-XQ SS Blackwell Publishing RQ EHKDOI RI WKH American ...sgedeon/summer2012/Rubin_Bartle.pdf · ing, and they are cited extensively throughout the gender budgeting literature and

Blackwell Publishing American Society for Public Administrationhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3542503 .

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Blackwell Publishing and American Society for Public Administration are collaborating with JSTOR todigitize, preserve and extend access to Public Administration Review.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aspa

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3542503?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

Marilyn Marks Rubin John Jay College, City University of New York John R. Bartle University of Nebraska-Omaha

Special Report

Integrating Gender into Government Budgets: A New Perspective

A government's budget represents a statement of its priorities. During the past 25 years, the international community has recognized that gender equality is essential for sustainable economic growth and full social development, and it has called upon nations to use their budgets to promote gender- equitable resource allocation and revenue generation. More than 60 countries have answered this call by implementing gender-responsive budgets at the national and subnational levels. However, gender-responsive budgeting is virtually unheard of among public finance scholars and U.S. public administration scholars and practitioners. Here we define gender-responsive budgeting, discuss the need for it, describe the lessons learned, and discuss its potential as a budget reform. We hope our commentary will bring gender-responsive budgeting into the mainstream of research in the U.S. public administration community and into the practice of government budgeting.

Over the past 25 years, the movement toward gender equity has gained momentum in countries throughout the world (Elson 2002a). The international community of nations has publicly committed itself to promoting gender equity, reflecting the realization that the equality of men and women is essential for sustainable economic growth and full social development (Hewitt and Mukhopadhyay 2002; Klasen 1999). In 1979, the U.N. General Assembly adopted the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW)-sometimes referred to as the "international bill of rights for women." CEDAW defined what constitutes gender discrimination and set an agenda for national action to end it (UNDAW 2004). By October 2004, 179 of the 191 U.N. member nations were party to CEDAW, and an additional nation had bound itself to do "nothing in contravention of its terms" (UNDAW 2004). In 1995, representatives of 171 governments at the U.N. 4th World Conference on Women, held in Beijing, reaffirmed CEDAW's commitment to end discrimination against women.

Both the CEDAW signatories and Beijing conference participants identified the equal treatment of women and men in government budgets as central to the achievement of gender parity. The platform for action adopted in Beijing

specifically called on governments to "incorporate a gender perspective into the design, development, adoption and execution of all budgetary processes as appropriate in order to promote equitable, effective and appropriate resource allocation and establish adequate budgetary allocations to support gender equality" (United Nations 1995). Several terms, including "women's budgets," "gender budgets," "gender-sensitive budgets," and "gender-responsive budgets," have been used to describe public budgets that incorporate a gender perspective into their processes.

In this article we use the term "gender-responsive budget" to denote a government budget that explicitly inte- grates gender into any or all parts of the decision-making

Marilyn Marks Rubin is a professor of public administration and economics at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York, where she is the director of the MPA program. She has published articles in Public Administration Review and Public Budgeting and Finance and has authored chapters in books related to public finance and economic development. She is a former chair of the Association for Budgeting and Financial Manage- ment. E-mail: [email protected]. John R. Bartle is a professor in the School of Public Administration at the University of Nebraska-Omaha. His teaching and research focuses on public finance policy and management, public budgeting, transportation, and applied economics. He is the editor of Evolving Theories of Public Budgeting (Elsevier, 2001) and chair-elect of the Association for Budgeting and Finan- cial Management. E-mail: [email protected].

Special Report 259

process regarding resource allocation and revenue generation. We use the term "gender-responsive budget initiative" to include (1) the actual integration of a gender perspective into budget decisions at the national or subnational level of government, and (2) an organized movement to influence government to incorporate a gender perspective into its budget decisions. Thus defined, more than 60 countries have undertaken gender-responsive budgeting initiatives at the national or subnational levels of government (Budlender and Hewitt 2003). In the United States, the only government to explicitly use gender-responsive budgeting as part of its budget decision-making process is the City of San Francisco.

The near absence of gender-responsive budgeting in the United States is matched by the virtually nonexistent references to it in the public budgeting and finance literature (Orosz 2001). Neither has the emerging literature on feminist approaches to public administration explicitly addressed gender in relation to budgeting.1 The literature outside public administration, particularly in the international arena, is more extensive in its work on gender-responsive budgeting. However, gender-responsive budgeting is still a relatively new topic, reliant on relatively few researchers and in need of additional study, especially relating to its suc- cesses and failures. Debbie Budlender, Diane Elson, and Rhonda Sharp are three prominent contributors to the con- cept, research, and practice of gender-responsive budgeting, and they are cited extensively throughout the gender budgeting literature and in our article.2

Almost all of the research related to gender-responsive budgeting has taken a normative approach, promoting its use as a way to advance gender equality. Cagatay et al. write that "the ultimate goal of these various [gender] budget initiatives is to come up with reprioritization of both expenditures and revenue-raising methods in order to promote social justice" (2000, 14). While we fully support the use of gender-responsive budgeting to promote gender equity, this article intends to move the discussion in a different direction by examining its potential for budget reform, following a long line of efforts to effectuate changes in the budget decision-making process: planning program- ming budget systems, management by objectives, zero- based budgeting, and performance budgeting.3 The sec- ond purpose of this article is to bring the discussion of gender-responsive budgeting into the mainstream of debate in the public finance community and in the community of public administration scholars and practitioners in the United States.4 The first two sections of the article develop a rationale for gender-responsive budgeting and describe some of the initiatives that have already been undertaken. The third section looks at gender-budgeting tools, and the final section assesses the potential of gender-responsive budgeting as a budget reform.

Why a Gender-Responsive Budget? A public budget sets forth a government's priorities by

showing what it intends to spend over a specified period of time and how it will allocate and finance those expenditures. Government budgets are generally presented in financial aggregates, with no specific references to men or women. As such, the budget appears to be gender neutral. But if revenue and expenditure decisions have differential impacts on men and women, the budget is not gender neutral; to ignore the differences constitutes what has been termed "gender blindness" (Elson 1999). Government policies that intentionally treat men and women differently obviously are not meant to be gender blind. One example is the Maternal and Child Health Services Program, established by the U.S. Congress in 1935 as Title V of the Social Security Act. As its name suggests, the program specifically funds programs related to the health of women and children. Gender blindness specifically refers to the unintended impacts of budget policies that occur because of economic and social differences between men and women.

Labor Force Factors: An Illustration of Economic Factors and Budget Impacts

Women's more discontinuous work histories-that is, their greater likelihood of holding part-time jobs and, when working full-time, earning less than men-may result in differential gender impacts on both the revenue and expenditure sides of public budgets (Barnett and Grown 2004). On the expenditure side, for example, the level of retirement payments from governments to individuals en- rolled in mandatory participation programs is generally determined by the number of years worked or by lifetime earnings.5 Because women usually earn less than men (and are more likely to have interrupted work lives), they con- tribute less to their retirement funds and thus receive lower average social insurance payments upon retirement. For example, in 2003 the average monthly Social Security benefit for a retired man in the United States was $1,008 and $775 for a retired woman (NCPSSM 2004). Women may, of course, receive overall higher lifetime retirement benefits because they have longer average life spans.

