The Loop of Inability to Narrow the Gender Gap Through Aid

Demographic policies have a substantial impact on how a country responds to preexisting inequities. Gender inequities can be exacerbated or mitigated by domestic policy actions as well as international aid distribution. In my perspective, regime typologies have a significant impact on the symbiotic nature of these dimensions. This paper investigates the links between aid allocation, gender disparities, and policymaking processes.

Dreher et al. contend that donor attributes, including the proportion of women in parliament, governmental ideological orientation, and the gender of the minister overseeing development affairs, shape the distribution of aid (2015, p. 469). Their findings indicate that countries with greater female representation exhibit heightened sensitivity to gender gaps. As a result, one may conclude that democratic institutions in such countries are stronger, with domestic policymakers being more responsive than their counterparts in jurisdictions with lower female representation. Nonetheless, this facet of aid allocation overlooks the relationship between political inclusivity and sectoral gender differentials.

Lombardo provides a paradigm for demonstrating how policymaking processes might operate with less reliance on external forces, thereby minimizing the impact of changing dynamics. “Everyday manifestations of sexism” sustains gender gaps in a variety of arenas, including the labor market, income distribution, media portrayal, and legal frameworks (LSE, 2016, p. 5). These established injustices harm women by limiting their political and economic engagement and restrict women’s growth and limit their possibilities in a variety of fields (LSE, 2016, p. 3) and policies aimed at closing the gender gap frequently benefit people who already have better opportunities. According to Kleeman et al. (2016, p. 377), ministries in charge of development cooperation tend to provide more assistance to countries where all children, including girls, have received more education. Thus, addressing equity and diversity in policymaking requires “an integrative approach” that considers gender and other kinds of injustice (Lombardo & Agustín, 2016; p. 364). Public policy can either aim to exclude or include marginalised communities. For example, Erdem Yörük (2022) demonstrates how political unrests in Turkey have greatly influenced the trajectory of the country’s welfare system. Political instability and social unrest caused by Kurdish and Islamist movements pushed the government to make changes to welfare services in order to mitigate systemic dangers, which is an illustration of the lack of strong democratic institutions that rationally conduct demographic policies (Yörük, 2022; pp. 187–204).

De-institutionalized policy making trend manifests itself in legislative changes. Lombardo suggests an understanding of policymakers who negotiate multiple legal frameworks to meet societal concerns (Lombardo, 2016; p. 371). Nonetheless, in competitive authoritarian regimes such as Turkey, where legislative revisions aim to maintain the status quo, these legal frameworks are designed not to fulfill demographic requirements, but rather to strengthen the regime control. Gender disparities are unavoidably widening in a country whose institutional fragility has worsened societal and political inequities, including but not limited to class, job, sectoral, and political differences.

This paper reveals that the interconnected processes therein frequently generate an ongoing cycle in which international aid intended to reduce gender gaps in policy results becomes ineffective due to institutional constraints. Neither the methods and patterns of donor countries, despite the fact that women’s representation differs between them, nor the inherent features of countries with already widening gender gaps, respond to social policy demands.

References

Dreher, A., Gehring, K., Klasen, S. (2015) “Gesture politics or real commitment? Gender inequality and the allocation of aid” World Development 70: 464–480.

Yörük, E. (2020). The politics of welfare in turkey. The Oxford Handbook of Turkish Politics, 186–204. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190064891.013.18

Kleeman, L., Nunnenkamp, P., Theile, R. (2016) “Gender inequality, female leadership and aid allocation” Journal of International Development 28: 376–396.

Lombardo, E., Agustín (2016) “Intersectionality in European Union policymaking: the case of gender-based violence” politics 36: 364–373.

LSE, (2016) “’Politics’” in Confronting gender inequality: findings from the LSE commission on gender, inequality and power” LSE Knowledge Exchange [URL: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/66802/1/ Confronting-Inequality.pdf]

LLM Appendix

User prompt 1: Hi Mr. Robot! Can you help me write a summary of a set of readings? I will provide you with four citations and I need you to write a reflection that offers no linkages between the readings. Do not summarise the work or present the cited work in some sequential order. Limit your response to 500 words, not less than 500 words please.

System prompt 1: Sure thing! Please provide me with the four citations, and I’ll craft a reflection for you.

User prompt 2:

1. Our empirical findings suggest that female as well as male leaders have rewarded countries with more years of schooling of all children, or specifically of girls, rather than allocating aid for education according to general or gender-specific needs with regard to schooling. Female leadership appears to have played a marginal role in the allocation of aid for education. ” (Kleemann vd., 2016, p. 376)

2. “In general we find some evidence that donors increase aid to countries where need in terms of gender gaps and low female achievement in health and education indicators is larger. More aid is allocated to countries with greater female representation in parliaments. These effects are more pronounced among donors with higher female representation or female development ministers.” (Dreher vd., 2015, p. 475)

