use, education, decision-making and leadership, gender-based violence and gender mainstreaming. Data supporting the Beijing Platform for Action and EIGE’s Gender Equality Index are also available.
2.1.9. Comprehensive monitoring and evaluation with a gender lens
Considering monitoring requirements – such as a monitoring and evaluation (M&E) plan that includes a results framework and associated gender data strategies – at the policy design stage can support transparency and accountability. Stakeholders, including those directly impacted by policies, can be engaged in the design of the M&E plan to ensure a variety of perspectives are included in M&E efforts (see Section 2.1.7).
In the context of results frameworks, gender-transformative indicators, measures and benchmarks can reflect short-, medium- and long-term perspectives and can include a mix of process indicators and impact indicators. Using both can help to show which policy settings are working well and what needs to be adjusted and can ensure policies and policy combinations are on track to achieve longer-term outcomes, in line with a theory of change (see Box 2.10).
To ensure follow through on monitoring requirements, at the policy design stage, countries can identify individuals responsible for policy delivery and reporting and establish an appropriate infrastructure, such as online reporting portals and regular co‑ordination meetings. Clearly specifying and publicly announcing time periods and dates for monitoring and review as part of the policy design can help ensure the gendered impacts of the policy are monitored and assessed in a timely and transparent way.
Indeed, in order to understand whether a policy has been effective, policies can firstly be designed in such a way that enables countries to measure whether their policy goals have been met. For example, when policy objectives are SMART-formulated, that is, they are Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time‑Bound, countries can more easily show what activities were carried out, at what cost, and what concrete results were achieved at both individual and system-wide levels (see Box 2.4 for a country example of the use of SMART-formulated objectives in the Netherlands).
Monitoring and assessment can also examine whether there are negative externalities, barriers to access and/or implementation or unintended consequences. Consider, as an example, that many key policies and programmes that support gender equality (e.g. paternity leave, flexible working arrangements) are already in place in most EU and OECD countries, but take‑up and use lag as a result of barriers to access and/or gender norms and stereotypes. This suggests that there may be ways to improve the implementation or effectiveness of existing policies, either through adjustment to policy parameters or targeted low-cost complementary initiatives (e.g. increased awareness, information dissemination, administrative support).
But, without high-quality gender-sensitive data and evidence, monitoring and evaluation is complex – if not impossible. For this reason, it is critical for governments to implement a gender data strategy that identifies gender and intersectional data gaps and provides a plan to fill these gaps, assigns roles to key gender data stakeholders, establishes a regular co‑ordination mechanism, elaborates publication and dissemination strategies and identifies gender data analysis capacity-building opportunities (see Section 2.1.8). International organisations can play a crucial role in supporting governments as they implement gender data strategies, such as by offering guidance on data collection methods and the design of national surveys, censuses, and administrative data systems with gender-specific indicators; by encouraging the use of data to analyse gender gaps in areas like education, health, labour markets, and political participation; by providing training for statisticians, government officials and data scientists on gender analysis, data collection, and interpretation; by offering workshops, conferences, and forums where countries can learn from each other’s successes and challenges; and by supporting governments in conducting gender audits and assessments to identify data gaps and areas needing investment.
Gender impact evaluation in the Netherlands
The Netherlands undertook a gender impact evaluation of their National Gender Equality Framework 2011‑14, focusing on the effectiveness and efficiency of the policy framework and whether it achieved its stated objectives. While the evaluation found that meaningful results had been achieved at the project level, the evaluation concluded that the large variety of stand-alone projects with little policy weight and limited structural anchoring into regular government policy posed risks to the effectiveness of the overall framework and objectives. The evaluation also found that it was difficult to determine the degree to which the framework directly led to outcome changes. This was because a) the original goals were not SMART-formulated, b) some aspects of policy responsibility were held by other government departments over which the lead department had limited control and c) a range of external social factors may have influenced outcomes. Nonetheless, the evaluation concluded that the Policy did contribute to achieving positive on the ground changes given its limited budget.
In response to the evaluation, the government of the Netherlands adjusted its approach as part of the redevelopment of the policy framework post‑2014, focusing on greater overall coherence and sustainability of policy measures. This has meant that the Netherlands has focused its funding on larger-scale projects of longer duration rather than on smaller-scale, short-term projects.
Monitoring gender equality performance in Iceland
Iceland has an online dashboard to track progress toward the implementation of the “Action Plan for Gender Equality 2020‑23.” The Action Plan is divided into six domains featuring 29 policy and programme actions. Various ministries are tasked with delivering on each of these policy and programme actions. An overall progress tracker is available with progress broken down by ministry and domain. As of May 2024, 69% of the policy and programme actions were completed and 31% were well on their way. Progress remained in the area of sexual and gender-based violence; equality, education, culture, sports and youth work; and international work. A new action plan is being prepared for the years 2025‑28.
Source: OECD Secretariat 2024 Questionnaire on Policy Combinations for Gender Equality, State Audit Office of the Netherlands (2014[21]), Kavanagh et al. (2023[22]) and Allen (2023[23]).
Strategic planning helps prioritise issues, co‑ordinate efforts, and allocate limited resources across policy areas. In the context of supporting gender equality-enhancing policy combinations, this prioritisation process is essential as it can bring focus and clarity to the sheer scope of the policy areas involved – gender gaps exist in education, employment, health, digitalisation, agriculture, climate change and environment, violence, leadership and more.
In most EU and OECD countries, strategic planning for gender equality typically involves the development of a strategy, framework or action plan (hereafter, strategy) devoted to promoting gender equality (see Section 2.2.1), but it may also involve the integration of gender equality considerations into broader national strategic and sectoral plans (see Section 2.2.2). Indeed, stand-alone national gender equality strategies combined with the integration of gender equality objectives within sector-specific strategies and broader national strategies can help accelerate progress toward gender equality.
2.2.1. Implementing, designing and evaluating gender equality strategies
Gender equality strategies set clear objectives; foster systematic and co‑ordinated approaches; transparently demonstrate governmental commitments; contribute to setting new standards and expectations; and serve as benchmarks for tracking, measuring, and communicating progress (OECD, 2023[8]; 2023[7]). An increasing number of EU and OECD countries have adopted gender equality strategies, with 31 out of 41 EU and OECD countries with available data using such approaches, and another three EU and OECD countries in the process of developing such approaches (Figure 2.2).
