States Make Gender: A Global Analysis of Women ’ s Rights

1. States Make Gender: A Global Analysis of Women’s Rights Mala Htun and S. Laurel Weldon 2014

2. States make gender • Gender is multidimensional; So is state • No single relationship between states and gender • We can explain the differences by looking at how historical struggles have become embedded or sedimented in the state, and how these patterns constrain or enable current mobilization

3. What do we get out of concept of “state” • The “state” has unique advantages in shaping and re-shaping social and political practice because of its access to legitimate coercive force and because of its normative power • State action can be an obstacle to reforming gender relations (family law) or a force for change. We can explain when it can be one or the other.

4. Advantages of “State” • Fundamentally, this depends on extant relations between state and market, state and nation (religion, race, ethnicity), state and class, state and the body (path dependency to a degree) • These institutional dimensions of the state help to determine likelihood and character of state action on sex equality

5. Disaggregation of the State- by Issue • Political dynamics vary across issues • Institutions sedimenting class, sexuality and religious/racial/ethnic politics, and movements contesting these norms and institutions, drive state action on women’s rights • Gender hierarchy (and all politics?) is multidimensional • Show this in a study of 70 countries from all world regions from 1975-2005

6. Gender & the State: Some Puzzles • Governments progressive in one area, not always progressive in others • Nordic v. Anglo American countries on Daddy leave v. VAW • Richer countries not always more progressive than poorer countries • In 1990s, Brazil and Argentina adopt innovative policies on VAW ; Finland, Italy and Spain do not • Variation within region, religion and “families” • Turkey and Morocco v. Saudi Arabia or • Iran and Indonesia • Italy and Ireland on abortion and VAW

7. Why These Differences? • Cross-issue differences in a single state, and over time • No single feature of state (or polity) • Not modernization • Not democracy • Not % women in government • No one model for gender equality policy

8. Multidimensionality of the State • Issue-based approach to politics BUT • Issue type not a question of topic, exactly. Rather, relation to social institutions, identities • How issues relate to dominant institutions determines which actors/identities matter in determining state response in a given context • Framing, and norms themselves, contested by movements

9. Gender Equality is Multidimensional • Gender equality policies require social change, but to different degrees and in different areas of political life and national contexts • Gender is a constellation of institutions • Status: Institutionalized value hierarchy and normative heterosexuality • Class: Institutions of the market • Race/Ethnicity/ Religion: Institutionalized community/nation

10. Gender is Multidimensional • Gender equality policies require social change, but to different degrees and in different areas of political life • Gender is a constellation of institutions • Status: Institutionalized value hierarchy; normative heterosexuality • Class: Institutions of the market • Race/Ethnicity/Religion: Institutionalization of imagined community/nation

11. Typology of Gender Issues Doctrinal? Class?

12. Explaining State Action • Organized feminism is usually relevant • Opposition and support varies; Context • For gender issues inflected with class • The pattern of State-Market relations matters • Left parties, labor mobilization • State-Church (Institutionalized religion) • Nation-making: Communism and Colonialism • Constitutionally established religion • Religious parties

13. Relevant Actors/Institutions for Each Issue Type Doctrinal? Class?

15. Examples • Canada: VAW • US: PDA vs. FMLA • Norway: Daddy Leaves

16. Global Patterns in Sex Equality in Family Law 1975-2005 Index ranges 1-13 Higher Scores reflect more equality; Lower scores less

17. Family Law Indexhigher score = more sex equalitymax of 13; low of 0 • MINIMUM MARRIAGE AGE • CONSENT TO MARRY • BAN ON MARRYING CERTAIN PEOPLE (E.G. NON-MUSLIMS) • SPOUSAL RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS IN MARRIAGE • MARITAL NAME • MARITAL PROPERTY REGIME • GUARDIANSHIP/PARENTAL POWER • INHERITANCE • RIGHT TO WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION OF MALE RELATIVES • RIGHT TO INITIATE DIVORCE • CUSTODY OF CHILDREN AFTER DIVORCE • DIVISION OF PROPERTY AFTER DIVORCE • ADULTERY