A review of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Rec- onciliation Act, signed into law by President Bush in 2001, illustrates unintended differential gender impacts on the revenue side of the budget. Among other changes, the 2001 law reduced personal income tax rates, cutting, for instance, the 39.6 percent rate to 35 percent. But the cuts did not have an equal impact across the board. They "increased ... after-tax income by 6.3 percent for households in the top one percent of the income distribution, compared to 2.8 percent or less for other groups, and less than one percent for the bottom quintile" (Gale and Potter 2002). In 1999, of the 105.5 million households in the United States, only

260 Public Administration Review * May/June 2005, Vol. 65, No. 3

0.5 percent of those with earnings over $200,000 were headed by a female (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). At the opposite end of the income spectrum, female-headed households accounted for 18.5 percent of all households with annual incomes under $10,000. The 2001 tax reductions were not meant to favor male-headed households; rather, the reality of the income distribution meant they did so, and the impact of the budget decision was not gender blind.

Family Responsibilities: An Illustration of Social Characteristics and Budget Impacts

Worldwide and through the ages, women have generally had primary responsibility for child care and for the care of the elderly and other dependent persons. This work, in what is known as the "care economy," pays very low or no wages (Elson 1999), and the concentration of women in it has contributed to gender inequities on both sides of the budget (Barnett and Grown 2004). In general, the pres- ence of children increases unpaid work more for women than for men. For example, in New Zealand from 1995 to 1999, women with no children spent 34 hours per week on unpaid work, but 50 hours per week if they had children. In contrast, the hours spent by men on unpaid work were no different whether they had children or not (Barnett and Grown 2004). In South Africa, "women with children living with them spend an average of 87 minutes a day on child care, compared to seven minutes for men in this position" (Budlender, Chobokoane, and Mpetsheni 2001,26). In 1995, the U.N. Development Programme estimated the annual value of women's unpaid labor worldwide to be $11 trillion (Balmori 2003).

Gender differences related to the care economy may result in unintended budget impacts on men and women. As Sharp writes, "the treatment of paid and unpaid care activities and work has a critical bearing on whether the government budgets and policies have positive or negative impacts on gender equality" (2003, 47). For instance, reductions in health care spending are likely to increase the amount of time that women spend in care-related work to compensate for lost public services. In Zambia, when real per capita health expenditures declined 16 percent between 1983 and 1985, women reported they had to increase the time they spent taking care of sick family members (Budlender 2002). Implementing gender-responsive budgeting can help to correct gender blindness on both sides of the budget and can "raise awareness among stakeholders of gender issues and impacts embedded in budgets and policies" (Sharp 2003, 9).

Gender-Responsive Budget Initiatives The first gender-responsive budget initiative was under-

taken in Australia at the federal level in 1984 and fully

executed in 1985. It was implemented to address perva- sive gender inequities by "mainstreaming" gender analysis into central policy processes, including the public budget process (Sawer 2002). What would come to be known as the "Women's Budget Statement" required all departments and agencies in the federal government to submit in-depth reports demonstrating the impact of their programs on women. They were also required to identify methods to improve program outcomes in meeting the needs of women (Budlender and Hewitt 2002). In time, all of Australia's states and territories would follow the central government's lead and implement their own gender-budgeting initiatives. While the Australian initiative did not prove to have a lasting impact at the federal level, there is evidence it contin- ues to inform budget decisions at the state and territory levels (Sawer 2002).

The Australian experience brought international atten- tion to gender-responsive budgeting as a way to address gender inequities, although it took a decade before the next initiatives were undertaken in South Africa and in the Philippines. The initiative in South Africa was undertaken in 1995, spearheaded by the Women's Budget Ini- tiative, a partnership of two policy-based research nongovernmental organizations and newly elected members of Parliament (primarily female), along with the Gender and Economic Policy Group of the parliamentary Com- mittee on Finance (Budlender 1998, 2003; Budlender and Hewitt 2002). Although it started out slowly, the Women's Budget Initiative analyzed budgets for all 27 ministries covered by the national government, as well as the budgets of several subnational governments, and it published its results annually. The group also prepared materials to inform the gender-budgeting initiative, including the "Money Matters" guide, which would eventually be trans- lated into several languages and used in countries throughout the world. The collaboration of research-based nongovernmental organizations with members of Parliament provided the latter with the information they needed to carry the gender-responsive budgeting message to legislative decision makers (Budlender 1998, 2003; Budlender and Hewitt 2002).

The gender-responsive budgeting initiative in the Phil- ippines also began in 1995 as part of a gender and development movement. The nation's General Appropriations Act, which approves the national budget, required all national agencies to set aside 5 percent of their budgets for gender and development. In 1998, local governments were required to do likewise (Flor and Lizares-Si 2002). This 5 percent allocation "was meant to provide national agencies and local governments ... with a budget for program- mes that would enhance the ... capability for gender sensitive planning and budgeting" (Flor and Lizares-Si 2002, 98).

Special Report 261

The Australian, South African, and Philippine experiences have been followed by gender-responsive budgeting initiatives throughout the world (table 1). Some have origi- nated in government, but most have been undertaken by civil society groups, generally nongovernmental organizations working to promote gender equity. In some countries, gender-responsive budgeting has actually been integrated into one or more phases of the budget cycle at the national or subnational levels of government. In other countries, the initiatives are still in their formative stages in which gender analysis of one or more government programs has been conducted or workshops held for groups such as government workers, nongovernmental organizations, and other representatives of civil society. Interna- tional and bilateral donors have funded a number of these workshops as part of their overall capacity-building efforts in developing and in-transition countries.6

Table 1 Countries That Have Undertaken Gender-Budgetin Initiatives at the National or Subnational Level of Governme Africa Botswana Egypt Kenya

Malawi Mauritius Morocco Mozambique

Namibia Nigeria

Rwanda

Americas Barbados Belize Bolivia

Brazil Canada Chile Ecuador

Asia Afghanistan Bangladesh India

Indonesia Malaysia Nepal Pakistan

El Salvador Philippines Mexico Sri Lanka

Peru Thailand

Senegal St. Kitts-Nevis South Africa United States

Vietnam

Europe M Austria Isr Croatia Le France

Germany Ireland Italy Former Yugoslav republics Norway Republic of Macedonia Russian Federation Scotland Serbia and Montenegro

sons relate to the following: * Buy-in and commitment from both government and civil

society stakeholders * Level of government at which gender-responsive

budgeting is undertaken * Political environment in which the initiative is introduced

and sustained * Stage of the budget cycle into which gender-responsive

budgeting is integrated * Availability of technical expertise and data disaggregated

by gender.

Preliminary Lessons Learned Buy-in of Government and Civil Society Stakehold-

ers. The integration of the gender perspective with public budgets requires government decision makers to acknowl- edge gender inequities in society and to see budget policy

as a way to promote equal treatment of men and g >nt

liddle East rael abanon

Swaziland Spain Tanzania Switzerland Uganda United Kingdom Zambia Zimbabwe Source: Budlender and Hewitt (2003, 7). Note: Table 1 is based on 2003 information, and therefore may not present an exact pic conditions. It is difficult to determine whether other countries have undertaken gender-re get initiatives for several reasons, including our reliance on publicly available data anc our research.