Box 2.5 provides examples of gender equality strategies in EU and OECD countries, Box 2.6 describes the gender equality strategy of the European Union and Box 2.7 highlights the OECD Gender Equality Strategy.
Number of countries with a standalone, dedicated strategic framework in place for the promotion of gender equality, 2024
Note: Countries were asked “Does your country have a standalone, dedicated strategic framework (e.g. a national gender equality strategy or a national action plan for gender equality) in place for the promotion of gender equality?” Response options were “Yes” or “No.” Follow-up questions included the name of the strategic framework, the weblink to the framework, the year the framework was introduced, the year the framework will expire (if any), and the presence of any plans to renew. “Under development” is a category added based on open-ended responses. Data were available for 41 out of 43 EU and OECD countries. Data are mostly based on the OECD Secretariat 2024 Questionnaire on Policy Combinations for Gender Equality but responses for Austria, Estonia, Ireland and Italy were imputed based on European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) country profiles.
Source: OECD Secretariat 2024 Questionnaire on Policy Combinations for Gender Equality and EIGE (2022[24]; 2022[25]; 2022[26]; 2022[27]).
Czechia’s Gender Equality Strategy 2021‑30 defines a medium-term framework for the promotion of gender equality. The Strategy was developed to meet the necessary basic conditions related to the utilisation of certain EU funds and to respond to a Senate Resolution for a “comprehensive long-term strategy for the gradual reduction of income inequality between women and men in both productive and retirement age” (Office of the Government of Czechia, 2021[28]). The is the second strategy supporting gender equality policy in Czechia, following behind the Strategy for Gender Equality in Czechia for 2014‑20. Across the eight identified key policy areas, there are a total of 26 strategic objectives and 434 measures.
In 2021, the Federal Council of Switzerland adopted the Gender Equality Strategy 2030. Designed in close collaboration with cantons, cities and communes, as well as various stakeholder groups, there are four key priority areas, including promoting equality in the workplace; improving work-life balance; preventing violence; and fighting discrimination. Each of these priority areas is tied to a series of measures to be implemented or adopted, with specific measures tagged for implementation by 2023 and other measures tagged for implementation at a later stage. Switzerland plans to undertake an interim review of the Gender Equality Strategy in 2025.
Malta recently adopted its first-ever gender equality strategy, the Gender Equality and Mainstreaming Strategy and Action Plan 2022‑27 (GEMSAP). This strategy includes efforts to promote and ensure gender equality across several areas, such as healthcare, education, leadership and decision-making, economic security, and justice systems, among others.
In Cyprus, the Commissioner for Gender Equality presides over an Interministerial Committee composed of gender focal points from Ministries. The Council of Ministers mandated the Commissioner for Gender Equality to draft, co‑ordinate, monitor and evaluate the new Gender Equality Strategy, in co‑operation with all Ministries and Deputy Ministries. The strategy was a result of a wide consultation process with Ministries, Deputy Ministries, the National Machinery for Woman’s Rights, civil society, trade unions and higher education institutions. The Strategy was approved by the Council of Ministers and all Ministries and Deputy Ministries were called to draft a yearly action plan on gender equality.
Source: OECD Secretariat 2024 Questionnaire on Policy Combinations for Gender Equality.
The large number of EU and OECD countries that have adopted gender equality strategies shows an increasing commitment towards closing gender gaps. Yet, operational challenges imply that in some cases these plans fall short of their potential. According to the 2021 Gender Mainstreaming and Governance (GMG) Survey, the biggest obstacles to impactful gender equality strategies (and to gender mainstreaming overall) are limited enforceability of strategic frameworks for gender equality, the absence of data and resources, limited involvement from line ministries, and funding shortfalls against the approved action plan or strategy (OECD, 2022[11]).
In the 2024 Questionnaire on Policy Combinations for Gender Equality, similar results emerged in the responses to the open-ended question on barriers to effective implementation of gender equality strategies, with many countries highlighting insufficient human and financial resources, especially under tight budgets and slow economic growth; inadequate institutional capacity; limited availability of gender-disaggregated data and research; and resistance to change, especially to the application of gender mainstreaming and institutional frameworks and mechanisms to promote gender equality. Other barriers cited in responses to this open-ended question include lack of political will and changes in policy priorities; challenges with negotiations in decentralised or tripartite contexts; gender equality fatigue, lack of awareness about gender equality issues in various policy fields, including active prejudices against gender issues and deeply rooted gender stereotypes; lack of co‑ordination between national and subnational governments and across different programme areas; and inadequate incentives and compliance mechanisms for effective policy execution.
The European Union (EU) Gender Strategy 2020‑25 (hereafter, the Strategy) attempts to address myriad issues in gender equality through policy and legislative actions, as well as through integration into EU funding mechanisms. To do so, the Gender Equality Strategy uses a dual approach of gender mainstreaming: systematically including a gender perspective in all stages of policy design in all EU policy areas, internal and external; and strategically identifying targeted actions across six key objectives, namely: 1) ending gender-based violence; 2) challenging gender stereotypes; 3) closing gender gaps in the labour market; 4) achieving equal participation across different sectors of the economy; 5) addressing the gender pay and pension gaps; and 6) closing the gender care gap and achieving gender balance in decision-making and in politics. In both prongs of the dual approach, intersectionality is an important cross-cutting principle in the Strategy.
Since its implementation, the European Commission has published three annual reports on gender equality to track progress against these objectives and highlight recent key initiatives at the level of the EU and across EU countries. Key information on the state of gender equality in the EU is provided alongside these updates. These annual reports provide Member States with an opportunity for peer learning and support the development of a more unified approach to tackling gender equality. The Strategy has also helped to enhance co‑ordination across Member States by providing a bastion against which EU countries can align their national efforts and gender equality strategies.
