研究ノート：通商政策機関―ジェンダーの主流化 vs 多様性の主流化 71
Research Notes: Trade Policy Mechanisms: Gender Mainstreaming vs. Diversity MainstreamingTrade Policy Mechanisms: Gender Mainstreaming vs. Diversity MainstreamingSarah HOUGHTON
Trade policy changes are often coupled with shifts across economic sectors, creating both

economic opportunities and challenges. Those groups traditionally marginalized by a particularsociety are often less capable of rapid adjustment to new economic environments and therefore
receive less of the material gains resulting from the trade policy change. This dilemma, which
often results in the marginalization of women, was largely noticed by women’s rights advocates
who began campaigns for the integration of policy mechanisms into trade agreements, under
the umbrella of gender mainstreaming, to ensure more equitable participation of women in
the opportunities developed through trade policy. Other groups traditionally marginalized
within a particular society on the basis of culture, race, ethnicity, ability, religion and sexual
orientation have not, however, enjoyed the same policy protection, of being mainstreamed into
trade policy. This research note explores the development of the policy tools of gendermainstreaming and diversity mainstreaming and will explore if potential exists to integrate thetwo policy mechanisms to influence trade policy impacts.
The concept of gender mainstreaming (GM) has become widespread in recent years as arights issue but gained particular traction as the economic benefits of the full economic
participation of both genders has become increasingly apparent (Sinah et al., 2007).
Microfinance and entrepreneurial programs aimed at women have demonstrated an economic
incentive to mainstream gender into economic policy. Gender mainstreaming, women’s
economic rights, and the explicit inclusion of gender in trade agreements are not new concepts.
They emerged with second-wave ideologies of the feminist movement, which were frustrated
by the perceived shortcomings of Women in Development (WID) projects in the 1970s and1980s. The lack of success of such projects was thought to result from the marginalization of agender perspective from such projects; therefore, gender mainstreaming was promoted as apolicy mechanism to bring issues of both genders into the center of policy making. GM was firstwidely endorsed by the Beijing Platform for Action in 1995 (United Nations, 2006) and further
developed by the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC)’s conclusions in
1997/2 (United Nations, 2007).
Many definitions for gender mainstreaming exist, however, the most widely accepted
definition is the ECOSOC definition: “the process of assessing the implications for women and72

men of any planned action, including legislation, policies or programmes, in all areas and at alllevels. It is a strategy for making women’s as well as men’s concerns and experiences an integraldimension of the design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of policies andprogrammes in all political, economic, and societal spheres so that women and men benefit
equally and inequality is not perpetuated. The ultimate goal is to achieve gender equality”(1997).
The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) further defines GM in
trade policy, as “assessing which impacts trade policies could have on men and women andmaking them responsive to gender considerations” (2009). Key components to GM in trade
policy promoted by the UNCTAD include: 1) ex ante assessment of the impacts of tradeagreements; 2) the negotiation of the trade agreements; and 3) cooperation and capacitybuilding after the entering into force of the trade agreements” (2009). These policies have been
adopted both as domestic policies and integrated into international trade agreements. An
example of an international trade agreement that incorporated a gender perspective is theCotonou Partnership Agreement in 2000. This trade and development agreement between theEuropean Union and the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) group of nations highlights
several gender provisions. For example, Article 1 notes, “Systematic account shall be taken of
the situation of women and gender issues in all areas? political, economic and social,” andarticle 31 observes gender as “thematic and cross-cutting” (Gibb, 2008). Such clauses
demonstrate strong state commitments to gender mainstreaming in trade policy.
Significant criticisms of GM have emerged since its widespread acceptance in the mid-1990s.
One of the main criticisms is by those who feel that the adoption of the term gender has again
marginalized women. This split between those who advocate for gender and those whoadvocate for women has been institutionalized in such a way that many organizations, such as
the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) work from a two-pronged mandate ofboth programs and policies addressing gender mainstreaming and women’s empowerment.
Hannan (2008) argues the failings are more bureaucratic than systemic or theoretical. Stating,“while there are now many good policies and strategies (GM) in place, there remains a huge
gap between policy and practice which must be addressed through development of concrete
action plans, with clear time frames and adequate resource allocations” (2008).
The other widespread criticism, however, provides the foundations for arguments to promote
diversity mainstreaming and actually incorporates the first criticism. The theory behind this研究ノート：通商政策機関―ジェンダーの主流化 vs 多様性の主流化 73
Research Notes: Trade Policy Mechanisms: Gender Mainstreaming vs. Diversity Mainstreaming