3. “we have further tried to capture the inter-relationships between inequalities of power in different social spheres by weaving through our sector-based analysis four cross-cutting themes: those of power, rights, work-life balance and gender-based violence.” (LSE, 2016, p. 3) “power, rights, quality of life arising from (un)healthy work-life balance and gender-based violence. The gender inequalities which persist in the labour market and the distribution of income, for example, privilege the already advantaged and curtail opportunities for women in the political sphere and within the law; the persisting inequalities and biases in the representation of women in the media and culture affect the opportunities of, and attitudes to, women in other spheres; the inadequate design or implementation of legal provisions shapes the status and opportunities of women in economic life.” (LSE, 2016, p. 3)

4. We argue that an intersectional approach attentive to the interaction of gender with other inequalities is particularly apt to deal with equality and diversity in policymaking. By analysing a selection of European Union policy documents on gender-based violence in the period 2000–2014, we attend to the question of what intersectionality can bring to policymaking in terms of strengthening inclusiveness and address the methodological question of applying an intersectional approach to policy analysis.” (Lombardo ve Rolandsen Agustín, 2016, p. 364)

System prompt 2: The readings you provided offer a multifaceted exploration of gender dynamics within the realms of leadership, aid allocation, social inequality, and policymaking.

Firstly, Kleemann et al. (2016) highlight the nuanced role of gender in the allocation of aid for education. Contrary to expectations, both female and male leaders tend to reward countries with more years of schooling for all children, or specifically girls. This suggests a departure from allocating aid based on gender-specific needs, indicating a broader approach to educational support under various leadership structures.

Dreher et al. (2015) delve into the intersection of aid allocation and gender disparities, revealing a correlation between increased aid and countries with larger gender gaps and low female achievement in health and education indicators. Moreover, the presence of greater female representation in parliaments correlates with higher aid allocation, particularly among donors with higher female representation or female development ministers. This underscores the potential influence of gender diversity in shaping aid distribution policies.

Moving beyond aid allocation, the LSE (2016) explores the pervasive nature of gender inequalities across multiple social spheres. Through a sector-based analysis, they identify power dynamics, rights, work-life balance, and gender-based violence as key cross-cutting themes. The interconnectedness of these issues underscores the complexity of gender inequality, with implications spanning economic, political, and cultural domains. The persistence of gender disparities in various facets of society highlights the need for comprehensive approaches to address systemic inequalities.

Building on this understanding, Lombardo and Rolandsen Agustín (2016) advocate for an intersectional approach to policymaking, particularly in addressing gender-based violence within the European Union. They argue that an intersectional lens, which considers the interaction of gender with other forms of inequality, is crucial for promoting inclusiveness and effectiveness in policymaking. By analyzing EU policy documents through an intersectional framework, they seek to uncover insights into how policy interventions can better address the diverse needs and experiences of marginalized groups.

Individually, these readings offer valuable insights into different aspects of gender dynamics in leadership, aid allocation, social inequality, and policymaking. However, collectively, they paint a holistic picture of the intricate interplay between gender, power, and policy, underscoring the importance of adopting multifaceted approaches to address systemic inequalities and promote gender equality in diverse contexts.

User prompt 3: Can you write this same summary in a different way using the same instructions that emphasises different points?

System prompt 3: Certainly! Let’s approach the reflection from a different angle, focusing on distinct aspects of the readings.

The readings provided offer a comprehensive examination of gender dynamics across various domains, shedding light on the complexities of addressing gender inequalities through policy and leadership initiatives.

Kleemann et al. (2016) present intriguing findings regarding the allocation of aid for education under different leadership structures. Contrary to conventional wisdom, both male and female leaders tend to prioritize countries with higher levels of schooling for children, regardless of gender. This suggests a shift away from gender-specific aid allocation strategies, indicating a broader approach to educational support.

Dreher et al. (2015) delve into the relationship between aid distribution and gender disparities, revealing a pattern of increased aid allocation to countries with larger gender gaps in health and education outcomes. Moreover, the presence of female representation in parliaments correlates with higher aid provision, particularly among donors with higher female representation or female development ministers. This underscores the potential influence of gender diversity in shaping aid policies and practices.

Moving beyond aid, the LSE (2016) highlights the pervasive nature of gender inequalities across various spheres of society. By examining power dynamics, rights, work-life balance, and gender-based violence, they underscore the interconnectedness of these issues and their implications for gender equality. This underscores the need for comprehensive approaches to address systemic inequalities and promote gender equity.

Lastly, Lombardo and Rolandsen Agustín (2016) advocate for an intersectional approach to policymaking, particularly in addressing gender-based violence within the European Union. They argue that an intersectional lens, which considers the interaction of gender with other forms of inequality, is essential for promoting inclusiveness and effectiveness in policymaking. Through their analysis of EU policy documents, they seek to uncover insights into how policymakers can better address the diverse needs and experiences of marginalized groups.

Collectively, these readings underscore the multifaceted nature of gender dynamics and the importance of adopting comprehensive approaches to address systemic inequalities. Whether through aid allocation, social policy, or leadership initiatives, it is evident that a nuanced understanding of gender dynamics is essential for promoting inclusive and equitable outcomes in diverse contexts.