The European Commission, led by the Directorate‑General for Justice and Consumers, has supported EU countries by providing tools, guidance, and reporting frameworks, while the European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) has played a key role in supporting EU countries by providing research, data and tools to monitor progress and assist in policy making. At the national level, each country is expected to appoint a gender equality focal point – or similar structure – to liaise with the European Commission and provide updates on national-level initiatives.
Source: European Commission (2024[29]; 2020[30]).
The OECD has been working on gender for many years. In 2010, the Organisation launched the OECD Gender Initiative with the aim of strengthening the evidence base for, and improving policies that target, gender equality in OECD countries (OECD, 2012[31]). The Initiative formed the basis for a series of cross-cutting reports and data activities and contributed to the development of the OECD Recommendation on Gender Equality in Education, Employment and Entrepreneurship (OECD, 2017[32]). In 2023, the OECD advanced its work on gender equality when Ministers welcomed a formal gender strategy at the OECD Ministerial Council Meeting in June 2023, titled “OECD Contribution to Promoting Gender Equality” (OECD, 2023[33]). This strategy sets out opportunities for the OECD to boost its actions in support of gender equality, structured around four main pillars: data, mainstreaming, policy and outreach. An important part of the Gender Strategy is that it focuses on mainstreaming gender throughout the OECD, including in Directorates that have not traditionally worked on gender.
Intersectionality in focus: Age is the most common intersectional factor included in gender equality strategies
Overlapping social identities – such as gender, race, and socio‑economic status – create unique disadvantages and complex systems of inequalities that may require targeted policy responses. Indeed, the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) notes that women experience discrimination differently based on the intersection of various identities, such as race, ethnicity, class, and disability, and that policies and laws must reflect the diversity of women’s experiences and address the key factors driving gender inequality in a more holistic way (UNHR, 1979[34]).
For this reason, many countries have embedded intersectionality considerations into gender mainstreaming efforts and their gender equality strategies. According to the 2024 Questionnaire on Policy Combinations for Gender Equality, for instance, of the 31 EU and OECD countries with a gender equality strategy, 24 report that their strategy embeds an intersectional perspective.
The most common intersectional identity factor included in gender equality strategies is age (19 respondents), followed by disability status (16 respondents), race or ethnicity (16 respondents) and immigrant status (16 respondents) (Figure 2.3). Several respondents also highlight that other intersectional aspects are covered, including sexual orientation and/or gender identity (e.g. Chile, Colombia, Croatia, Japan, Malta, Portugal, Slovenia and Spain), Indigenous identity (e.g. Canada), family or motherhood status (e.g. Cyprus, Hungary), nationality (e.g. Luxembourg) and religion or belief (e.g. Malta).
With growing interest in intersectionality considerations and discrimination faced by diverse groups of women and men, data disaggregated by gender and other identity factors becomes essential for assessing policy interventions (see Section 2.1.8).
In responses to the OECD’s 2024 Questionnaire on Policy Combinations for Gender Equality, countries noted that intersectionality considerations in gender equality strategies have multiple functions: they act as an overarching guiding principle, represent a basis for the formulation of policies targeting specific groups, and serve as a tool to collect gender-disaggregated data, among others. In most cases, these functions work together to ensure that a thorough understanding of gender inequality and its intersections with other forms of inequality and identity-based discrimination translate into supportive policy and programme action. Box 2.8 provides examples of intersectional perspectives in gender equality strategies in EU and OECD countries.
Number of countries with a standalone, dedicated strategic framework, sorted by intersectionality aspects covered by that framework, 2024
Note: If countries responded that they have a gender equality strategy in the OECD Secretariat 2024 Questionnaire on Policy Combinations for Gender Equality, they were subsequently asked “Does the strategy/plan explicitly embed intersectionality?” Response options included “Yes” and “No.” If they responded “Yes,” a follow-up question asked “What intersectionality aspects are covered? Please select all that apply.” Response options included “Age,” “Race or ethnicity,” “Urban or rural,” “Migrant status,” “Level of education,” “Disability status,” and “Income or socio‑economic status.” Countries were also given the option to add other intersectionality characteristics in a list. Although 24 countries indicated that their strategy includes an intersectional perspective, only 22 countries provided details on the types of intersectionality considerations covered. The overall response rate to the questionnaire was 36 out of 43 EU and OECD countries, but some countries left this question unanswered and some countries do not have a gender equality strategy.
Source: OECD Secretariat 2024 Questionnaire on Policy Combinations for Gender Equality.
In the Fourth Equality Plan between Women and Men 2018‑30, Chile uses an intersectional approach to better understand how gender inequalities differ across social groups. Structurally, in the Equality Plan, intersectionality is explicitly acknowledged in the strategic and specific objectives, which are themselves matched with identifiable indicators and clearly defined responsible actors to track progress and ensure accountability.
On 18 June 2024, Latvia approved the Plan on the Promotion of Equal Rights and Opportunities for Women and Men 2024‑27. The Plan includes different interventions to promote equal rights and opportunities in the labour market and education, reduce harmful gender-based stereotypes and better integrate gender mainstreaming in the policy planning process. The plan recognises the importance of using an intersectionality approach, including offering solutions for particularly vulnerable persons who may face multiple discriminations based on gender, race or ethnicity, age, social status or disability. The Plan places special emphasis on implementing measures to strengthen the capacity of Roma women to participate in all areas of life.
In the Slovak Republic’s Strategy for Gender Equality, a separate chapter on the inclusion of vulnerable groups and the multiple discrimination of women and girls ensures that an intersectional perspective is considered. Many intersecting identity characteristics, such as age, level of education, race and ethnicity, disability status and income, are also embedded into key operational goals. Examples include the elimination of segregation of Roma girls in the education system and the provision of equal access to quality education at all levels for all girls, including girls from marginalised groups and low-income families. At the same time, the Strategy acknowledges that issues of multiple discrimination and equal opportunities are only partially covered and systematically addressing such issues requires a separate strategic document.
Mexico’s National Programme for Equality between Women and Men 2020‑24 (PROIGUALDAD) recognises that although all women face limitations, gaps and discrimination, some women have greater restrictions derived from additional factors of exclusion, social disadvantage or discrimination. In view of this, PROIGUALDAD incorporates intersectional and multicultural approaches across its six strategic objectives, spanning economic autonomy; care work; well-being and health; violence against women and girls; and leadership and representation.