Because of our reliance on publicly available sources, many of which are not kept current, we have not yet fully documented the initiatives by stage of implementation or evaluated their success. However, we have identified several commonalities among the initiatives that have led to preliminary lessons learned. While additional research is needed to provide more empirical evidence relating to gender-responsive budgeting, we believe these preliminary lessons can inform future efforts to integrate gender into the budget decision-making process. The preliminary les-

Pacific Australia Fiji Marshall Islands Samoa

women. Gender-responsive budgeting initiatives undertaken in Australia, the Philippines, Rwanda, and several countries in the Andean region illustrate this point. In Australia, elec- tions during the early 1970s brought a new government into office that was committed to making government more responsive to women's needs (Sawer 2002). Feminists, referred to as "femocrats," were recruited to work for the new government to implement its campaign commitment to gender equity. The budget came to be seen as critical to achieving this equity. Sawer writes, "In line with their commitment to mainstreaming, Australian femocrats became in- creasingly concerned with the need for an effective way to mainstream gender perspectives and gender accountability into budgetary processes" (2002, 45). The Philippines initiative was also part of an overall national and subnational government campaign to address ac- knowledged gender inequities in society and to democratize government (Flor and Lizares-Si

:ture of current 2002) .sponsive bud- j the timing of Government's commitment to use the bud-

get to achieve gender equity has also been a critical element in the Andean region, where several initiatives are under way. And in Rwanda, the president and other leaders struggling to put their country back together after years of civil war and genocide are using gender budgeting as one way to bring about government reform and to address gender inequities and poverty (Diop-Tine 2002). Diop-Tine, an economist and gender expert working in Rwanda, writes, "The government's political will was il- lustrated ... by the establishment in 1999 of the Ministry of Gender and Women in Development" (2002, 118).


However, if government's commitment to gender equity is crucial for gender-responsive budgeting acceptance, so, too, is the need for stakeholders outside government to take ownership of and advocate for its acceptance. When gender-responsive budgeting initiatives begin outside government, it is obvious that support exists, at least in its early stages. However, when a gender-budgeting initiative is undertaken by the government, this is not always the case. For example, gender-responsive budgeting was initiated in Australia by the government, but was never really able to coalesce Australia's feminist nongovernmental organizations and women in civil society (Sawer 2002). This lack of support was one of the main reasons that gender- responsive budgeting was eventually watered down, at least at the federal level (Sawer 2002)

Level of Government. Most gender-responsive budgeting initiatives have been introduced at the national level of government. However, initiatives have also been undertaken at the subnational level in Australia, South Af- rica, and the Philippines. In Australia, states and territories followed the lead of the national government in establishing gender-budgeting initiatives, and, even when the national initiative faltered, there is evidence that lower levels of government continued their own initiatives (Sawer 2002). The South African experience is generally cited as one of the more successful gender-responsive budgeting initiatives, although Budlender wrote in 2002 that "at this stage there is very little activity inside government" (Budlender and Hewitt 2002, 129). More re- cently, she has stated that gender-responsive budgeting is beginning to gain momentum in South Africa, especially at the subnational level. Gauteng Province, the wealthiest in South Africa, has used a gender-responsive budget approach for its last two budgets. 7

Several gender-responsive budgeting initiatives are under way in local governments in the Andean region of South America (Ecuador, Peru, and Bolivia) as part of overall government reform and decentralization (UNIFEM 2003). In 2001, the city parliament in Berlin, Germany, introduced gender budgeting starting in selected city districts and for selected expenditures (German Agency for Technical Co- operation 2004).

The implementation of gender-responsive budgeting at the subnational level is consistent with the worldwide movement toward the decentralization of budgeting functions from the national to subnational levels of government, where residents are more likely to engage with decision makers (Bellemy 2002; World Bank 2005). In many countries where decentralization involves devolution, a lack of technical capacity at the subnational level may make it more difficult to implement gender-responsive budgeting. And in countries where decentralization involves deconcen- tration, national government priorities concerning gender-

responsive budgeting (or lack thereof) obviously will affect what happens at the subnational level.8

Political Environment. The political environment and social values that are in place when gender-budgeting initiatives are undertaken is an important factor affecting its acceptance. South Africa's gender-responsive budgeting initiative was undertaken at the same time that apartheid was ending, bringing massive social and political changes to the country and a substantial increase in the number of members of Parliament (especially women) who saw budgeting as a way to increase gender and racial equality. As mentioned earlier, gender budgeting has also made inroads in Rwanda, where a new president is struggling to put together a government in the wake of years of civil war and genocide (Diop-Tine 2002).

In the United States, the only government to implement a gender-responsive budget is San Francisco, a city that is generally recognized for its progressive policies toward women and minorities and the only government in the United States to adopt a CEDAW ordinance. Adopted in 1998 by the Board of Supervisors (the city's legislative branch), San Francisco's CEDAW ordinance requires the city to protect human rights and to act to eliminate discrimination against women and girls. The 1998 ordinance also established a CEDAW task force to assist in the implementation of all aspects of the law (San Francisco Com- mittee on the Status of Women 2000).

In 2003, the Board of Supervisors passed a resolution specifically requesting that city departments integrate, analyze, and quantify, where possible, the impact of proposed fiscal year 2004 budget cuts on selected groups, including women (City and County of San Francisco 2003a). While most departments responded that they did not expect dis- parate gender impacts, some reported they did. For instance, the Department of Human Services estimated that about two out of every three persons affected by the projected budget cuts would be women (City and County of San Fran- cisco 2003b).

Stages of the Budget Cycle. Each of the four phases of the budget process-preparation, legislative consideration, execution, and audit and evaluation-provides the potential for integrating gender budgeting into the decision-making process (table 2). Budget preparation, the first phase of the budget process, is generally the responsibility of the executive branch of government. Gender-responsive budgeting may enter this phase in a number of ways: in budget preparation guidelines to departments, in agency de- liberations, and in final decision making by the chief executive.

Several governments, including those in India, Nepal, Mexico, Tanzania, Uganda, and Egypt, have included gender-specific language in their general budget guidelines (UNIFEM 2003). In Tanzania, for example,

Special Report 263

Table 2 Integrating Gender-Responsive Budgeting into the Budget Process Stage of the budget process Budget preparation

Budget approval

Budget execution

Audit and evaluation

Potential

1. Gender-specific budget initiatives set forth in the chief executive's budget policy

2. Gender policies incorporated into overall budget guidelines and instructions from the central budget office

3. Gender-specific priorities set for budget allocations within departments for specific agencies.

1. Creation of specific gender guidelines for expenditure and revenue legislation in the overall framework for legislative decision making

2. Integration of gender-specific language in legislation establishing new programs and agencies

3. Use of gender-responsive budgeting guidelines in allocating discretionary resources

4. Incorporation of gender outcomes into fiscal notes accompany- ing new spending and revenue legislation.

1. Creation of guidelines for spending where there is discretion given to departments by legislative bodies

2. Development of gender guidelines for outsourcing, procure- ment, and grant disbursement

3. Implementation of gender goals in staffing. 1. Incorporation of a gender dimension into financial audits that

focus on expenditures and compliance 2. Incorporation of a gender dimension into performance audits

that focus on outputs and outcomes 3. Audit for compliance with gender goals and guidelines.

taken hold in legislative decision making (UNIFEM 2003). However, several efforts are under way to bring gender-responsive budgeting into the legislative budget process. For example, the U.N. Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM) is working with India's national parliament to formulate gender-responsive guidelines for the disbursement of discretionary resources to members of parliament (UNIFEM 2003). It has also worked with the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the World Bank Institute to publish a handbook for parliaments that are interested in bringing gender into the decision-making process. Accord- ing to the Inter-Parliamentary Union, an international organization of 140 sovereign states' parliaments (and five affiliate members), the handbook is "[i]ntended as a refer- ence tool ... sets out practical examples of parliament's active engagement in the budgetary process. It seeks to advance parliament's own institutional capacity to make a positive impact on the budget, and to equip parliament, its members and parliamentary staff with the necessary tools to examine the budget from a

[T]he Year 2000-01 budget guidelines gave the man- date to all Ministries, Department and Agency (MDA) to prepare their budgets with gender mainstreaming objectives in mind. A Checklist docu- ment ... was also developed for the Ministry of Fi- nance to guide budgetary planners and technocrats in the government to mainstream gender into all parts of the process and tools were developed ... to guide planners and Budget Officers in the collection of gender-disaggregated data for budgeting purposes." (TGNP 2004)

Once the budget is prepared, it enters the approval or legislative phase, when gender-responsive budgeting again has the potential to be integrated in several ways. Specific gender guidelines could be promulgated for expenditure and revenue legislation within the overall framework of legislative action or in language establishing new programs and agencies. During this phase of the budget cycle, decisions may entail extensive debate over the executive plan, or they may be largely pro forma. The latter is more likely to be the case in parliamentary governments, where the same political party controls the executive and legislative functions.

