Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Chaney, Paul (2015)
Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: H1
This study presents critical discourse analysis of gender mainstreaming in India and Nepal. Mainstreaming is a United Nations policy objective subscribed to by 180+ states. It aims to embed gender equality concerns in every stage of the policy process. Complementarity theory emphasizes how politicians attempt to cope with complexity by engaging civil society in policy formulation, thus not only strengthening input legitimacy but also policy efficacy through the pursuit of shared cognitive maps for action. Political elites in both countries have espoused such engagement. However, the findings show that instead of securing the anticipated complementarity effects, the current practice is aligned to an instrumentalist, ‘expert-bureaucratic' policy intervention. This is because of the pronounced power asymmetry between the government and civil society. This manifests itself in marked contrasts in policy framing and issue prioritization. The overall effect is state-driven policy delivery. This undermines the capacity of the civil sphere to challenge the traditionally male-dominated power structures and hampers progress towards the normative vision of gender equality set out in the UN policy.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Acharya, S. (2004). Democracy, gender equality and women's literacy: Experience from Nepal. UNESCO Kathmandu Series of Monographs and Working Papers No. 1. Kathmandu: UNESCO. Retrieved from http://www.popline.org/node/275719#sthash.uvI94QFI.dpuf
    • Agnes, F. (2000). Law and gender equality: The politics of women's rights in India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
    • Agrawal, A., & Ostrom, E. (2001). Collective action, property rights, and decentralization in resource use in India and Nepal. Politics & Society, 29, 485-514.
    • Aguirre, D., & Pietropaoli, I. (2008). Gender equality, development and transitional justice: The case of Nepal. International Journal of Transitional Justice, 2, 356-377.
    • Alexander, J. (1998). Real civil societies, dilemmas of institutionalisation. London: Sage.
    • Cole, W. (2009). Hard and soft commitments to human rights treaties, 1966-2001. Sociological Forum, 24, 563-588.
    • Crenshaw, K. (2000). Gender-related aspects of race discrimination. New York: United Nations.
    • Daly, M. (2005). Gender mainstreaming in theory and practice. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State and Society, 12, 433-450.
    • Debusscher, P., & Ansoms, A. (2013). Gender equality policies in Rwanda: Public relations or real transformations? Development and Change, 44, 1111-1134.
    • Debusscher, P., & Van der Vleuten, A. (2012). Mainstreaming gender in European Union development cooperation with sub-Saharan Africa: Promising numbers, narrow contents, telling silences. International Development Planning Review, 34, 319-338.
    • Donaghy, T. B. (2004). Mainstreaming: Northern Ireland's participative democratic approach. Policy and Politics, 32, 49-62.
    • Eden, C., & Ackermann, F. (2004). Cognitive mapping expert views for policy analysis in the public sector. European Journal of Operational Research, 152, 615-630.
    • Fester, G. (2007). Rhetoric or real rights: Gender equality in Africa (1987-2007). Agenda: Empowering Women for Gender Equity, 21(72), 169-180.
    • Fischer, F., & Forester, J. (1993). The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
    • Fraser, N. (1998). Justice interruptus: Rethinking key concepts of a “postsocialist” age. London: Routledge.
    • Gautam, S., Banskota, A., & Manchanda, R. (2001). Where there are no men: Women in the Maoist insurgency in Nepal. In K. Visweswaran (Ed.), Perspectives on modern South Asia: A reader in culture, history, and representation (pp. 340-349). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
    • Ghodsee, K., Stan, L., & Weiner, E. (2010). Compliance without commitment: The EU's gender equality agenda in Central and Eastern European states. Women's Studies International Forum, 33, 1-2.
    • Ghosh, B. (2013). How does the legal framework protect victims of dowry and domestic violence in India? A critical review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 18, 409-416.
    • Hafner-Burton, E., & Pollack, M. (2000). Mainstreaming gender in the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy, 7, 432-456.
    • Joffe, D., & Yardley, H. (2003). Content and thematic analysis. In D. Marks & H. Yardley (Eds.), Research methods for clinical and health psychology (pp. 86‒98). London: Sage.
    • Kabeer, N. (2005). Gender equality and women's empowerment: A critical analysis of the Third Millennium Development Goal. Gender and Development, 13, 13-24.
    • Kapadia, K. (2003). The violence of development: The politics of identity, gender & social inequalities in India. London: Zed Books.
    • Karanth, K., & Nepal, S. (2012). Local residents' perception of benefits and losses from protected areas in India and Nepal. Environmental Management, 49, 372-386.
    • Kaufman, M., & Crawford, M. (2011). Sex trafficking in Nepal: A review of intervention and prevention programs. Violence Against Women, 17, 651-665.
    • Keane, J. (Ed.). (1988). Civil society and the state: New European perspectives. London: University of Westminster Press.
    • Kenny, M. (2007). Gender, institutions, and power: A critical review. Politics, 27, 91-100.
    • Klijn, E., & Skelcher, C. (2008). Democracy and governance networks: Compatible or not? Four conjectures and their Implications for theory and practice. Public Administration, 85, 587- 608.
    • Krekula, C. (2007). The intersection of age and gender: Reworking gender theory and social gerontology. Current Sociology, 55, 155-171.
    • Krippendorff, K., & Bock, M. (2008). The content analysis reader. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    • Krishna, A. (2014). Examining the structure of opportunity and social mobility in India: Who becomes an engineer? Development and Change, 45, 1-28.
    • Krishnamurthy, V. (2001). Social dialogue in the informal sector: The Kerala experience. In A. S. Oberai, A. Sivananthiran, & C. S. Venkata (Eds.) Promoting harmonious labour relations in India: Role of social dialogue (pp. 118-127). New Delhi, ILO.
    • London, L., & Schneider, H. (2012). Globalisation and health inequalities: Can a human rights paradigm create space for civil society action? Social Science and Medicine, 74, 6-13.
    • Luciak, I. (2001). After the revolution: Gender and democracy in El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Guatemala. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.
    • Mackay, F. (2008). “Thick” conceptions of substantive representation: Women, gender and political institutions. Representation, 44, 125-139.
    • Mammen, K., & Paxson, C. (2000). Women's work and economic development. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14(4), 141-164.
    • Rayaprol, A., & Ray, S. (2010). Understanding gender justice. Indian Journal of Gender Studies, 17, 335-363.
    • Simister, J., & Mehta, P. (2010). Gender-based violence in India: Long-term trends. Journal of Inter-personal Violence, 25, 1594-1611.
    • Walby, S. (2005). Gender mainstreaming: Productive tensions in theory and practice. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State and Society, 12, 321-343.
    • Woehl, S. (2011). Gender mainstreaming in European employment policies. Critical Policy Studies, 5, 32-46.
    • Woodward, A. (2008). Too late for gender mainstreaming? Taking stock in Brussels. Journal of European Social Policy, 18, 289-302.
    • Yanow, D. (1999). Conducting interpretive policy analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    • Yin, R. (2013). Case study research: Design and methods (applied social research methods). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Funded by projects

Cite this article