In Australia, Working for Women: A Strategy for Gender Equality incorporates an intersectional perspective by recognising that gender inequality is shaped by other factors such as race, disability, and socio‑economic status. It emphasises tailored approaches to address the diverse needs of women from different backgrounds, ensuring that policies reach women facing multiple layers of disadvantage. The strategy also promotes inclusivity by considering how different identities and experiences impact women’s access to opportunities and resources in the workplace and beyond.
Source: OECD Secretariat 2024 Questionnaire on Policy Combinations for Gender Equality.
Priority setting: Paid and unpaid work and leadership are common priorities in gender equality strategies
In developing effective gender equality strategies, setting clear priorities can help to ensure impactful and sustainable progress. Clearly defined objectives linked to these priorities is key for further targeting resources and can be particularly useful in the context of gender budgeting, accountability and auditing.
According to the 2024 Questionnaire on Policy Combinations for Gender Equality, most gender equality strategies are organised according to a set of specific themes or topics – often around 4‑6 policy areas, although some can include more than ten policy areas. Box 2.9 provides examples of the priority areas laid out in gender equality strategies in EU and OECD countries.
Germany introduced “Towards a stronger future – The federal government’s gender equality strategy” in 2020. The strategy includes nine goals, namely: 1) ensuring economic independence for everyone; 2) establishing care professions as attractive career paths; 3) setting standards for the digital world; 4) making paid work and unpaid care work reconcilable; 5) bringing more women into economic leadership positions; 6) establishing equal participation in democracy; 7) eliminating stereotypes in culture and science; 8) strengthening gender equality in public administration; and (9) making gender equality a task for the entire government. Each area is matched to specific interventions and indicators, with indicators monitored at least once every 4 years, but often more frequently (EIGE, 2022[35]).
The Fifth Basic Plan for Gender Equality in Japan was decided by Cabinet on 25 December 2020 and is composed of 11 policy areas, which cover traditional themes – such as decision-making, income, work-life balance, health and gender-based violence – and less traditional themes – such as disaster prevention, environmental issues and social protection systems. For each area, the Plan outlines the current situation within and outside Japan using indicators, puts forward targets for some of these indicators and outlines key initiatives to support progress against these targets.
Slovenia’s “National Programme for Equal Opportunities for Women and Men until 2030,” adopted in 2023, outlines general goals and objectives across six areas, including employment, education, health; violence against women; decision-making; and foreign policy. Periodic plans set out concrete actions alongside defined implementation methods.
Source: OECD Secretariat 2024 Questionnaire on Policy Combinations for Gender Equality.
Based on a bottom-up categorisation, key themes for policy action in gender equality strategies typically include paid and unpaid work and leadership and representation (Figure 2.4). This reflects that gender gaps in paid and unpaid work (and household responsibilities) and in leadership and representation (especially in politics and business) have been a central focus of much of the policy conversation around gender equality for many years.
Number of countries with indicators, goals, targets or themes related to specific areas of gender equality, 2024
Note: Countries were asked what specify their strategy/plan’s main policy areas (e.g. education, employment, trade, health, environment, defense, agriculture); key strategic priorities (e.g. girls in STEM, gender balance in paid and unpaid work, women in leadership); key targets for each strategic priority (e.g. 40% of leadership positions held by women in 2030); and key policy measures to achieve those targets (e.g. voluntary targets, incentives to companies); as well as any policy feedback and lessons learned from past experiences (e.g. conclusions from relevant evaluation exercises) and main barriers to implementation and effectiveness. Based on country responses, the OECD Secretariat defined policy areas using a bottom-up approach to flag whether a country’s gender equality strategy includes mention of certain policy areas or topics as a theme, indicator, goal or target. The figure is based on responses from 31 out of 43 EU and OECD countries.
Source: OECD Secretariat 2024 Questionnaire on Policy Combinations for Gender Equality.
By contrast, disaster prevention, social protection systems, natural resources and agriculture, and justice feature less frequently in these strategic documents – reflecting that these policy areas are often less associated with gender equality. But, if governments wish to eliminate persistent gender gaps between women and men, it will be essential to mainstream gender into policy areas less commonly associated with gender equality. Beyond expanding gender equality strategies to cover more topics and policy areas, governments can also embed gender equality into sector-specific strategies and broader national strategies (see Section 2.2.2).
Governments can consider using a theory of change when designing gender equality strategies, especially the underlying policy objectives, targets and goals. This can help to sustain medium to long-term funding and maintain support for policy interventions. Indeed, by setting out clear pathways between goals and interventions, a theory of change supports transparency and consensus building.
A theory of change typically starts with an explanation of the problem (including the different ways in which women, men and gender diverse people are affected and how) and then proceeds to the identification of a set of realistic short, medium and long-term goals that address the drivers and manifestations of the problem. Once the desired goals have been agreed upon, policy makers can begin mapping the range of interconnected change processes that are intended to address the problem (Taplin et al., 2013[36]).
In terms of ideal characteristics, a good theory of change:
recognises that system-wide change is not linear and therefore forms part of a learn-as-you-go approach to policy design (Goldsworthy, Kathryn, 2021[37]);
ensures a more realistic expectation for change over the long-term and highlights the importance of collective action across policy areas;
leverages stakeholder and practitioner views about how to address a given problem, drawing from on-the‑ground experiences in delivering policies and programmes (Taplin et al., 2013[36]); and
strengthens countries’ ability to monitor and evaluate which actions best achieve intended outcomes.
Indeed, when designed with the above characteristics, a theory of change can form a foundational step for future monitoring and evaluation and can enable course correction over time. Recognising the importance of using a theory of change to support the design, implementation and monitoring of government policies and programmes, Australia developed a Theory of Change 2022‑32 under the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children 2022‑32 (Government of Australia, 2023[38]).
2.2.2. Sectoral plans: Gender equality considerations are rarely systematically embedded into national strategic or sectoral plans
A stand-alone national gender equality strategy combined with the integration of gender equality objectives within sector-specific strategies (e.g. education, health, environment, etc.) and broader national strategies (e.g. data, foresight, disaster management, recovery and resilience, etc.) can help accelerate the implementation of gender equality objectives (OECD, 2016[6]).