While members of legislatures, especially women, have played important advocacy roles in several gender-responsive budgeting initiatives, including those in South Africa, Uganda, and Scotland (Budlender and Hewitt 2002), there is little evidence that gender-responsive budgeting has yet

gender perspective" (IPU 2004). After the budget has been approved, it enters the third

phase, budget execution, when budget plans are put into operation. To the extent that departments have discretion to allocate resources among programs, gender-responsive budgeting can inform allocation and other decisions during the execution phase. Administrative directives may also influence the allocation of funds. Gender-responsive budgeting initiatives have yet to achieve major success in en- tering this phase of the budget cycle, although efforts are under way in several countries, such as Mexico and India, to bring gender explicitly into decisions regarding budget execution (UNIFEM 2003).

Most gender-responsive initiatives have focused on audit and evaluation, the fourth and final phase of the budget cycle. A gender dimension can be incorporated into financial audits that focus on expenditures and compliance and into performance audits that focus on results. Katherine Rake of the U.K. Women's Budget Group writes, "a gender audit of policy and expenditures offers a unique opportunity to evaluate the impact and effectiveness of the Government's social and economic programme" (2000, 117). In Victoria, Australia, for example, "community- based gender audits have achieved some success" (Sawer 2002, 63). And in South Africa, a 1997 evaluation of the Community Based Public Works Program "formed the basis of the Department's current plans to fine-tune the program and further improve targeting" (Elson 2002b).


Technical Expertise and Data Availability. Most countries do not collect disaggregated revenue or expenditure data, a basic requirement if gender-responsive budgeting is to be incorporated into the budget process. Without gender-disaggregated data, changes in government budget policies can have unintended gender impacts. For example, if women depend on public transport more than men, de- creased spending on government-supported buses and trains will have a differential gender impact. In developing countries, the lack of relevant data, particularly gender-disaggregated data, has been identified as a serious impediment to implementing gender-responsive budgeting (Balmoni 2003).

Not only is the lack of disaggregated data a challenge, so, too, is the lack of budget expertise in government and civil society. In many cases, outside experts have to be brought in to lead gender-responsive budgeting initiatives; these experts are not necessarily familiar with the internal culture and politics of a country or region. For example, in Sri Lanka, participants in an externally funded gender-budgeting workshop (some of whom were already familiar with gender-responsive budgeting) felt the information presented by the outside consultants was not specifically tailored to their needs (Budlender 2003).

Gender-Budgeting Tools Once a decision has been made to integrate gender into

the budget, analytical tools must be developed and applied to determine the differential impact of spending and revenue decisions on men and women. In this section, we briefly describe some of these tools and provide some il- lustrations of where they have been used.

Expenditures Gender-responsive budgeting initiatives have generally

focused on the expenditure side of the budget (UNIFEM 2003). In fact, the "Beijing platform" explicitly encour- ages governments to "make efforts to systematically review how women benefit from public sector expenditures; and adjust budgets to ensure equality of access to public sector expenditures, both for enhancing productive capacity and for meeting social needs" (United Nations 1995). The conceptual framework for analyzing the impact of government expenditures on different groups dates back more than 100 years, when Knut Wicksell pioneered differential incidence analysis to analyze the impact of government spending by income group (Musgrave 1959). In recent years, this technique has been extended to analyze the differential impacts of government spending by gender.

Budlender and Sharp (1998) were pioneers in establishing a framework for analyzing the gender impact of government expenditures. They use three spending categories

to determine how women benefit from public-sector expenditures: (1) expenditures that are specifically identified as gender based; (2) equal opportunity expenditures that are designed to change the gender profile of the workforce; and (3) mainstream expenditures. The differential impacts of the first two spending categories should be obvious. The third category, which constitutes the bulk of government spending, is the primary challenge. Elson (2002a) suggests a variety of techniques to address this challenge, including expenditure incidence analysis, gender-aware policy appraisal, gender-responsive budget statements, beneficiary assessments, and time-use studies.

Expenditure Incidence Analysis. Expenditure incidence analysis compares the impact of specific government expenditures on women and girls with the impact on men and boys. When applied to public expenditures on education in Ghana, expenditure incidence analysis found that "women ... benefit less from spending at all levels of education" (Budlender and Sharp 1998). This differential impact was also found in Pakistan and in Kenya (Budlender and Sharp 1998). When undertaking expenditure incidence analysis, a difference must be drawn between the initial impact of a public expenditure and its incidence, or actual economic effect.9 Failure to consider this difference may result in a misleading assessment of gender impacts. For instance, in a maternal and child health care clinic that is staffed entirely by men, the initial impact would be direct spending on wages-100 percent male, 0 percent female. However, the primary beneficiaries of the expenditure are women and children, so the incidence would reflect the economic benefit of the program to these beneficiaries.

Gender-Aware Policy Appraisal. Gender-aware policy appraisal determines whether current policies are likely to reduce or increase gender inequities. One illustration of this technique is the analysis undertaken in South Africa to identify the gender impact of that country's land reform program. The policy failed to recognize the legal restric- tions that prevented many women from having effective access to land, as well as the financial resources needed to develop the land. As a result, women were not able to benefit from the land reform policy as it was originally en- acted. In response to this concern, the Department of Land Affairs began to integrate gender concerns into its policy monitoring and evaluation systems (Elson 2002a, 44).

Gender-Responsive Budget Statements. Gender-responsive budget statements require departments to identify how expenditures affect gender equality using a variety of indicators. The Commonwealth Secretariat has identified several indicators that can be used for gender- responsive budgeting statements to monitor resource allocation and to link resources to policies and goals (Elson 2002a, 47).

Special Report 265

Beneficiary Assessments. Beneficiary assessments ask potential or actual program beneficiaries to assess how well programs have or will meet their needs. This can be done using focus groups, surveys, interviews, or polls. In Sri Lanka, for example, focus group meetings with poor women living in urban and rural areas revealed that while educational facilities were available, poverty constrained their access to good schools and vocational training (Budlender and Sharp 1998).

Time-Use Studies. Gender analysis incorporating time- use studies relies on surveys to calculate the effect of budgetary changes on the daily time use of men and women. This can identify the false economies of a budgetary reduction in which care costs are shifted from the public sector to individuals. As mentioned previously, the reduction in public spending on health care in Zambia between 1983 and 1985 caused women to increase their time spent as care givers.

Generally, gender-responsive budgeting initiatives have not been comprehensive, but have analyzed specific parts of the budget using these techniques. A full-fledged gender-responsive budget would require measuring gender impacts for all functions of government, including seem- ingly gender-neutral expenditures such as fire protection and infrastructure construction and repair. "The Gender Impact of Government Spending" box shows the results of a gender-responsive budgeting effort in San Francisco that assessed the gender dimensions of spending in its Department of Public Works.

