Differences in outcomes between men and women can impose significant economic and fiscal costs. Gaps in employment between men and women undermine a country’s growth, productivity, competitiveness and long-term fiscal sustainability. Addressing such gaps can yield substantial economic benefits (OECD, 2022). Gender budgeting systematically integrates considerations of such differences into budget decision making. It promotes policies and investments that help close gaps between men and women through practices and procedures employed in the budget cycle. Effective gender budgeting frameworks require strong institutional and strategic foundations, appropriate methods and tools, an enabling environment within an administration and robust accountability and transparency measures to ensure impact and sustainability (OECD, 2023a).
Two out of eight SEA countries for which data are available, Indonesia and the Philippines, are currently implementing gender budgeting. In addition, Cambodia, Malaysia and Thailand are planning to implement gender budgeting. Gender budgeting is significantly less prevalent than in OECD Member countries, where 23 of 38 countries are currently implementing it (Figure 3.3).
The two SEA countries implementing gender budgeting both have a specific legal foundation for gender budgeting, Indonesia’s National Development Planning Framework and the Philippines’ Magna Carta of Women (Table 3.6). This is a notable strength and can safeguard implementation by insulating gender budgeting practices from political and economic fluctuations (OECD, 2023b). In OECD countries, 14 out of 23 countries implementing gender budgeting have a legal basis for doing so.
Another important success factor for gender budgeting is institutional leadership. Assigning responsibility to the Central Budget Authority (CBA), typically within the Ministry of Finance, can reinforce gender budgeting through its central role in resource allocation and policy co-ordination (OECD, 2023b). This is the case in 14 out of 23 OECD countries. In contrast, Indonesia shares responsibility between the Ministry of Women Empowerment and Child Protection and the CBA, while in the Philippines, the lead role lies with the Philippine Commission on Women, the national gender equality institution. There is no one-size-fits-all approach to the methods and tools used to implement gender budgeting. Both SEA countries and OECD countries tailor their methods and tools to national budgeting systems. Indonesia and the Philippines both apply a gender dimension in performance setting and require gender information to accompany budget proposals (
Table 3.7). These methods are also used by around half of OECD countries (12 out of 23).
Gender impact assessments, conducted either ex ante or ex post, are another common tool for evaluating the impact of gender. Indonesia plans to introduce ex ante and ex post assessments, whereas the Philippines conducts ex post assessments. OECD countries exhibit similar levels of use for ex ante and ex post assessments: 11 out of 23 countries use ex ante assessments, and 10 out of 23 countries use ex post assessments. Among the two SEA countries implementing gender budgeting, only the Philippines publishes gender budgeting information through an annual gender budgeting analysis in the form of an ex post gender budget statement, providing data on allocations and expenditures related to gender mainstreaming objectives at both the national and local levels.