According to the 2024 OECD Questionnaire on Policy Combinations for Gender Equality, 7 out of 28 EU and OECD countries report mainstreaming gender into all or most national strategic or sectoral plans (Figure 2.5), while 18 countries report gender is mainstreamed into less than half of all such plans. Such results are not surprising given that only some countries report having specific mandates or requirements to advance gender equality priorities in national development plans (e.g. Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Czechia, Lithuania, Mexico and Spain) (OECD, 2023[7]). In Spain, for example, gender impact assessments are mandated for all draft plans of special economic, social, cultural and artistic relevance (EIGE, 2022[39]).
Distribution of countries according to the extent to which gender is mainstreamed in national strategic and sectoral plans, 2024
Note: Countries were asked “Approximately how often is gender mainstreamed in national strategic and sectoral plans (e.g. National Transport Strategy, Poverty Reduction Strategy, etc.)? Please consider all plans that are active as of 1 January 2024.” Response options were “All plans (100%),” “Most plans (more than 75%),” “Many plans (50‑75%),” “Some plans (25‑50%),” “and “Very few plans (less than 25%).” This figure includes responses from 28 out of 43 EU and OECD countries. Note that there may be comparability issues across countries as there were differences in the extent to which countries co‑ordinated their responses across ministries.
Source: OECD Secretariat 2024 Questionnaire on Policy Combinations for Gender Equality.
Priority areas: Gender is most often integrated into national strategic or sectoral plans on human rights, international co‑operation and science and technology
National strategic or sectoral plans, by definition, are nearly always tied to clear policy areas or topics, such as climate change or health. According to the 2024 Questionnaire on Policy Combinations for Gender Equality, there are notable patterns across policy areas in the extent to which gender is mainstreamed in strategic or sectoral plans. Gender aspects are, for example, more likely to be strongly considered in plans related to minority populations, human rights, disability and discrimination; international affairs and co‑operation, security and defence; and STEM and R&D and digital transformation (Figure 2.6). By contrast, gender is more weakly integrated into national strategic or sectoral plans related to housing, education and justice.
Box 2.11 provides examples of national strategic and sectoral plans in EU and OECD countries that embed gender equality considerations to varying degrees.
Number of countries mentioning at least one national strategic or sectoral plan that embeds a gender dimension, by policy area and extent of gender mainstreaming, 2024
Note: Countries were asked to list strategic and sectoral plans that embed a gender dimension, identifying specifically how gender is embedded in the plan: “Gender is included in the document from objectives down to action plans, with clear resources identified for implementation,” “Gender is presented as one relevant entry point in relation to the main objectives of the plan, but a clear roadmap and resources for implementation are lacking” and “Gender is mentioned but mainly absent from subsequent implementation levels.” Based on country responses, the OECD Secretariat defined policy areas using a bottom-up approach. The figure refers to 118 national strategic or sectoral plans from 26 out of 43 EU and OECD countries. Plans pertaining to gender mainstreaming, gender equality and family policy were excluded from counts.
Source: OECD Secretariat 2024 Questionnaire on Policy Combinations for Gender Equality.
Costa Rica’s National Action Plan on Gender Equality in Climate Action 2023‑25 articulates multisectoral actions to reduce the gendered impacts of the climate crisis, especially for women in the most vulnerable sectors and in strategic sectors, through employment and economic autonomy by strengthening innovation and improving risk management.
The STEM Action Plan 2022‑28 in Germany is a strategic umbrella for measures to strengthen STEM education. Run by the Federal Ministry for Education and Research, the Plan promotes measures across the entire education continuum from kindergarten to university. The goal of the Plan is to foster and maintain interest in STEM subjects, enhance STEM knowledge and skills, bolster the STEM workforce, and cultivate a society open to technological change. The Plan recognises that increasing the presence of girls and women in STEM is a cross-sectional task, with gender considerations embedded in objectives down to implementation plans.
In Norway, the National Action Plan: Women, Peace and Security (2023‑30) follows up on the UN Security Council Resolution 1 325 and associated resolutions, as well as the wider agenda for women, peace and security. The Plan includes three priority areas with 35 measures and uses a cross-sectoral approach involving six ministries and their subordinate agencies.
The Strategy for Sustainable Development of Rural Areas, Agriculture and Fisheries 2030 in Poland aims to improve economic development in the countryside, to ensure national food security, to increase the added value from agriculture, and to sustainably increase the income of rural residents, while simultaneously minimising economic, social and territorial stratification and improving the environment. Within the strategy, the objective “Developing entrepreneurship, non-agricultural jobs and an active society” has several goals and activities relating specifically to women, such as the creation of attractive jobs for women through the promotion of flexible work and the professional activation of women through support and care for children and young people and support in starting businesses.
Türkiye’s National Action Plan on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 2023‑25 is composed of 316 interventions and serves as the implementation tool of the 2030 Barrier-Free Vision. One of the objectives of the Plan is protecting persons with disabilities from exploitation, violence, torture, degrading treatment and punishment. Under this objective, two interventions and actions relate specifically to women: provision of information and referral services on combating neglect, abuse, exploitation and violence against women and materials related to these services in accessible formats and strengthening the accessibility of women’s shelters.
Source: OECD Secretariat 2024 Questionnaire on Policy Combinations for Gender Equality.
Co‑ordinating bodies support government institutions by helping to overcome silos and enable communication and collaboration across policy areas. Given that many key challenges in gender are horizontal in nature and require the involvement of a variety of domains, actors and interests, co‑ordinating bodies are a necessary condition for the design, development and implementation of policy combinations to advance gender equality.
This section discusses the co‑ordination mechanisms that are used in EU and OECD countries to support horizontal co‑ordination across ministries (see Section 2.3.1) and vertical co‑ordination across levels of government (see Section 2.3.2).