Box 1 The Gender Impact of Government Spending: An Illustration from the City of San Francisco In April 1998, departments of the City and County of San Francisco government were required to apply gender analysis to budget allocations, service delivery, and employment practices (San Francisco Commission on the Status of Women 2000). Two departments were selected as pilot cases: the Department of Public Works and the Juvenile Probation Depart- ment, both examples of Elson and Sharp's "mainstream" government spending. The San Francisco CEDAW Task Force and the Commission on the Status of Women jointly authored Guidelines for a Gender Analysis for departments' use in implementing the ordinance. The guidelines identified five steps: (1) collecting disaggregated data, (2) conducting the gender analysis, (3) formulating recommendations, (4) implementing recommendations through an action plan, and (5) monitoring the action plan and CEDAW implementation. Step two required departments to "Identify practices that promote the human rights of women and girls.... Identify practices that may limit the human rights of women and girls" (San Francisco Committee on the Status of Women 2000, 10). This is essentially the appli- cation of Elson's gender-aware policy appraisal. The San Francisco Department of Public Works has completed two gender- analysis reports, the original in 1999 and an update in 2001. The department reported that "[s]ince the department conducted its gender analysis in 1999, there has been more awareness of the gender effects of service delivery" (San Francisco Commission on the Status of Women 2001, 1).

Himmelweit further suggests that a comprehensive gender-responsive budget analysis would "require examining not only a policy's direct distributional effects on gender inequalities, but also its higher-order impacts on men's and

women's behavior" (2001, 2). As far as we are aware, no gender analyses have done this, although they certainly could in the future, as this is a standard tool of tax incidence analysis. The tools of expenditure analysis are, therefore, developing as expected for a relatively new reform. While there is room for improvement, the goal is not to develop perfect techniques for expenditure analysis, but to improve the gender equity of service delivery and budget determination.

Revenues Most gender-responsive budgeting initiatives have not

focused on the revenue side of the budget, with a few exceptions such as the United Kingdom. When the U.K. budget is initially released, the media focuses on revenues, while spending is announced later with less publicity. In addition, taxes are more broadly based and affect more of the population than in most other countries (Budlender 2002). When countries do decide to focus on the revenue side, they find that some revenues are more amenable to gender-specific analysis than others. The following discussion looks at gender-responsive analysis as it relates to the four major types of government revenues: direct and indirect taxes, user charges and fees, intergovernmental revenues, and debt.

Direct Taxes. A gender-specific analysis of taxes that are imposed directly on the taxpayer (such as the personal income tax) reveal that unequal treatment of men and women may result explicitly from the tax laws or implic- itly through the differential impact of taxes on women and men (Stoksky 1997). For example, an explicit gender bias is evident in many countries where nonlabor income is al- located only to the husband for income tax purposes. An implicit bias may result from excise taxes if there are differential patterns among men and women in the consumption of taxed and untaxed goods. A comprehensive gender analysis of taxes would have to disaggregate the gender impact of every tax imposed by the government by undertaking gender-responsive budgeting. Obviously, such an analysis would be easiest for governments that impose only one or a few taxes. For governments that impose several taxes, the initial focus could be identifying major provisions of the tax code that, a priori, have differential gender impacts, such as child care deductions and marriage penal- ties or bonuses as in the U.S. income tax code. In fact, as Elson writes, "The ... revenues to be covered are generally selected in the light of analysis of the pattern of gender inequality, women's priorities, and government policy on gender inequality in the country concerned" (2002b, 2).

Calculating the impact of direct taxes by gender requires disaggregating data by taxpayer. Personal income taxes are assessed on the taxpaying unit, which in some cases is the individual, but in other cases is the family. When the family is the taxpaying unit, total family income must be dis-


aggregated for individual family members, as well as ex- emptions, credits, and other components of the tax. Be- cause the U.S. government does not do this with income taxes, current federal tax policy and data-collection methods do not permit the disaggregation of married-family tax treatment by gender. However, nine states allow individual filing and have these data available (Wisconsin Legisla- tive Fiscal Bureau 2001).

Indirect Taxes. Indirect taxes are not imposed directly on persons. They include the general sales tax; excise taxes on alcohol, tobacco products, and gasoline; and all taxes imposed on trade and businesses, such as the corporate income tax. Because they are not imposed on the individual, their gender impact is much more difficult to establish. When applying gender analysis to the sales tax, for example, the gender of the purchaser would have to be determined. This information is not usually recorded by the tax collector (in most cases, the vendor). Samples of taxable purchases could be used to compile this information. Again, this analysis could be undertaken if there were a time and funding commitment.

An interesting effort to estimate the gender impact of indirect taxes was undertaken by Goldman (2000), who looked at the proposed elimination of tariffs on certain goods in South Africa. She found that industries with pro- tective tariffs (such as clothing, agriculture, and food pro- ducers) were likely to be most adversely affected by the elimination of the tariffs. Because many of the workers in these industries are women, there would be a differential, if unintended, gender impact.

In the United States, a gender analysis of other indirect taxes could be undertaken using the consumption patterns of taxed goods by gender. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Sta- tistics produces the Consumer Expenditure Survey, which could be used as the data source for such an analysis. How- ever, these data report consumption by household units, which are disaggregated by gender for single persons but not for households with two or more adults. The data for single persons could be used with their limitations, or samples or surveys of individuals could be undertaken.

For some indirect taxes it may not be possible to determine differential gender impacts. This is true not only with gender analysis, but with tax incidence analysis in general. For example, there is a long-standing, unresolved debate among public finance experts about the incidence of the corporate income tax. As Mikesell writes, "Neither theoretical nor empirical evidence is clear" on the incidence of this tax (2003, 345). Just as with traditional fiscal analysis, we may have to accept that, with regard to gender budgeting, some conceptual issues may take time to resolve or may remain unresolved.

User Charges and Fees. Government revenues also come from user fees and charges, that is, payments for vol-

untarily purchased goods and services sold or rented by the government. User charges are becoming more preva- lent throughout the world, and the International Monetary Fund has even suggested they be used as a way to finance basic social services such as water and electricity, in developing countries (Barnett and Grown 2004). Some public finance experts have expressed the opinion that for local governments, "the first rule ... should be wherever possible charge" (Bird 1993, 21).

Bird's dictum is based on the potential of charges to promote efficiency in service delivery. However, user charges are generally regressive. Given that women's incomes are usually lower than those of men, the decision to impose user charges is not gender neutral. Additionally, according to Palmer, in developing countries user charges frequently exacerbate discrimination against girls with re- spect to the provision of health care and education (Palmer 1995).

For some user charges, assessing the gender-specific impact is possible, albeit time-consuming, if the data are available to disaggregate payments by men and women. For example, charges by state public universities-the single largest source of user charge revenues for states in the United States-could be disaggregated by gender rather easily. On the other hand, admissions fees paid in cash for the use of municipal facilities would require ei- ther disaggregation at the collection level or, if this is not feasible, estimation by random counts or analysis of consumption data.

Intergovernmental Revenues. In countries with multiple levels of government, the central government usually provides some form of financial assistance to subnational governments. This assistance may take the form of transfers and tax-base sharing, as well as direct spending. Inter- governmental transfers can be subdivided into two categories: conditional grants (requiring the recipient government to use the grant for specified purposes) and unconditional grants.