policy tool has significant contributions from thinkers who identify with the Black Feminist
movement in the United States including: Alice Walker, Angela Davis and bell hooks. They
argue that sexism, racism and classism cannot be separated. The term Womanism, from Alice
Walker’s book, came to describe the experiences of women of color, particularly in the US, andhow the elements of sex, race and class are inherently intertwined. The thrust of this criticism isthat all identities of women must be considered and engaged within political, economic, andsocial struggles.
Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak developed the term “strategic essentialism” to describe a process
engaged in by many feminist groups, to temporarily ignore differences for a common cause.
However, many of the feminist groups which first united on the policy tool of mainstreaming in
1995 are now beginning to see their differences grow.  Furthermore, some feminist groups are
beginning to find greater strength through alignment with empowerment movements acrossgeographic, occupational, ethnic, religious or racial lines.
Diversity mainstreaming has not been integrated into domestic and international policy to as
broad an extent as gender mainstreaming and few efforts have been made to mainstream
diversity into trade policy. There is growing criticism of GM, based on a diversity framework
which encompasses the notion of a combined relationship between gender and other variousidentities.  Increasingly scholars and activists alike are arguing that other social factors such asclass, race, religion, ethnicity, ability, sexual orientation, age and geographic location playessential roles in the construction of gender. Furthermore, multiple identities cannot easily beseparated and it is even argued that it is disempowering to do so. From an economic perspective
marginalization as a result of a trade policy change has much to do with high rates ofparticipation in particular sectors of the economy, resulting from barriers to full participation inother economic sectors. Barriers to participation in all economic sectors, however do notnecessarily result from gender biases, they also frequently result from such factors as geographic
location, race, class, religion, age and physical ability.
Hand-in-hand with such criticisms are those, which call for greater participation (Cornwall,2005) and the need for gender mainstreaming initiatives to adapt to the local context (Daly,2005; Williams, 2003). Oxfam (2005) has begun to argue for more participatory approaches toGM which incorporate a more holistic identity stating, “transformation starts from a genderanalysis of inequalities between women and men, which understands gender relations asintersecting with relations of race and class, to create context-specific locations of inequality”

74(Oxfam, 2005). Hankivsky (2005) further argues that “contemporary feminist developments inunderstanding gender and the interface between gender, race, class, nationality, ethnicity,sexuality and power are not adequately reflected in the concept of GM or in the strategies andtools that have been developed to engender public policy.” (2005) Despite the growing critiqueof GM and arguments to incorporate diversity, or change the GM paradigm to one of diversity
mainstreaming, mechanisms to mainstream diversity into trade policy have yet to be widely
researched.
In conclusion, the policy tools for mainstreaming gender exist and are currently being
implemented; however, they may become more effective if they are adapted to incorporate amulti-faceted identity of both men and women. Participatory methodologies may be an
avenue through which groups may design and implement their own policies to best ensure
their full economic participation within a constantly changing economic climate. However,further research should be conducted to identify opportunities for modification of GM policy
tools to foster more equitable economic participation of all despite continual trade policychanges.