2.3.1. Horizontal co‑ordination: Most EU and OECD countries have a formal co‑ordination system for gender-related policies and programmes
Across EU and OECD countries, there is no standard approach for co‑ordinating gender equality policies nor for the composition of stakeholders that should be involved. These co‑ordinating bodies, for example, may include senior management or working-level analysts across government institutions. They may take the form of committees, gender focal points, advisory councils or working groups, but could also be entire units within a ministry or a separate ministry entirely (OECD, 2023[8]). Some of these co‑ordinating bodies are set up temporarily as inter-ministerial commissions tasked with promoting a specific issue relating to gender equality (e.g. gender-based violence), while others have a more permanent status and may be tasked with the broader agenda of promoting gender equality (see Section 2.1.5).
Across EU and OECD countries, gender equality co‑ordinating bodies are quite common. In the 2024 Questionnaire on Policy Combinations for Gender Equality, 26 out of 33 EU and OECD countries reported that they have a formal co‑ordination system for gender-related policies and programmes that is regularly applied, and of these 26 countries, 18 specified that this formal co‑ordination system involves all ministries (Figure 2.7). Box 2.12 provides examples of the horizontal co‑ordination mechanisms or institutions used in EU and OECD countries.
Number of countries according to the existence, type and coverage of co‑ordination systems for gender-related policies and programmes across government ministries, 2024
Note: Countries were asked “Is there a formal co‑ordination mechanism or set of formalised practices to co‑ordinate gender-related policies and programmes across government ministries?” Response options included “There is a formal co‑ordination system, and it is regularly applied,” “There is a formal co‑ordination system, but it is not regularly applied,” “A formal co‑ordination system does not exist but there is some form of informal co‑ordination,” and “There is no formal nor informal co‑ordination.” Countries were also asked to specify approximately the proportion of ministries covered by the co‑ordination mechanism. Response options included “All ministries (100%),” “Most ministries (more than 75%),” “Many ministries (50%‑75%),” “Some ministries (25%‑50%),” and “Very few ministries (less than 25%).” This figure includes responses from 33 out of 43 EU and OECD countries.
Source: OECD Secretariat 2024 Questionnaire on Policy Combinations for Gender Equality.
Given that co‑ordinating bodies can have different shapes and structures, there may be advantages to having more than one co‑ordinating body or mechanism operating simultaneously (e.g. co‑existence of focal points and thematic inter-ministerial working groups with a central gender institution). Whether there is one body or many bodies, it is critical that roles and responsibilities are clear and accountable from the outset.
Ensuring the right level of representation and the right level of resources is also crucial. Inter-ministerial commissions responsible for promoting gender equality, for example, may require cabinet-level representation and dedicated human resources to appropriately and effectively influence broader policy and priority setting or to translate decisions into concrete follow-up actions (OECD, 2023[8]).
Although an increasing number of EU and OECD countries have adopted and applied formal co‑ordination systems, several implementation challenges remain, including competing priorities, a lack of interest at the central level and insufficient funding, capacities and expertise of policy makers (OECD, 2023[7]; 2019[9]). These challenges can limit the ability of co‑ordination bodies and systems to facilitate gender mainstreaming across the government (OECD, 2019[9]; 2022[11]).
Since 2012, each ministry in France appoints a Senior Equal Rights Official (HFED) to ensure the effective and efficient implementation of policy in favour of equality between women and men within ministries and in public policies. This network of HFEDs is also an important lever for inter-ministerial exchange and collaboration and plays a central role in monitoring the implementation of the Inter-ministerial Plan for Equality between Women and Men 2023‑27. The Ministry for Gender Equality is in charge of co‑ordinating this network and gathers them on a regular basis.
In Lithuania, the Gender Equality Committee – which has active involvement from state agencies, line ministries and NGOs – makes proposals for setting priorities and supports and monitors the implementation of gender equality policies across various sectors. Operating simultaneously is the Commission for Equal Opportunities for Women and Men. From the perspective of equal opportunities for women and men, this Commission monitors and analyses the implementation of policies and programmes; provides information necessary for the preparation of Lithuanian reports to international organisations; examines EU and international legislation and documents; considers nominations submitted by state institutions; and co‑operates and exchanges information and experiences with the Office of the Equal Opportunities Controller, other state and municipal institutions, non-governmental and international organisations and state institutions of foreign countries. The Commission includes the ministries of Social Security and Labor (Chair); Economy and Innovation; Finance; Health Protection; Education, Science and Sports; Internal Affairs; Foreign Affairs; and the government Office.
Source: OECD Secretariat 2024 Questionnaire on Policy Combinations for Gender Equality.
2.3.2. Vertical co‑ordination: Many countries use formal systems to co‑ordinate gender equality priorities and policies between national and subnational governments
In all EU and OECD countries, subnational governments have the ability to develop, design and implement policies and programmes in at least some policy areas. The exact policy areas that are devolved to subnational governments is highly country dependent: in some countries, for example, healthcare is more decentralised, with the majority of expenditure at the subnational level (e.g. Canada), while in other countries, healthcare is more centralised, with subnational governments accounting for only a minority of total public health spending (e.g. Greece, Ireland) (Beazley et al., 2019[40]). No matter the extent or the area of devolution or decentralisation, vertical co‑ordination on gender equality issues can ensure that efforts are not duplicated by multiple levels of government and that key concerns are not accidentally overlooked through a lack of communication or collaboration.
Of the 34 EU and OECD countries who responded to the vertical co‑ordination question in the 2024 Questionnaire on Policy Combinations for Gender Equality, 21 countries reported having a regularly-applied formal system to co‑ordinate gender-related policies and programmes across different levels of government (Figure 2.8). Box 2.13 provides examples of vertical co‑ordination mechanisms or institutions used in EU and OECD countries.
Distribution of countries according to the type of co‑ordination system for gender-related policies and programmes that exists between national and subnational governments, 2024
Note: Countries were asked “Is there a formal co‑ordination mechanism or set of formalised practices to co‑ordinate gender-related policies and programmes across different levels of government?” Response options included “There is a formal co‑ordination system, and it is regularly applied,” “There is a formal co‑ordination system, but it is not regularly applied,” “A formal co‑ordination system does not exist, but there is some form of informal co‑ordination,” and “No, there is no formal nor informal co‑ordination.” This figure includes responses from 34 out of 43 EU and OECD countries.