Gender-impact analysis is more straightforward for conditional grants. In some cases, the gender of the beneficiaries is actually set forth in the terms of the grant. For instance, in a maternal care grant, the donor government may specify which populations qualify for the grant and may require the recipient government to report demographic information. Thus, both the donor and recipient governments could tabulate the gender impact of this spending. The recipient government can estimate the gender impact of the grant revenue only if the gender impact of the donor government's budget is known. In other cases, the recipient government will have to identify the gender of the beneficiaries. In both cases, gender-responsive analysis requires a distinction to be made between the impact of the grant and its incidence.

Special Report 267

For unconditional aid the analysis can be even more complicated. For example, tax sharing, a type of unconditional aid, distributes revenues from a specific central government tax to subnational governments based on the origin of collections of the national tax. The distribution can be based on a statutory formula or on negotiations with subnational governments. Both raise issues of transparency and participation that are intensified when bringing in the gender overlay.

The degree of decentralization of expenditure and revenue responsibilities can also have important gender impacts. Central governments generally use different types of taxes than state, provincial, or municipal governments, and the distribution of taxes and services is heavily influ- enced by the degree of centralization. Barnett and Grown (2004) state that in many countries, decentralization may cause serious inequities because the taxes that subnational governments use tend to be more regressive than those used by central governments.

Debt. Throughout the world, central governments and subnational governments, when permitted, borrow money to finance public facilities and infrastructure, and sometimes to cover budget deficits. Of all types of revenues, the differential gender impact of debt may be the most difficult to estimate. For general-obligation debt, a gender-impact assessment would require estimates of the future tax burdens borne by men and women. This is possible, even though it would be speculative; however, any financial analysis of long-term debt is inherently speculative. The gender impact may be easier to estimate in the case of revenue-backed debt because the revenue sources that repay this type of debt are generally related to the project being financed.

Most of the research related to the gender-debt nexus has not focused on these and other analytical issues; in- stead, it has focused on a more immediate problem in many developing countries, especially in Africa-the impact on women of staggering debt repayments to external lenders (Kalima 2002).

Gender-Responsive Budgeting: A Potential Budget Reform?

To this point, we have focused our discussion on gender-responsive budgeting issues to provide a background for considering the question posed at the beginning of this article: Does gender-responsive budgeting have potential as a budget reform? Our response is placed in the context of the experiences of other budget reforms, particularly those in the United States.

A key question for any budget reform is, "did the inno- vation alter the basis for making budget decisions?" (Schick 1992, 91). Although conventional wisdom says that bud-

get reform is difficult to implement, if not downright "doomed to failure" (Wildavsky 1961), many reforms have been implemented, in whole or in part, with varying names and adaptations. Some have had lasting and fundamental influence on government (Alexrod 1995). For example, Schick and other budget experts believe that zero-based budgeting, a reform introduced in the U.S. federal government in 1972, "changed the terminology of budgeting but nothing else" (Schick 1978, 178). But, elements of zero- based budgeting continue to inform decision making in the federal government's budget in a number of agencies, such as NASA and the Environmental Protection Agency (Niu 2005), and in a number of ways, including "internal priority ranking" (Mikesell 2003, 205). Additionally, 13 states and several local governments in the United States use zero-based budgeting as part of their annual budget process (NASBO 2002; Niu 2005).

Similarly, performance budgeting as a budget reform has not always won accolades among public finance scholars. However, in the United States in 2002, it was the format used by 21 states for compiling their budgets (NASBO 2002). On the federal level, Joyce found that when look- ing at the U.S. Office of Management and Budget-the executive branch agency responsible for preparing the president's budget-it would appear that performance budgeting has not altered decision making (Joyce 2003). His examination of the other three phases of the federal budget cycle showed otherwise. For example, at the budget- execution phase, Joyce found that "agencies are using their discretion to allocate resources in part based on performance considerations. While congressional and presiden- tial buy-in are important to performance-informed budgeting ... substantial effects ... can come from an agency's focus on performance during budget execution, with or without the support of the Congress and the President" (32).

Joyce concludes that to know whether performance-informed budgeting is reforming the federal budget process, you have to look at decision making in all phases of the budget cycle and within each phase. This also applies to gender-responsive budgeting, which can enter into each phase of the budget cycle. For example, during the legislative approval phase, gender-specific guidelines could be included in the congressional budget resolution'? or as a criterion in decisions to allocate discretionary resources. Gender-responsive budgeting could also be brought into the legislative decision-making process in the preparation of "scorekeeping" or fiscal notes that are required at the federal level and by many state and local governments to accompany new legislation.

Joyce's use of the term "performance-informed budgeting" is intentional, suggesting that it brings performance information into the budget decision-making process, making choices more informed but not necessarily making them


easier. So, too, could gender budgeting make choices more informed if not easier. A performance-based approach may lend itself to the inclusion of gender concerns better than the traditional line-item approach because the former per- mits the specific inclusion of the gender impacts of spending through performance measures. However, gender-responsive budgeting can be integrated into all major budget formats-herein lies the critical difference between gender-responsive budgeting as a potential budget reform compared with earlier reforms such as zero-based budgeting (table 3). Gender-responsive budgeting does not require a totally new format; it requires that gender be included in the decision-making process regardless of the format.

Table 3 Illustration of Gender Integration into Various Budg Budget format Line item

Performance

Program

Zero-based budgeting

Organizing mechanism Expenditures organized by object of expenditure (inputs or resources purchased)

Expenditures organized by tasks, activities, outputs, or outcomes

Expenditure organized by broad government objectives (such as education or transportation) Expenditures organized by decision packages associated with varying levels of funding

Gender integratio Percentage of wac salaries to women Percentage of coni women-owned firr Percentage of pro( recipients who are Gender goals and incorporated into measures Program impact b Program impact o equity goals

Gender impact at decision-making IE

Forrester and Adams (1997, 472) write that "the success of the budgetary reform, then, is dependent on individuals' acceptance of the reform as well as on their own willingness to change how they think and behave." This statement, modified to include a political climate conducive to change and acceptance on the part of stakeholders inside and outside government, is consistent with what we have learned from gender-responsive budgeting initiatives throughout the world. If stakeholders inside and outside government see an equity gap and agree that it should be closed; and if they are willing to change their thinking and behavior to close the gap; and if they are willing to assure the necessary funds and time to support gender-disaggregated data collection and analysis, then there is the potential for gender-responsive budgeting to change budget decision making and to be a budget reform in the "Schick sense." While there is potential for gender-responsive budgeting to provide a more gender-equitable distribution of government revenues and expenditures, so, too, are there significant challenges to its implementation. These include the need for technical expertise and for gender-disaggregated data that are not currently collected. Critical to the success of gender-responsive budgeting is the buy-in of stakeholders inside and outside government and a politi-

cal climate that is conducive to and accepting of change. We believe gender-responsive budgeting has the poten-

tial to address continuing gender inequities in our nation.11 We hope our commentary will open the discussion of gender budgeting in the public finance community, among public administration feminist scholars, and among practitioners of government budgeting. Further, we believe inequities that are attributable to race, ethnicity, caste, class, and age can lead to economic and social disparities that may benefit from directed budget analysis. As Elson writes, "The focus on gender inequality can be structured so as to take account of other forms of inequality, such as class, race.... The key question might be reformulated, for example, as: does this

fiscal measure improve, worsen, or leave un- let Formats changed, the position of the most disadvantaged In women?" (2002b, 1). 3es and How will we know whether gender-respon-

sive budgeting has succeeded? This question tracts to as can be answered by using process and outcome

gram measures that are focused on gender equity, ^ female similar to measures that are already employed ob0ectives

pertormance in performance budgeting. While Rhonda Sharp (2003) has opened the discussion, ad-

y gender ditional work has to be undertaken to deter- n gender- mine exactly how we can define and measure

gender-responsive budgeting success. various Every budget reform has a normative em-

evels phasis that seeks to reorient the budget process and perhaps tilt budget outcomes in fa-

vor of those norms. The normative value of the current emphasis on performance budgeting seeks to reorient the budget process toward greater efficiency and accountability in attaining program goals. The incorporation of gender-equity objectives into performance measures may bal- ance efficiency and equity more explicitly and, in the words of Arthur Okun, "put some rationality into equality and some humanity into efficiency" (1975, 120).