22. Global Patterns in Laws on Violence Against Women 1975-2005 Again, scored 0-10, with 10 being more progressive policy adoption

23. Details of Indices: VAW 3 points for services to victims: (1 for each): 3 points for legal reform (1 for each of the following): 1 point for policies or programmes targeted to vulnerable populations of women 1 point for training professionals 1 point for prevention programs 1 point for administrative reforms

28. Methods • Fieldwork: Argentina, Israel, Canada, USA, Malaysia, Nigeria, China, India • Statistical analysis: Panel Data Analysis • We have issue specific papers (VAW, Family Law, Employment Law, Family Policy, Abortion and Reproductive Freedom, Child Care) that I will not discuss much here • One cross-issue, over-time analysis using linear regression (which Ill tell a bit about here)

29. Details of Regression Analysis • Apply the same model to 5 policy areas (DVs) • Same model for each area, different results! • Two models for each policy issue (Table 4) • One set of regressions to show difference across issues (model is constant here (1-5)) • One to actually try to get at distinctive dynamics of each issue (models 6-10) • Panel data analysis, Random effects (Fixed effects inappropriate) • Models differ because of trying to use larger panels where possible, taking care w.r.t. degrees of freedom, etc.

30. Independent variables included: • Feminist movement strength and autonomy, • Effective women’s policy machinery • CEDAW ratification/withdrawal of reservations • Constitutionally established religion • Religious legislation • Religiosity (wvs) • Majority Catholic, Majority Muslim • Parties: religious parties, left parties • Former colony • Communist legacy • Controls: GDP, Democracy level (Polity), women in government

31. Five sex equality areas • Violence Against Women (VAW) • Family Leave • Abortion • Maternity Leave • Reproductive Rights Funding • (Employment Law, Family Policy, Child Care) • They are all measured 0-10 for this analysis • Lower numbers = less equality promoting • Higher numbers=more equality promoting

32. Findings: Feminist Movements • Feminist movements are important for each policy area, except maternity leave, though in different ways. • Strong, autonomous movements affect VAW policy • Strong movements affect reproductive rights funding • There are other catalysts for this policy (fertility politics) • Effect of strong feminist movement visible over time for family law and abortion- reflects drawn out nature of policymaking here, necessity of overcoming religious opposition • Lack of feminist impact on maternity leave (consistent with expectations and the literature).

33. Findings: Religion • Coefficients on religious variables show signs in the expected direction (negative) • Institutional religious variables matter more for doctrinal issues(constitutionally established religion & religious law index, models 6-10) • Institutional variables and legacies matter more than religious parties or religiosity • Communism and colonialism coeffs

34. Religion-Cntd • Being predominantly Catholic or Muslim only matters for some issues, which is what we would expect (doctrinal). Impact seems contingent on institutional context (Ireland v. Italy) • Positive effect on maternity leave not surprising, since the countries that have religious legislation are pro-family, maternalist countries (“feminism for hard times”). Doesn’t challenge doctrine.

35. Left Parties • Our findings about left parties are less clear in this analysis. The variables for left parties reach threshold of significance when we use different measure and do analysis only for 2005 cross-section (not shown). • We may need different measures for left and labor politics than the standard measures available over time. Union militancy (Weldon 2011) or potential labor power (Rudra 2002) maybe better.

36. Cross-Issue Findings • Need to disaggregate gender issues • Feminist movements matter for status issues • Religious opposition shapes doctrinal issues • Less support for our claim that left parties matter more for class issues; Good support with 2005 cross-section, more recent analysis. • International norms matter more where they are unopposed domestically (non-doctrinal, non-class issues like VAW and quotas) or fit with domestic values or goals (maternity leave, contraception).