Source: OECD Secretariat 2024 Questionnaire on Policy Combinations for Gender Equality.
Although many EU and OECD countries have some type of structure to co‑ordinate policies and programmes across levels of government, in the 2021 OECD Survey on Gender Mainstreaming and Governance, 7 OECD countries identified the lack of appropriate structures for co‑ordination as a major obstacle to the co‑ordination of gender-related policies and programmes. Several other gaps to effective vertical co‑ordination were also identified, including insufficient funding and resources for co‑ordination and the lack of a policy or strategic framework for the engagement of subnational governments (OECD, 2023[7]). These results highlight that “reinforcing institutions with sufficient resources, capacities and co‑ordination mechanisms is vital to make progress in the area of gender equality” (OECD, 2023[7]).
In Bulgaria, there are co‑ordinators on equality between women and men at the national and regional level, as stipulated by the Act on Equality between Women and Men. Central and regional executive bodies designate officers who function as such co‑ordinators and who co‑operate with the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy. Currently, there are 87 employees designated as co‑ordinators within central bodies of the executive power and regional administrations, including 37 at the regional and 50 at the national level.
A Gender Equality Forum is convened every two years in Iceland to discuss gender equality issues. The Forum is open to all, with invitations sent to members of the Althingi, representatives of national and municipal government institutions, including their gender equality representatives, and representatives of social partners and civil society organisations with gender equality issues on their agenda.
In Mexico, the National System for Equality between Women and Men (SNIMH) is a fundamental mechanism for co‑ordinating the National Policy on Equality among the agencies and entities of the Federal Public Administration, the organisations of the various social groups and the authorities of the States, Mexico City and the Municipalities. Since the first session of SNIMH on 9 October 2013, 32 sessions have been held, contributing to the National Policy on Equality between Women and Men.
In Romania, in each county and in Bucharest municipality, there are Commissions in the Field of Equal Opportunities for Women and Men (COJES). These are formed of representatives from public services and of other specialised bodies of the local public administration, local administrative authorities, trade unions and employer’s organisations and ONGs. At quarterly meetings, the National Commission in the Field of Equal Opportunities for Women and Men (NCEO) reviews the reports sent by the COJES to decide on the measures necessary to eliminate short comings in certain fields of activity.
Sweden’s Gender Equality Agency is a government agency under the Ministry of Employment created to contribute to effective implementation of Swedish gender equality policy. The work of the Agency requires close co‑operation with other government agencies including County Administrative Boards, municipalities and regions and civil society.
In France, there is a decentralised network dedicated to women’s rights, with over 150 representatives of the Ministry for Gender Equality at the local level. They are positioned at the regional and departmental government level. This decentralised network represents and is co‑ordinated by the Ministry for Gender Equality at the central level.
Vertically co‑ordinating gender equality policies – for example, policies relating to STEM co‑ordinated between national and subnational ministries of education – is only one piece of the puzzle. To make progress on gender equality, subnational governments (e.g. provincial, state, municipal, regional) can also consider implementing gender mainstreaming practices across their areas of responsibility (e.g. gender mainstreaming in urban planning and infrastructure development, such as public transit).
According to the 2024 Questionnaire on Policy Combinations for Gender Equality, only 12 out of 28 EU and OECD countries report that gender mainstreaming is performed by all or most jurisdictions at the subnational level (Figure 2.9).
Box 2.14 provides good practice examples of gender mainstreaming at the subnational level. Section 2.3 explores the use of horizontal and vertical co‑ordination mechanisms in EU and OECD countries in more detail, including barriers to their effective implementation.
Distribution of countries according to the extent to which gender is mainstreamed at the subnational level, 2024
Note: Countries were asked “To what extent is gender mainstreaming (e.g. gender budgeting, gender impact assessments) used at the subnational level, approximately?” Response options included “All jurisdictions (100%),” “Most jurisdictions (more than 75%),” “Many jurisdictions (50‑75%),” “Some jurisdictions (25‑50%),” “Few jurisdictions (less than 25%),” and “No jurisdictions (0%).” This figure includes responses from 28 countries.
Source: OECD Secretariat 2024 Questionnaire on Policy Combinations for Gender Equality.
Although it is important to ensure that gender mainstreaming is happening at all levels of government, it is equally important to avoid any potential duplication of efforts and unnecessary costs. This reinforces the need for strong collaboration and co‑ordination across levels of government, including the sharing of resources, expertise and information on a regular basis.
Gender mainstreaming in Bulgaria is enshrined in the Act on Equality between Women and Men. The Act stipulates that when exercising their powers, the central government and local self-government, public authorities, and economic operators implement the principles of the state policy on gender equality in legislation, as well as in all national, regional and local policies, strategies, programmes and plans.
Denmark’s Act on Gender Equality specifies that regions and municipalities are obligated to work toward equality within their area and incorporate equality in all planning and administration.
Local governments in Korea conduct gender impact assessments of certain policies with the support of Gender Impact Assessment Centers (GIACs). There are 16 local GIACs and one central GIAC. The centres help local governments prepare gender-responsive budget statements, which are overseen by the Ministry of the Interior and Safety.
The Gender Equality Act in Croatia prescribes the existence of County Committees, the members of which are educated on the issues of gender equality and are expected to draw up action plans for various policy areas related to their local community.
Source: OECD Secretariat 2024 Questionnaire on Policy Combinations for Gender Equality.
References
[23] Allen, A. (2023), Women in STEM Evaluation Final Report, https://www.industry.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-08/women-in-stem-evaluation-final-report-2023.pdf.
[40] Beazley, I. et al. (2019), “Decentralisation and performance measurement systems in health care”, OECD Working Papers on Fiscal Federalism, No. 28, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/6f34dc12-en.
[5] Cejudo, G. and C. Michel (2021), “Instruments for Policy Integration: How Policy Mixes Work Together”, Sage Open, Vol. 11/3, https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211032161.
[14] EIGE (2024), Gender Equality Action Plans, https://eige.europa.eu/publications-resources/publications/gender-equality-action-plans.
[19] EIGE (2024), What is gender mainstreaming, https://eige.europa.eu/gender-mainstreaming/what-is-gender-mainstreaming?language_content_entity=en.