Acknowledgments The authors wish to thank Debbie Budlender, Diane Elson,

Jeanne Marie Col, Philip Joyce, John Forrester, Marc Holzer, and Paul Posner for their comments on earlier drafts of this article. Thanks also go to Shawyn Howard, a student in the John Jay College MPA program, for her many hours of research on gender-responsive budgeting initiatives throughout the world, and to anonymous reviewers who provided helpful suggestions. The observations and conclusions presented here, however, do not necessarily represent any of the above.

Special Report 269

Notes

1. See, for example, Stivers (1993, 2000), White and Adams (1995), and Hendricks (1995).

2. Debbie Budlender is a specialist researcher with the Com- munity Agency for Social Enquiry in South Africa, a policy research nongovernmental organization. She has been the coordinator and editor of the South African Women's Bud- get Initiative since its inception and has acted as a consult- ant on gender-responsive budgeting in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and Europe. Diane Elson, a professor at Essex University in the United Kingdom, came to Essex in 2000 from a chair in development studies at Manchester Univer- sity, via two years in New York working for UNIFEM. She has authored numerous articles on women's economic issues, including gender budgeting, and has served as a con- sultant to several countries in their gender-responsive budgeting efforts. Rhonda Sharp, a professor of economics at the University of South Australia, is a leader in the international and national field of feminist economics, both in academia and applied policy work. She has authored many articles and case studies on gender budgets and public expenditure policy.

3. Several other "advocacy budgets" have been initiated in the United States over the past 30 years, such as the children's budget in New York State during the 1970s and the "green budgets" that have been proposed to evaluate the environmental and ecological impact of governmental revenue and expenditure decisions. (See www.iisd.org/greenbud/default. htm for a summary of the green budget effort.)

4. Our discussion and correspondence with many public finance and public administration colleagues reveals that virtually none had ever heard of gender budgeting.

5. The National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare (2004) summarizes the retirement payment programs of various countries (see www.ncpssm.org).

6. Multinational funders include UNIFEM, the United Nations Development Programme, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the Commonwealth Secretariat, and the Asian Development Bank. Bilateral donors include the U.K. Department for International Development, the International Development Research Center (Canada), the Swedish In- ternational Development Agency, the Swiss Development Corporation, and the German Technical Corporation. Pri- vate funders include the Ford Foundation, Asia Foundation, and Mott Foundation.

7. Debbie Budlender e-mail correspondence to authors, Au- gust 2004.

8. Devolution is a form of decentralization in which indepen- dent subnational governments are given substantial responsibility for service delivery and funding. With deconcentra- tion, the responsibilities are distributed among different levels of the central government.

9. See Rosen (1995, 274) and (Stiglitz, 2000, 483-84). 10. The congressional budget resolution is the U.S. budget for a

specific fiscal year, as set forth by Congress in a concurrent resolution on the budget. The resolution includes the annual congressional determination of the appropriate level of federal revenues and expenditures.

11. The National Committee on Pay Equity (2004) presents an informative discussion of gender inequities in income on its Web site at www.pay-equity.org.

References

Axelrod, Donald. 1995. Budgetingfor Modern Government. 2nd ed. New York: St. Martin's Press.

Balmori, Helena Hofbauer. 2003. Gender and Budgets: Over- view Report. Brighton, UK: BRIDGE. www.ids.ac.uk/bridge/ reports/CEP-Budgets-reportw2.doc.

Barnett, Kathleen, and Caren Grown. 2004. Gender Impacts of Government Revenue Collection-The Case of Taxation. Economic Paper No. 62, Commonwealth Secretariat.

Bellemy, Kate. 2002. Gender Budgeting. Background Paper, Council of Europe's Informal Network of Experts on Gender Budgeting. www.wbg.org.uk/GBA_Present.htm.

Bird, Richard. 1993. Threading the Fiscal Labyrinth: Some Is- sues in Fiscal Decentralization. National Tax Journal 46(2): 207-27.

Budlender, Debbie. 1998. The South African Women's Budget Initiative. Background Paper No. 2, Community Agency for Social Enquiry.

. 2002. A Profile of Country Activities. In Gender Bud- gets Make Cents: Understanding Gender Responsive Bud- gets, edited by Debbie Budlender, Diane Elson, Guy Hewitt, and Tanni Mukhopadhyay, 131-64. London: Commonwealth Secretariat.

. 2003. Review of Budget Initiatives. Cape Town, South Africa: Community Agency for Social Enquiry.

Budlender, Debbie, N. Chobokoane, and Y. Mpetsheni. 2001. A Survey of Time Use: How South African Women and Men Spend Their Time. Pretoria: Statistics South Africa.

. 2003. Engendering Budgets: A Practitioner's Guide to Understanding and Implementing Gender-Responsive Bud- gets. London: Commonwealth Secretariat.

Budlender, Debbie, and Guy Hewitt. 2002. Gender Budgets Make More Cents: Country Studies and Good Practices. London: Commonwealth Secretariat.


Budlender, Debbie, and Rhonda Sharp, with Kerri Allen. 1998. How to Do a Gender-Sensitive Budget Analysis. Canberra/ London: Australian Agency for International Development/ Commonwealth Secretariat.

Cagatay Nilufer, Mumtaz Keklik, Radhika Lal, and James Lang. 2000. Budgets as if People Mattered: Democratizing Macro- economic Policies. Conference Paper No. 4, U.N. Develop- ment Programme, Social Development and Poverty Elimina- tion Division. www.undp.org/seped/publications/conf_pub. htm.

City and County of San Francisco, Board of Supervisors. 2003a. Resolution Urging City Departments to Consider a CEDAW Gender Analysis and Impact on the City's Equal Access to City Services for Limited English Speakers Ordinance Prior to Proposing Departmental Budget Cuts and/or Staff Cuts. www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/bdsupvrs/resolutions03/ r0249-03.pdf.

.2003b. Summary of CEDAW Gender Analyses of Bud- get Cuts. www.ci.sf.ca.us/site/uploadedfiles/dosw/programs/ CEDAW/Gender_Analysis_Reports/Departments%20 Summary%20Budget%20Cuts6-17-03.doc.

Diop-Tine, Ngone. 2002. Rwanda: Translating Government Commitments into Action. In Gender Budgets Make More Cents: Country Studies and Good Practices, edited by Debbie Budlender and Guy Hewitt, 117-31. London: Commonwealth Secretariat.

Elson, Diane. 1999. Gender-Neutral, Gender-Blind, or Gender- Sensitive Budgets? Changing the Conceptual Framework to Include Women's Empowerment and the Economy of Care. Gender Budget Initiative Background Papers. London: Com- monwealth Secretariat.