37. Conclusions and Implications • For gender politics: - Gender equality is multidimensional -emerging understanding of intersectionality (might suggest a different way to think about operationalizing it) -Think of different dimensions of issues- disaggregation by relation to key institutions - to illustrate different political processes - Class, group status and nation/religion define distinct dimensions of gender - We can say which groups will matter

38. Conclusions/Implications ctnd • These dimensions may be significant for thinking about the state more generally- status hierarchy, religious institutions, class politics- how do taxation, fiscal policy, state repression or the warring state act differently wrt these different groups and issues? • More generally, for progressive political analysis, suggests that we think about disaggregating our analysis of the state by the types of institutions challenged (market, church, etc) • Actors: Social movements and Political Parties matter differently for each issue type • Usual suspects- Regions, wealth, democracy, labor mobilization-do not necessarily shape all dimensions of state action in the same way or to the same degree

39. Publications • Mala Htun and S. Laurel Weldon. 2013. “The Civic Origins of Progressive Policy Change: Combating Violence Against Women in Global Perspective.”APSR • Htun, M and S. L.Weldon.2010. “Why Do Governments Promote Women’s Rights?”Perspectives on Politics. • Htun, M and S. L.Weldon“Comparative Perspectives on Women’s Rights in Family Law”Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies. 2011

40. Background and Working Papers • Htun, M. and S. L. Weldon. 2014. Governing Women’s Work. UN Background Paper. • Htun, M. and S. L. Weldon. Sex Equality in Family Law: Historical Legacies, Feminist Activism, and Religious Power in 70 Countries. World Development Report 2012 Background Paper. • Mala Htun and S. Laurel Weldon. 2011.Comparing Women’s Rights: State Building and Sex Equality in Family Law. • Weldon, O’Brien and Htun. “Market, Church and Body: Women’s Rights in Nigeria.”

41. Details of Indices: Abortion 10 = elective abortion in first and second trimesters 9 = elective abortion in 1rst trimester with no restrictions OR elective abortion in 1rst & 2nd trimester with some restrictions 8 = elective abortion in the first trimester, with some restrictions 5 = abortion permitted on soft grounds in addition to various hard grounds (including, at a minimum, rape and threat to the mother’s life) 3 = abortion permitted when a woman has been raped in addition to other hard grounds (including, at a minimum, threat to the mother’s life) 2 = abortion permitted for additional hard grounds (health, fetal abnormality, incest, but not rape) 1 = abortion permitted when mother’s life is in danger (ONLY) 0 = abortion forbidden under all circumstances

42. Details of Index: Family Law • MINIMUM MARRIAGE AGE • CONSENT TO MARRY • BAN ON MARRYING CERTAIN PEOPLE (E.G. NON-MUSLIMS) • SPOUSAL RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS • MARITAL NAME • MARITAL PROPERTY REGIME • GUARDIANSHIP/PARENTAL POWER • INHERITANCE • RIGHT TO WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION OF MALE RELATIVES • RIGHT TO INITIATE DIVORCE • CUSTODY OF CHILDREN AFTER DIVORCE • DIVISION OF PROPERTY AFTER DIVORCE • ADULTERY

43. Details of Indices: VAW 3 points for services to victims: (1 for each of the following): • Government funds domestic violence • Government funds rape crisis centres • Government provides crisis services for other forms of violence (stalking, FGM, eve-teasing (street harassment), sati, etc) 3 points for legal reform (1 for each of the following): • specialized legislation pertaining to domestic violence • specialized legislation pertaining to sexual assault/ rape (i.e. rape shield laws) • other forms of violence 1 point for policies or programmes targeted to vulnerable populations of women 1 point for training professionals 1 point for prevention programs 1 point for administrative reforms

44. Maternity Leave Generosity Index • Maternity leave generosity = Duration of leave + Duration of leave*publicly paid

45. List of Countries • Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Ivory Coast, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Lithuania, Malaysia, Mexico, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, Tanzania, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela, Vietnam