研究ノート：通商政策機関―ジェンダーの主流化 vs 多様性の主流化 75
Research Notes: Trade Policy Mechanisms: Gender Mainstreaming vs. Diversity Mainstreaming

References
Bacchi, C., & Eveline, J. (2010). Mainstreaming politics: Gendering practices and mainstreaming
theories, South Australia: University of Adelaide Press.
Collins, P.H. (1991). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness and the politics ofempowerment. New York: Routledge.
Cornwall, A. (2001). Making a difference? Gender and participatory development, IDS Discussion
Paper, 378, Brighton: Institute of Development Studies
Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence,
Stanford Law Review, 43, 1241-1299.
Daly, M. (2005). Gender mainstreaming in theory and practice, social politics: International
studies in gender, State and Society, 12 (3), 433-450.
Database of instruments for gender mainstreaming. Retrieved August 2010, from http://db.
amazone.be/digma/en
Davis, A. (1981). Women, race and class. New York: Random House.
Frey, R. (2008). Institutionalising gender mainstreaming: Tools in Berlin and Germany. GenderStudies and Policy Review. Korean Women’s Development Institute. Seoul, Korea, 1,146-54.
Gibb, H. (2008, May). Gender and regional trade agreements, Paper produced for the 13th
Meeting of the APEC Women Leaders Network. Ottawa, Canada: The North-SouthInstitute.
Hankivsky, O. (2005). Gender vs. diversity mainstreaming: A preliminary examination of the roleand transformative potential of feminist theory, Canadian Journal of Political Science,38 (4), 977-1001.
Hannan, C. (2008). United Nations gender mainstreaming strategy: Achievements and challenges,GSPR, 36-45.
hooks, B. (1984). Feminist theory: From margin to center. Cambridge, MA: South End Press.
International Labour Organization. (2007). Manual for gender audit facilitators: The ILO
participatory gender audit methodology. Geneva: ILO, Bureau for Gender Equality.			 Mainstreaming gender in development: A critical review. (2005) . Oxfam: Oxford.
Mehra, R., & Rao Gupta, G. (2006). Gender mainstreaming: Making it happen. International Centerfor Research on Women (ICRW), 30th Anniversary. The Cotonou Agreement, fromhttp://www.acpsec.org/en/conventions/cotonou/accord1.htm

76

Sinha N., Raju D., & Morrison, A. R. (2007). Gender equality, poverty and economic growth. WorldBank Policy Research Working Paper, 4349.
Squires, J. (2005). Is mainstreaming transformative? Theorising mainstreaming in the context ofdiversity and deliberation, Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State andSociety, 12 (3), 366-388.
The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) (2008). Moving towards
gender sensitization of trade policy. UNCTAD/DITC/TNCD/2008/2.
UNCTAD. (2009). Mainstreaming gender in trade policy. UNCTAD/TD/B/C.I/EM.2/2/Rev.1
United Nations. (1997, September). Report of the Economic and Social Council for 1997, A/52/3.
Verloo, M. (2005). Displacement and empowerment: Reflections on the concept and practice of
the Council of Europe approach to gender mainstreaming and gender equity, Social
Politics: International Studies in Gender, State and Society, 12 (3), 344-365.
Williams, M. (2003). Gender mainstreaming in the multilateral trading system: A handbook forpolicy makers and other stakeholders. Commonwealth Secretariat.

研究ノート：通商政策機関―ジェンダーの主流化 vs 多様性の主流化 77
Research Notes: Trade Policy Mechanisms: Gender Mainstreaming vs. Diversity Mainstreaming

通商政策機関―ジェンダーの主流化 VS 多様性の主流化

サラ・ホートン
本研究はジェンダーの主流化（メインストリーミング）と多様性の主流化の間の論争について考察する。この議論は、主導権を率先することを通した通商政策転換による公平な利益を促進する試みに関連付けられる。ジェンダーの主流化と多様性の主流化をそれぞれ通商政策に統合する可能性は、特に、参加型の方法論を用いることで明らかになる。本研究ノートは将来の研究と通商政策ツール開発への基礎となることを目指す。
Keywords:
ジェンダーの主流化、多様性の主流化、通商政策