.2002a. Integrating Gender into Government Budgets in the Context of Economic Reform. In Gender Budgets Make Cents: Understanding Gender Responsive Budgets, edited by Debbie Budlender, Diane Elson, Guy Hewitt, and Tanni Mukhopadhyay, 23-47. London: Commonwealth Secretariat.

.2002b. Gender Responsive Budget Initiatives: Some Key Dimensions and Practical Examples. Paper presented at the conference on Gender Budgets, Financial Markets, Financ- ing for Development, February 19-20, Berlin, Germany. http:/ /e-education.uni muenster.de/boell/Elson.doc.

Flor, Celia, and Andrea Lizares-Si. 2002. The Philippines: Get- ting Smart with Local Budgets. In Gender Budgets Make More Cents: Country Studies and Good Practices, edited by Debbie Budlender and Guy Hewitt, 98-116. London: Commonwealth Secretariat.

Forrester, John P., and Guy B. Adams. 1997. Budget Reform through Organizational Learning: Toward an Organizational Theory of Budgeting. Administration and Society 28(4): 466- 88.

Gale, William G., and Samara R. Potter. 2002. The Bush Tax Cut: One Year Later. Policy Brief No. 101, Brookings Insti- tution. www.brookings.edu/comm/policybriefs/pb 101.htm.

German Agency for Technical Co-operation. 2004. Gender Ad- visory Project: The Berlin Initiative. www2.gtz.de/gender- budgets/english/budgetinitiative_berlin.html.

Goldman, Tanya. 2000. Customs and Excise. In The Fifth Women's Budget, edited by Debbie Budlender. Cape Town, South Africa: Idasa. www.idasa.org.za/pdf/940.pdf.

Hendricks J. J. 1995. A Response to Manichean Feminism. Ad- ministration and Society 27(2): 290-95.

Hewitt, Guy, and Tanni Mukhopadhyay. 2002. Promoting Gen- der Equality through Public Expenditure. In Gender Budgets Make Cents: Understanding Gender Responsive Budgets, edited by Debbie Budlender, Diane Elson, Guy Hewitt, and Tanni Mukhopadhyay, 49-81. London: Commonwealth Sec- retariat.

Himmelweit, Susan. 2001. Tools for Budget Impact Analysis: Taxes and Benefits. Paper prepared for the UNIFEM-OECD- Nordic Council-Government of Belgium High Level Confer- ence, October 16-17, Brussels. www.worldbank.org/wbi/ publicfinance/documents/gender/himmelweit.pdf.

Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU). 2004. Handbook: Parliament, the Budget and Gender. Geneva, Switzerland: IPU. www.ipu. org/english/handbks.htm#budget.

Joyce, Philip. 2003. Linking Performance and Budgeting: Op- portunities in the Federal Budget Process. Managing for Per- formance and Results Series. Washington, DC: IBM Center for the Business of Government.

Kalima, Barbara. 2002. Gender and Debt. Paper presented at the African Forum and Network on Debt and Development, June 27. www.genderandtrade.net/Africa/Gender_Debt.htm.

Klasen, Stephan. 1999. Does Gender Inequality Reduce Growth and Development? Evidence From Cross-Country Regres- sions. Gender and Development Working Paper No. 7, World Bank. www.worldbank.org/gender/prr/wp7.pdf.

Mikesell, John L. 2003. Fiscal Administration: Analysis and Applications for the Public Sector. 6th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishers.

Musgrave, Richard A. 1959. The Theory of Public Finance. New York: McGraw-Hill.

National Association of State Budget Officers (NASBO). 2002. Budget Processes in the States. www.nasbo.org/Publications/ PDFs/budpro2002.pdf.

National Committee on Pay Equity (NCPE). 2004. Still a Man's Labor Market: The Long-Term Earnings Gap. www.iwpr.org/ pdf/C355.pdf.

National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare (NCPSSM). 2004. Women's Social Security Benefits. www.ncpssm.org/news/archive/vp_womenandss/.

Niu, Meili. 2005. Zero-Based Budgeting in China's Local Gov- ernments: A Multiple Case Study. Phd diss., University of Nebraska-Omaha, School of Public Administration.

Okun, Arthur. 1975. Equality and Efficiency: The Big Tradeoff. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Orosz, Janet Foley. 2001. The Truth Is Out There: Is Post-Mod- em Budgeting the Real Deal? In Evolving Theories of Public Budgeting, edited by John R. Bartle, 125-55. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Science.

Palmer, Ingrid. 1995. Public Finance from a Gender Perspec- tive. World Development 23(11): 1981-86.

Rake, Katherine. 2000. Into the Mainstream? New Economy 7(2): 107-10.

Special Report 271

Rosen, Harvey S. 1995. Public Finance. 4th ed. Chicago: Irwin. San Francisco Commission on the Status of Women. 2000. Lo-

cal Implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. www.ci.sf.ca.us/site/cosw_page.asp?id= 10849.

.2001. Department of Public Works, Survey Update 2001. sfgov.org/site/cosw_page.asp?id=1 1456.

Sawer, Marian. 2002. Australia: The Mandarin Approach to Gender Budgets. In Gender Budgets Make More Cents: Coun- try Studies and Good Practices, edited by Debbie Budlender and Guy Hewitt, 43-64. London: Commonwealth Secretariat.

Schick, Allan. 1978. The Road from ZBB. Public Administra- tion Review 38(2): 177-80.

. 1992. The Road to PPB: The Stages of Budget Reform. Reprinted in Government Budgeting: Theory, Process, Poli- tics, 2nd ed., edited by Albert C. Hyde, 46-60. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Sharp, Rhonda. 2003. Budgeting for Equity: Gender Budget Ini- tiatives within a Framework of Performance Oriented Bud- geting. New York: U.N. Development Fund for Women.

Stiglitz, Joseph E. 2000. Economics of the Public Sector. 3rd ed. New York: W.W. Norton.

Stivers, Camilla. 1993. Gender Images in Public Administra- tion. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

. 2000. Bureau Men, Settlement Women: Constructing Public Administration in the Progressive Era. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press.

Stoksky, Janet. 1997. Gender Bias in Tax Systems. Tax Notes International, June 9, 1913.

Tanzania Gender Networking Programme (TGNP). 2004. The Case of Gender Budget Initiative. www.tgnp.co.tz/gbi.htm.

United Nations. 1995. Beijing Declaration and Platform for Ac- tion. www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/beijing/platform/ plat2.htm.

United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM). 2003. A Learning Programme in Action: UNIFEM Gender Respon- sive Budgeting Programme. Midterm Review Summary Re- port.

United Nations Division for the Advancement of Women (UNDAW). 2004. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. www.un.org/womenwatch/ daw/cedaw/.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. American Factfinder. http:// factfinder.census.gov/home.

White, Jay, and Guy B. Adams. 1994. Reason and Postmodernity: The Historical and Social Context of Public Administration Research and Theory. Administrative Theory and Praxis 17(1): 1-19.

Wildavsky, Aaron. 1961. Political Implications of Budgetary Reform. Public Administration Review 21(4): 183-90.

Wisconsin Legislative Fiscal Bureau. 2001. Individual Income Tax Provisions in the States. Information Paper No. 4. Madi- son, WI: Wisconsin Legislative Fiscal Bureau.

World Bank. 2005. WBI Programs: Gender, Decentralization and Public Finance. www.worldbank.org/wbi/publicfinance/decentralization/gender.htm.


Documents

-XQ SS Blackwell Publishing RQ EHKDOI RI WKH American ...sgedeon/summer2012/Rubin_Bartle.pdf · ing, and they are cited extensively throughout the gender budgeting literature and