[15] EIGE (2023), The pathway to progress: strengthening effective structures for gender equality and gender mainstreaming in the EU, https://eige.europa.eu/publications-resources/publications/pathway-progress-strengthening-effective-structures-gender-equality-and-gender-mainstreaming-eu.
[24] EIGE (2022), Gender mainstreaming - Country information - Austria, https://eige.europa.eu/gender-mainstreaming/countries/austria.
[25] EIGE (2022), Gender mainstreaming - Country information - Estonia, https://eige.europa.eu/gender-mainstreaming/countries/estonia.
[26] EIGE (2022), Gender mainstreaming - Country information - Ireland, https://eige.europa.eu/gender-mainstreaming/countries/ireland.
[27] EIGE (2022), Gender mainstreaming - Country information - Italy, https://eige.europa.eu/gender-mainstreaming/countries/italy.
[39] EIGE (2022), Gender mainstreaming - Country information - Spain, https://eige.europa.eu/gender-mainstreaming/countries/spain?language_content_entity=en.
[35] EIGE (2022), Gender mainstreaming - Germany, https://eige.europa.eu/gender-mainstreaming/countries/germany.
[12] EIGE (2020), Gender Budgeting: Step-by-step toolkit: Guidance for mainstreaming gender into EU Funds, https://eige.europa.eu/publications-resources/publications/gender-budgeting-step-step-toolkit.
[13] EIGE (2017), Gender Impact Assessment: Gender Mainstreaming Toolkit, https://eige.europa.eu/publications-resources/publications/gender-impact-assessment-gender-mainstreaming-toolkit.
[29] European Commission (2024), Gender equality strategy, https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/gender-equality/gender-equality-strategy_en.
[30] European Commission (2020), The Gender Equality Strategy 2020-2025, https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/just/items/682425/en.
[37] Goldsworthy, Kathryn (2021), What is Theory of Change, Australian Institute for Family Studies, https://aifs.gov.au/resources/practice-guides/what-theory-change.
[38] Government of Australia (2023), Theory of Change 2022-2032 - Under the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children 2022–2032, https://www.dss.gov.au/system/files/resources/np-theory-change.pdf.
[4] Howlett, M., J. Vince and P. Del Río (2017), “Policy Integration and Multi-Level Governance: Dealing with the Vertical Dimension of Policy Mix Designs”, Politics and Governance, Vol. 5/2, pp. 69-78, https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v5i2.928.
[16] ILO (2023), Closing childcare policy gaps offers high return on investment, https://www.ilo.org/resource/news/closing-childcare-policy-gaps-offers-high-return-investment.
[22] Kavanagh, L. et al. (2023), Realising the promise of equality policy: An evaluation of the processes of implementation of three national equality strategies, Centre for Effective Services, https://www.gov.ie/pdf/?file=https://assets.gov.ie/263523/64481c7e-eeb8-46a0-b09f-8c27e3864978.pdf#page=null.
[10] OECD (2023), Gender Budgeting in OECD Countries 2023, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/647d546b-en.
[7] OECD (2023), Joining Forces for Gender Equality: What is Holding us Back?, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/67d48024-en.
[33] OECD (2023), The OECD’s Contribution to Promoting Gender Equality, https://one.oecd.org/document/C/MIN(2023)17/en/pdf.
[8] OECD (2023), Toolkit for Mainstreaming and Implementing Gender Equality, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/3ddef555-en.
[11] OECD (2022), Report on the Implementation of the OECD Gender Recommendations, OECD, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/mcm/Implementation-OECD-Gender-Recommendations.pdf.
[18] 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.
[17] OECD (2021), Policy Framework on Gender-sensitive Public Governance, OECD, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/mcm/Policy-Framework-for-Gender-Sensitive-Public-Governance.pdf.
[9] OECD (2019), Fast Forward to Gender Equality: Mainstreaming, Implementation and Leadership, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/g2g9faa5-en.
[32] OECD (2017), 2013 OECD Recommendation of the Council on Gender Equality in Education, Employment and Entrepreneurship, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264279391-en.
[6] OECD (2016), 2015 OECD Recommendation of the Council on Gender Equality in Public Life, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264252820-en.
[31] OECD (2012), Closing the Gender Gap: Act Now, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264179370-en.
[28] Office of the Government of Czechia (2021), Gender Equality Strategy for 2021-2030, https://vlada.gov.cz/assets/ppov/gcfge/Gender-Equality-Strategy-2021-2030.pdf.
[2] Rogge, K., F. Kern and M. Howlett (2017), “Conceptual and empirical advances in analysing policy mixes for energy transitions”, Energy Research & Social Science, Vol. 33, pp. 1-10, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.09.025.
[3] Rogge, K. and K. Reichardt (2016), “Policy mixes for sustainability transitions: An extended concept and framework for analysis”, Research Policy, Vol. 45/8, pp. 1620-1635, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2016.04.004.
[1] Sewerin, S., B. Cashore and M. Howlett (2022), “New pathways to paradigm change in public policy: combining insights from policy design, mix and feedback”, Policy & Politics, Vol. 50/3, pp. 442-459, https://doi.org/10.1332/030557321x16528864819376.
[21] State Audit Office of the Netherlands (2014), Emancipation Policy Review 2011-2014 (Beleidsdoorlichting emancipatie 2011-2014), https://archive.org/details/blg-441519.
[36] Taplin, D. et al. (2013), Theory of Change Technical Papers: A Series of Papers to Support Development of Theories of Change Based on Practice in the Field, https://www.theoryofchange.org/wp-content/uploads/toco_library/pdf/ToC-Tech-Papers.pdf.
[34] UNHR (1979), Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-elimination-all-forms-discrimination-against-women.
[20] Women’s Democracy Network (2020), Gender-Responsive Policymaking Handbook, https://www.iri.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/gender-responsive_policymaking_handbook.032720.pdf.
Name and year of most recent gender equality strategy or action plan in EU and OECD countries
Note: Data for Italy are from EIGE (2022[27]).
Source: OECD Secretariat 2024 Questionnaire on Policy Combinations for Gender Equality.